Thursday, March 24, 2016

CARLITO'S WAY (1993) - Review

Carlito's Way

Crime/Drama
2 hours and 24 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: David Koepp
Directed by: Brian De Palma
Produced by: Martin Bregman, Michael Bregman, and Willi Bär

Cast:
Al Pacino
Sean Penn
Penelope Ann Miller


In his world, you got to shoot your way out. He wanted out. He'd do anything to get there.

After the critical and financial success of his two previous gangster films Scarface and The Untouchables, there was not much of a need for director Brian De Palma to return to the genre. Many could have seen Carlito's Way at the time as his "nothing further to prove" film. De Palma at this point in his career was already a highly regarded auteur, mainly due to his two previous films mentioned, but also to the success of his Argento-esque thrillers like Sisters (a tribute more to Hitchcock than Argento) and Dressed to Kill (one of the few films of De Palma's I find myself detesting). That all being said, when you know what you're good at why not stick to it? Indeed, Argento himself never strayed from the genre of horror, so why should De Palma feel obliged to never return to crime thrillers?
The result is stunning. Carlito's Way proves that whatever magic was going on for De Palma's career in the 1980s had not been lost by the 1990s. His re-teaming with both Al Pacino and Sean Penn is dynamite and he proves that he is a director capable of tackling complex narratives, and that he can effortlessly infuse human elements into stories that on first glance wouldn't merit such components. The script is wonderfully written, coming from a source material certainly helps, but understandably a great deal was changed from the adaptation process and also in the final film from the screenplay. The characters are believable, and surprisingly likable (except for Penn's - which is arguably the point), the story and violence levels are realistic but still thrilling, shocking, and entertaining, and the dialogue is fluid, slang-like, and at times almost musical with how easily the expert cast recites it.
Many claim De Palma appropriates ideas from Hitchcock, and that Hitchcock's fingerprints are all over his movies. I never found this to be the case, with perhaps the exception of Sisters which is very much a Rear Window homage. De Palma, to me, always seemed to be a student of Dario Argento, or that he appropriates more from Argento's oeuvre than he does Hitchcock's. Dressed to Kill, with its black gloved, straightedge wielding killer, is very much a callback to such Argento gialli as The Bird With the Crystal Plumage and Deep Red. De Palma's unique framing of shots and playing with colored lighting also brings to mind Argento's bold vision in both Suspiria and Inferno.
Carlito's Way is no exception to this Argento-De Palma relationship. The film's first sequence of action, involving a shootout in a dive-like pool bar is photographed in a manner that only a student of Argento could envision. Carlito sees the knife wielding killer, moving in tension building slowmotion, across the room in the reflection of an adversary's sunglasses towards his cousin - before the knife ultimately slashes the victim's throat. The sequence is truly one of the best ever captured by cinematographer Stephen H. Burum. Later sequences such as a rainy voyeuristic sequence of Carlito watching his former lover Gail performing ballet call to mind moments from both Suspiria and Inferno. These moments of homage do not hurt the film, because what De Palma does is utilize lessons learned from Argento's canon by understanding what worked in his movies and applies them to this much larger, studio released picture. It's no different than anything Tarantino ever does with his films and his favorite filmmakers.
The cast is remarkable, and each performer pushes the other to knew levels of talent by bringing out the best in each other. Unlike his leading role in De Palma's Scarface, Al Pacino brings a sense of charm to the film's troubled hero. He is a rough man, someone who has killed and done horrible things, but there is never a moment within the film that the audience does not like him. We want Carlito to succeed even though we know, given who he is, that it is impossible - and when this inevitability is realized by the film's conclusion it is absolutely heartbreaking. Sean Penn's character is the utter reverse of Pacino's. As the cagey lawyer/gangster Kleinfeld, Penn's character is one of the few in the story that is unlikable from nearly the start of the film. Despite this, the audience can't help but have a sense of understanding for why Kleinfeld is how he is. His character has been bullied and pushed around by wise guys his entire career, so just as Carlito's fate is inevitable, Kleinfeld's becomes understandable - even if it does make him problematic and unlikable. The supporting cast, including John Leguizamo and Luis Guzmán are all terrific and hold their own in scenes with Pacino and Penn. A cameo by Viggo Mortensen is surprising, but he too proves to be a real titan of a performer, going toe-to-toe with Pacino in terms of likability and playing the "tragic figure". Perhaps the film's only bad performance is by its leading lady, Penelope Ann Miller, who, honestly, isn't at all that bad. She does well in what scenes she has, but she never really shines through the way the rest of the supporting and main cast do.
The film, being set in the 1970s, has a terrific soundtrack, sets, and costumes. The disco clubs, dive bars, mansions, offices, and back alleys all look like they fit the era. The suits and dresses are flashy - perhaps less so than the Miami-set Scarface - but again, are impressive and fit in with the era the film is intended for.
Carlito's Way may not be Brian De Palma's best film, but it is unquestionably one of his better films. He proves that he is a true master of the crime genre by weaving an interesting story, getting his performers to deliver outstanding performances, and by appropriating techniques from other auteur filmmakers, mainly Dario Argento, that have worked in the past and work just as well - if not better - in the finished result.

9/10

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

BLADE II (2002) - Review

Blade II

Action/Horror/Sci-Fi
1 hour and 57 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: David S. Goyer
Directed by: Guillermo del Toro
Produced by: Peter Frankfurt, Patrick J. Palmer, and Wesley Snipes

Cast:
Wesley Snipes
Kris Kristofferson
Ron Perlman
Leonor Varela
Norman Reedus
Luke Goss


When Evil Strikes, One Man, Still Has The Edge.

After arriving on the scene in the early 1990s with his inventive vampire film, Cronos, Mexican director Guillermo del Toro went on to prove himself a creative force within the horror and fantasy genres. Early del Toro films like Mimic and The Devil's Backbone still remain possibly the director's best. Given his inventive nature and pleasant responses from both audiences and critics, it was inevitable del Toro would be given an opportunity to take the reins on a big budget studio motion picture. That opportunity came in 2002 with Blade II.
Given how "Mormonized" (del Toro's words) the vampire genre has become, Blade II offers a unique story and take on the largely stale mythology. The story, while obviously a complete work of fantasy, offers reasonable explanations within its own universe, allowing for the more fantastical ideas to seem completely plausible (again, within its universe) while not seeming far fetched or desperate. The idea of different species of vampires combating with one another seems logical to viewers given the course of nature and natural selection within the real world, and rather than seeming outlandish, the storyline feels more intelligent than most comic book offerings. Are there some plot holes? Absolutely. No big budget blockbuster is without them, but most are so miniscule that the overall flow of the story and entertainment value is hardly ever diminished. That being said, the film stumbles over the storyline of the first Blade film immediately, ignoring the events of what happened with Kris Kristofferson's character, Whistler, and coming up with its own explanation instead. It's a big retcon that threatens to disengage any major fans of the first movie - but it later does become forgivable as Kristofferson's heavy presence throughout the film becomes enjoyable.
For a superhero movie, Blade II is quite artfully photographed. Cinematographer Gabriel Beristain does a terrific job lighting and setting the tone. The vampire underworld is lit using opposing colors like reds and yellows contrasted with blues and greens. The color scheme brings to mind the lighting of Werner Herzog's Nosferatu the Vampyre. These colors are heavily desaturated, giving the film an overall grindhouse (or arthouse, if you prefer) quality that no doubt was del Toro's vision given his exploitation influences. Within the industrial world, Beristain chooses a more whitewashed, ultra bright lighting pattern that works well and pays homage to much of the cinematography of the first Blade movie.
The film's effects work is impressive, although some of the CGI is now dated and rubbery in appearance. Del Toro and editor Peter Amundson do well in trying to cover this up with both quick cuts and interesting lighting arrangements - including a blinding back lit fight sequence, and using minimal lighting in fight scenes located in sewers and an abandoned church (interesting location for vampires to comfortably fight). The practical effects work, however, is far more impressive and even allows for some of the distasteful CGI to be easily forgiven. A student of the Italian Godfather of Gore, Lucio Fulci, del Toro goes for the jugular and allows for the blood and gore effects to be the centerpiece of the action sequences. Given the ultra-violent nature of the first Blade, del Toro was wise to keep his film a bloody and gory entry. The most impressive practical effects being seen during a reaper-vampire autopsy scene. In another nod to Nosferatu, the make up effects of both the reaper-vampires and Thomas Kretschmann's character are stunning, and call back to the reptilian figure of Count Orlok in the silent film classic.
The film by no means deserves to be applauded for its performances, but it also is not in any danger from being underacted. Wesley Snipes clearly has fun playing the film's anti-hero, and his fun becomes infectious. His banter with Ron Perlman's character is enjoyable, and earns many of the film's much deserved laughs. Kristofferson (whose presence in the sequel can only be explained by logic via films like Highlander II: The Quickening) is perhaps even better in this movie than he was in the first Blade. His extended screen time allows audiences to remember why Whistler is perhaps the most favorable character in this universe - his fully human qualities. Norman Reedus, surprisingly, isn't as impressive as other works have proven him to be, but he doesn't embarrass himself by any means. Much of the vampire supporting cast is decent to bad, but even the worst are allotted a short amount of screen time. The two outstanding performances of the film are delivered by Thomas Kretschmann, as the eugenic-obsessed leader of the vampires, and Luke Goss, as the patient-zero of the reaper-vampires. The two share a brief moment of screen time but it is perhaps one of the film's greatest moments.
While it is far from being perfect, Blade II is an excellent action movie and both a refreshing take on the vampire and superhero genres. Its inventive story does have its problems, but these are minor in comparison to its realized vision and entertainment aspects. In a world full of wide-audience reaching PG-13 superhero movies, Blade II carries on what its predecessor set in place - that hard R rated comic book movies can do just as well with fans if the right people are at their helm.

8/10