I won't go so far as to say that director Guillermo del Toro was phoning it in, but... okay, I'll admit it. Well, it's been a while since I actually sat down to write an actual film review, and yes, I'm usually more inspired to trash something than to praise something, but I am biased towards the 1947 version of Nightmare Alley, which is probably as close as an old Hollywood film will get to John Waters' challenge of a film getting an 'X' or an 'NC-17' rating without any sex, violence, profanity, or Divine eating dog feces.
Anyway, the original Nightmare Alley is probably the best example of a film that was underappreciated at the time of its original release, then lost, and feared lost forever, then found again, and finally appreciated for the masterpiece that it is. Searchlight Pictures will probably take better care of this new version: it's longer, R-rated and expensive as hell! Somewhere in the $100 million range if I remember correctly... non-subscription IMDb doesn't tell you anymore. Personally, I think Pan's Labyrinth is probably del Toro's masterpiece, and I was entertained by Hellboy II: The Golden Army... and I think that's it. Alas, I haven't seen a lot of his work. I've only seen about 1.5 of the new Hobbit installments, but I've got 'em on Blu-Ray so I should be ready to rock 'n roll someday, should the opportunity present itself... yes, probably just the theatrical releases, not the 4-hour versions not seen in theatres.
Anyway, as you'd expect from the director of Pan's Labyrinth, what aspect of Nightmare Alley do you think is going to get the most visual attention? That's RIGHT! The circus! Especially that spider exhibit... sorry, SPOILER ALERT. del Toro regular Ron Perlman has a small part as the Strong Man who swore to guard over Carlisle's love interest... so, Enemy of the State and Kick-Ass 2 might come to mind. Also, as a repeat user of the Wilhelm Scream, del Toro manages to work it in here! Awesome. Still, I couldn't help but notice a cinematographical trend. There are many bad trends today, mostly that trademark handheld shot of a background. God, I hate that. Thankfully it's not used here. What is overused here is a wide-angle lens, and every shot seems to be a dolly shot, starting low and moving up, as though the whole movie is a slow 3D ride at Disneyland. And who knows? Maybe the movie was in 3D in select cities far from me. Most movies have to be. So Sony, get back to work on those 3DTVs, okay? Specifically, one I don't need special glasses for. I couldn't help but think to myself, no close-up of a face? No split lens ever again? You know, the kind Brian De Palma likes to overuse? Something in focus up close on one half of the frame, and something in focus far away in the other half? Clearly I'm asking too much.
I liked a few of the story changes compared to the original... and yes, I'll admit it, even the dark humour of one character's conclusion about being reunited with a dead loved one. Also, there was clearly a lot less pressure on the remake for a happy ending. Otherwise, for some reason the profanity here kinda turned me off a little; okay, so I'm getting old and cranky. Spoiler alert: the body count in this one's definitely higher than the original. As for the acting, well... it's top notch, of course. Cate Blanchett plays a character not so dissimilar from her character in Don't Look Up. And there's a little game played at the beginning: is Bradley Cooper's character going to be silent the whole movie? I didn't see the trailer. Hands down best for the whole movie: Richard Jenkins, if only for his hairdo. Quite original indeed!
**1/2
-so sayeth The Movie Hooligan
No comments:
Post a Comment