Doomsday's Andrei Tarkovsky Love Fest

Blackhat is the only movie by him I haven't seen, but I would be shocked if that movie is worse than The Keep.  The Keep made no sense, was boring, and totally laughable.  I'm sure Blackhat is at least a competent movie, The Keep is a piece of shit.

I'm sorry, I'll change that to scoffed-in-disgustable.  I kept thinking "Michael Mann made this shit?" 

Public Enemies (2009)




John Dillinger might be the most infamous criminal in US history. He and other criminals who are now household names, people like Babyface Nelson, Bonnie and Clyde and Pretty Boy Floyd, not only helped change how law enforcement operates but also became a good pool for Hollywood to pull from. Gangster movies have been popular since the advent of talkies. Some of the most popular films in history are gangster movies. When I heard Michael Mann was making one I was excited. When I heard it was about John Dillinger and was starring Johnny Depp and Christian Bale it quickly became my #1 most anticipated movie of 2009. I watched the trailer several times the day it was released. For the most part it's a competently made film and has a lot of good going for it. At the same time there are a few missteps and feels like a very formulaic, safe bet for Michael Mann as he makes a movie that doesn't tread any new ground and even attempts to duplicate things that made his past movies work.

I know I've said this in other threads but to me it still remains; Christian Bale is the obvious weak link in this movie. His accent is scotch-taped on and he seems to be sleepwalking through the role. I'll cut him some slack because his role isn't really that great to begin with but I think a better character actor would have brought something, brought anything to this role. Not saying he's a bad actor, he's just not the universal actor that people give him credit for. The other flaw in the movie comes via Mann's decision to once again drop us in the middle of everything, assuming we well know all about not only John Dillinger and J. Edgar Hoover but also his associates, Walter Diedrich and Homer van Meter among them. Who? We don't know but we're supposed to care when one of them gets gunned down in the first scene. It's almost annoying that two movies in a row Mann just foregoes any introductions whatsoever to the detriment of the overall film. Maybe he thinks it's more 'adult' to assume you know what's what or maybe he just wants to get straight into the thick of it, or maybe it's just me and my preferences. In any case, I think Public Enemies suffers from the same hangup as Miami Vice albeit in a lesser way; too much time focused on style and action, not enough on the meat of the story and more importantly characters.

That isn't to say that Public Enemies isn't without merit. There are some really good performances like Billy Crudup as J. Edgar Hoover. They should have just cast him instead of Leo for the since-forgotten J. Edgar biopic, it probably would have helped immensely. Giovanni Ribisi also gives a great turn as Alvin Karpis, one of the most infamous criminals of that time period. Johnny Depp's performance is pretty by the numbers but pairs with Marian Cotillard nicely. The action scenes are also Mann-caliber even if they seem to rip off Heat from the set up down to the dialogue. Mann also does a better job of setting up our main characters quite nicely. There's an enjoyable dates scene with Depp and Cotillard and we're given several scenes showing Hoover's near obsession with capturing Dillinger. At least Mann is willing to dish something to the main people we'll be watching for the next two hours.

Ultimately, Public Enemies is a good movie although far from great. Some of the more common problems in Mann's previous films, namely a coherent, well established plot for example, seem to be resolved here. At the same tim the film has some questionable performances and throws any semblance of historical accuracy to the wind. Like I said, it has a lot of good in it and I would certainly recommend it to someone who's looking for an enjoyable movie that's easy to swallow, it just doesn't offer a whole lot we haven't seen already from Michael Mann.

That is true, but I almost feel like it misses the point.  To me the movie is like a formal exercise, it's an attempt to see what a period gangster movie would look like if it were shot like a modern and immediate crime film.  To write a review of it that spends all that time focusing on the actors is like writing a review of a Daft Punk album and focusing all your attention on the lyrics.

Blackhat (2015)




I watched Blackhat for the first time about a year ago. This was after it completely tanked in theaters, making it 2015's first official box office bomb which later convinced studios to release straight to DVD in international markets. Needless to say I was apprehensive when I sat down to watch it for the first time but also confused; how could Michael Mann make a movie that's supposedly this bad? Upon watching it for the first time I came away underwhelmed and found it to be mostly forgettable which is what ended up happening. On my second go with Blackhat I realized that I had forgotten just about everything but at the same time I found myself more intrigued, more involved and sat through it in one sitting on a lazy afternoon. In the modern age of cell phones, food on demand and facebook that's saying a lot, at least for me. Is Blackhat that good of a movie? No, but I think on my second watch I'm willing to give it a little more credit that I did before.

Chris Hemsworth stars as Hathaway, a genius computer hacker/decline push-up professional serving 15 years in prison for tanking some banks. After an explosion at a Chinese plant and a run-up on soy futures on the stock exchange expose that expert hackers are in play, a Chinese government official convinces the FBI to release Hathaway as he was one of the original authors of the code used in both attacks. Under surveillance and with the hopes of having his sentence commuted, Hathaway works with the FBI in order to bring down the hackers. I'm paraphrasing a review that I read a while back but unfortunately for audiences Michael Mann never really figured out how to make a movie about hackers interesting. In the way that suspense movies and Law and Order have characters gathered around a crime scene and walk us through the murder, Blackhat puts characters in front of mountains of code. Not very exciting. What does help Blackhat is that Mann tends to spend a little more time making a somewhat coherent story, giving us a who, what and eventually 'why' to the characters. It sounds basic but it can go a long way.

What made Blackhat such a hard sell for many people is that it just never gets off the ground. It moves from one point to another with a few action scenes that don't quite fit and feel like they're plopped in to keep us from falling asleep. Also, this movie seems to have really regressed when it comes to how computers sound/feel. Back in the 80s and 90s whenever someone on film is using a computer each punch of the key sounds like a sledgehammer hitting brick and every time a screen changes or a button is pressed you hear a 'BEEP' or some other sound effect. We all know that's not how things work. My Gmail doesn't make some BLOOP sound every time I hit Send. Mann however directs like he's getting paid per sound effect. Every click, every scroll on a cell phone is met with all sorts of sounds that we all know don't happen. We know that's not how it works because if it did we would all go crazy and smash our devices. I'm sorry, I know it's a nitpick but I think it's a very valid nitpick. It also doesn't help when the opening of the movie is about 80 seconds of watching a signal go through wires, circuit boards and switches in case we didn't know what the inside of a computer looks like. It also doesn't help that there are at least four of those scenes in the first thirty minutes. Painful to say the least.

For the record, I don't find this to be Mann's worst movie despite the fact that it's his lowest-rated/least profitable. It's most serious crime is that it's not very interesting or suspenseful. I actually found Chris Hemsworth to be quite alright playing his role despite what you would suspect, it's how his character was written that needed work. It's one thing to be a hacker, it's another to be a hacker who's also an expert in hand to hand combat, weapons and looks like, well Thor I guess. Of course this movie doesn't deserve to be in the same room as The Insider or Heat but it also doesn't rank down with Miami Vice or Ali. Blackhat is a movie that tries a little too hard with not much result, it gets from point A to point B and in the end is a movie that will entertain some, annoy most and will eventually be forgotten about if it hasn't been already.

Take that Neverending, The Keep remains the garbage film of Mann's resume!

When you watch The Keep you might want alcohol nearby. And probably weed too. That movie sucks.

Final thought:

As I stated before I rewatched all of Michael Mann's movies, he was and still is one of my favorite filmmakers. I still believe that he can capture realism and raw energy like few other filmmakers can. I know I've harped on his decision-making when it comes to crafting a narrative and crafting his characters, however I also acknowledge that these 'risks' are ones that are taken as attempts to further his craft and not just goofs. As I said, Ali could have easily been Cinderella Man. The only one I thought that felt 'safe' at times was Public Enemies and even that had good stuff in it and was a solid attempt at making a modern crime drama set in the 1930s as Dracula stated. His films may not be perfect but he's someone who is continuously trying to make something different which can only be said for a small percentage of filmmakers.

Next up: Doomsday revisits the filmography of the Coen Bros.

For my next filmography exercise I'll be visiting the movies of Joel and Ethan Coen. Personally, I consider the Coen Bros. to arguably be the best filmmakers working today. Some of their films sit on my all-time favorites list such as The Big Lebowski and No Country For Old Men, however I noticed that there were quite a few that I've never seen before such as Barton Fink, The Ladykillers and The Man Who Wasn't There. Others such as Raising Arizona and O Brother, Where Art Thou? are movies I've only seen once years ago and hardly remember. While I go through these and share my thoughts I'll indicate whether it's my first time or if it's a revisit. I'll also try to indicate recurring themes that I find and how they might rank in the canon of Coen.

Blood Simple (1984)

View count: First time




The first film by the team of Joel and Ethan Coen, Blood Simple doesn't just work as an effective crime thriller, it almost serves as an omen of things to come from the filmmakers. It's dark and twisted and has the little quirks that we've come to recognize in movies under their label. As far as debuts go, this one ranks in the upper tier.

We're introduced to Ray (John Getz) and Abby (Frances McDormand of course) as they're driving to a remote motel. Abby is on the run from her husband, Julian (Dan Hedaya) who also happens to own the bar where Ray works. Julian hires a private investigator played by the great charactor actor M. Emmett Walsh, to kill the couple yet when greed gets involved and things go sour the collateral damage begins to pile up.

Blood Simple is effective because it's, for lack of better words, simple. As the Coens would go onto revisit later, they focus on a very centralized, small town, small time happening and characters as we watch it implode from the inside. We focus on a handful of seemingly minor characters in everyday life whose decision-making leads to their downfall. One theme that the Coen Bros. incorporate into several of their films is greed; how it affects everyone involved and destroys everything it touches. It's a motive that's front and center in Blood Simple. The movie is also a study in how effectively a screenwriter can make events trickle down and flow each other without feeling forced or driven by plot devices. Again, the Coens are practiced in stories that take small, obscure events, like stealing a rug for example, and watching them spin wildly out of control. Like I said earlier, Blood Simple acts as a harbinger of what is to come from these filmmakers.

Even though Blood Simple isn't the deepest or most thought provoking movie, it is a very solid debut from these filmmakers (Joel Coen is solely credited as director). While the Coens have a filmography that's probably more diverse than any other filmmaker, they're probably best known for their crime dramas. Blood Simple is certainly a good start.

Blackhat isn't awful, but I still had a hard time staying interested in it.  Like you said, it just doesn't flow smoothly.

I love Blood Simple.  You can definitely see stylistic and storytelling precursors to No Country For Old Men in it.

Raising Arizona (1987)

View count: Second time




I'll be the first to admit that the style of humor found in Coen Bros. movies isn't for everybody. Especially in a society where Pineapple Express and Bridesmaids are popular in the mainstream with their low-brow type of comedy, the Coens spin theirs in a much different fashion. It's hard to really nail down the 'jokes' in Coen films. Rather, their comedy is much more situational, character driven and dialogue-centric. Every line is treated with care and thought. In that sense it might explain why I prefer their style of humor above what the mainstream usually pumps out. Raising Arizona is the Coens first foray into this brand that they've helped make their own. Like Blood Simple, it's a great indicator of what they would soon bring.

Nicolas Cage plays HI McDunnough, an ex-con who falls in love with his booking officer Edwina. They get married and soon learn they can't have children. They take it upon themselves to kidnap one of the five Arizona quintuplets and justify the kidnapping by saying they want to help 'ease the burden' for their parents. Once people discover that their new son is really the kidnapped baby they soon try to use the boy for their own gains.

There are a lot of funny scenes in the movie though I can only imagine that a lot of people at the time were thinking 'what the hell am I watching?' The chase in the middle of the movie where HI tries to rob the diapers probably went over a lot of peoples' heads. I also very much enjoyed the fight in the trailer where HI and his ex-con friend turned backstabber (John Goodman) fight while running and bumping into everything in the tight quarters. It's funny but I wonder if I find it funny because I'm used to the Coen style. I'm not sure how I would have felt if I was watching this in 1987. It's a movie that I feel you have to 'get,' and unless you get it you probably will find yourself wondering what the monstrous motorcycling outlaw is doing and why he's so out of place. For a Coen bros. film however is certainly fits the brand in hindsight. I also got the feeling that the Coens were still getting their bearings when it comes to comedic timing and pacing. Much of the film takes its time in the setup while other parts feel rushed and underdeveloped. That said though, this feels like a noble effort, an effort in trying to be original and unique. I would bet that those who did 'get it' in 1987 had a great time in the end.

Raising Arizona and the other films by the Coens are movies that aren't tailored for everybody. They're not made for the mainstream and certainly won't talk down to an audience. Considering how much I enjoy some of the other Coen comedy films I was able to enjoy this although I don't think it comes near the heights that they would soon reach. Then again that would be asking a lot for their second film.

I like Raising Arizona more with each watch. Last week was my third time and I laughed hard a lot.