Traveling On Wings of Desire

Can you truly love a film and not understand one lick of it? I like to think so. Appreciation for films can often be found in the way they manipulate your mood, create a sense of elevation, and transport your mind into a realm far removed from the everyday. Oh, Wings of Desire, how you intrigue me.

Don't get me wrong, a good sixty percent of your dialogue sounded like the ramblings of a traumatized philosophy professor. Not to mention all the wrapped in layers of reiteration, subtext, and reflection on an eternal scale. You certainly don't make it easy, but you indisputably make it enchanting. So enchanting in fact that once the credits began to roll I felt a sudden jolt, thrusting me back into reality. What a harsh thing for you to go and do.

There's a definitive style to Wings of Desire. You can feel it in every scene, in every moment of dialogue. A fluidity to the language that rolls with the tongue. A strolling, indifference that trudges along with the camera. Then - a snap - all that color suddenly thrust right out at the viewer amidst an onslaught of black and white. Humans - color, Angels - black and white. It's an interesting superimposition that serves somewhere in the heart of Wender's tale.

A collage of esoteric beliefs colliding with introspective desires. At times trapped in moody contextualization, Wender blends new age lifestyle with a sort of frail longing to simultaneously escape and embrace a German past so distraught with conflict.

As entrancing an experience as I've had in some time, Wings of Desire lives up to the high acclaim it has garnered over the years. Not the kind of film built for those who seek mindless entertainment, Wender's tale of two perennial angels juxtaposed against the backwash of life is a wondrous affair.

Gallipoli (1981)

GALLIPOLI

DIRECTED BY: PETER WEIR
WRITTEN BY: DAVID WILLIAMSON
NOVEL BY: ERNEST RAYMOND
REVIEWED FOR: 1001 MOVIE CLUB
OVERALL SCORE: 8.50/10

Drifter (Mel Gibson) and sprinter (Mark Lee) become rivals, friends, and soldiers in the events leading up to World War I, and the Gallipoli massacre.

My selection for the 1001 movie club is a film I have admired, and enjoyed, for quite some time, Gallipoli. Not your typical war film, Gallipoli is more about the people, and their lives leading up to the event, rather than the event itself. The main advantage of this: attachment.

As the movie progresses, and we see the ups and downs our main characters, we grow an emotional attachment to them. We see their strengths and weaknesses, and care for what happens to them. All the while, looming in the back of our mind, is the historical significance of what they are about to encounter. Giving the film's infamous final shot a nearly infinite range of power.

Add to that Weir's talent for capturing scenery, and the beauty of the places these soldiers encounter, and you've got yourself a fine piece of cinema. Each shot feels breathtaking, and perfectly composed. Adding more and more to the viewing experience with each go around.

Leading us in to what I feel is the film's one real fault: techno. During the film there are two climatic running sequences, both of which are played to an odd techno beat. During the first, a more lighthearted moment, it seems perfectly find, but later, during the most important run in the film, it takes a lot of wind out of the moment. And if it were not for the great sequence that follows it, Weird may have lost the audience entirely.

Still, for all its faults Weir and company are able to bring the film back into form. Never swaying from the original purpose, and always presenting the viewer with something new. It's a fine war film, more about the people than the war.

Not without its flaws, Gallipoli is a captivating tale of humanity in the time of war. The tale of the men who went to fight, not so much how they fought. And the ultimate legacy, and tragedy, they came to pass.

Top Gun (1986)

TOP GUN

DIRECTED BY: TONY SCOTT
WRITTEN BY: JIM CASH & JACK EPPS JR.
REVIEWED FOR: 1001 MOVIE CLUB
OVERALL SCORE: 5.25/10

Top fighter pilot, Maverick (Tom Cruise), goes to an elite flight school where the best fighter pilots in the navy align to compete for the title of Top Gun.

You know those movies so obsessed with their own macho awesomeness you wonder if the movie wouldn't spontaneously combust during its dramatic moments? You know, where romance is not based on mutual emotional attraction, but solely physical that fades when one of them becomes vulnerable? The kind of movie that makes its geekier viewers seek out a re-run of Stuart Smalley to remind them they don't have to achieve that level of "dudeness." I'll never understand why we enjoy main characters that are cocky, self obsessed, and the self proclaimed greatest at everything they do.... perhaps an answer to this lies in shows like Jersey Shore?

Top Gun is a testament to cheese. And not the good cheese either, I'm talking provolone a few days past gone. Still, it has some heart, and as a kid I remember the shock of one of the main character's passing, and these make it emotional. As well its action scenes, irregardless of their absurdity, are high intensity, both core foundations of the Tony Scott directing mantra. Still most of the performances, with the exception of maybe Anthony Edwards (who plays as close to a geek as this film is willing to go), feel a bit hollow. The sort of performances noted more for their flexing ability (even McGillis) and tough stares than anything. Sure, there's a level of charm there, but these days I just find it self obsessed.

Still, it's not all bad. I enjoy the absurdity of it a little bit. Perhaps that's why I love Hot Shots so much? As well it does meet the social love requirement of quotability, and the level of douche that makes you shocked it's not written by Ron Burgundy, about himself. On some level I think there's enough here to pass the time, and if you're looking for a wakeup morning film, you could do far worse. Still, despite all my childhood love for this, there's just not enough real emotion to make any of us care.

Top Gun is the kind of movie that just asks you to love it, and many will oblige, but if you really take the time to see what it's really about, it's about finding out how to do teamwork, and prove you're totally awesome. Only those who think Ron Burgundy is an idol, and the 80's are the only decade anything was good should really enter here.

Raising Arizona (1987)

RAISING ARIZONA
WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY: JOEL AND ETHAN COEN
WATCHED FOR: 1001 MOVIES TO SEE
OVERALL RATING: 5.25/10

When career criminal H.I. (Nic Cage) marries career policewoman Edwina (Holly Hunter) his life finally seems to be on the straight track. But when marital issues ensue following difficulty having children, the duo decide to kidnap one of the quintuplets from a local business tycoon.

Raising Arizona is the second film on our 1001 film trek, and I have to say in contrast with yesterday's The Apartment, I find myself lacking care. The farther I got away from Raising Arizona, the more I found myself annoyed by the characters, the opposite of what usually happens. That's not to say this film is without merits. It's oddball to the t, with fun performances from Hunter, Cage, and Goodman, but even then I never really cared. None of the character's are especially likable, despite the Coen Brothers' best attempts at making them emotionally attachable (primarily in Ed and Hi). The problem I think is that the Coen Brothers try to make them so absurd, they become almost like a morning cartoon.

Sure we find it funny when the coyote falls off the cliff or when Daffy fails once again, but do we really care? Not really... There is where I really struggled with Raising Arizona. I recognized the moments of humor far more than I laughed at them, I understood the emotional moments were occurring far more than I felt for them, and all the while I sort of watched with a faint disinterest. I love oddball comedies, but Arizona just felt odd. There's of course a certain testament to films of this nature. While I didn't much care for it, I wouldn't recommend against seeing it. It's that knowledge that no matter how much I didn't care for it, I recognize that there are plenty of people (just look at the IMDB) score that will love every moment of it.

Of course with the Coens behind the camera you never really know what to expect. You know their style is built around the absurd and off color, and as a visual film Raising Arizona has a lot going for it. The Coens wonderfully use lighting and visuals to make certain scenes all the more memorable. As well they get the very best out of their actors, regardless of the character's they try to play. It's for those reasons that I can see why the book 1001 movies to see placed it on their list, yet that doesn't mean I have to care for it.

While it has good intentions, and will appeal heavily to fans of cult/oddball films, I can't say I really enjoyed Raising Arizona enough to give it a passing grade.

Gandhi (1982)

GANDHI

DIRECTED BY: RICHARD ATTENBOROUGH
WRITTEN BY: JOHN BRILEY
OVERALL SCORE: 10/10
TOP 100 FILMS: #59

Mohandas Gandhi (Ben Kingsley) leads a nonviolent resistance movement against British colonial rule of India at the turn of the 20th century.

As true to form biopics go you'd be hard pressed to find one as captivating, detailed, historically accurate, and important as Gandhi. The dream project of Attenborough, Gandhi is a full scale film invasion, covering decades in the life of one of the most important historical figures. Attenborough's admiration for the man comes through in every fluid moment, character arc, and scene. Painstakingly detailed, Attenborough and Briley bring to life Gandhi's political and personal struggles, giving the viewer an all encompassing experience that elevates way beyond your typical biopic.

What ties it all together though is Sir Ben Kingsley. Detailed, methodical, and absorbing, Ben Kingsley becomes Gandhi. So much so that the film manages an almost documentary feel, as if you're not watching a man play Gandhi, but watching the man himself. The supporting cast, including the likes of Candice Bergen and Martin Sheen, are asked the impossible task of standing scene for scene with Kinsley, and manage to do so while playing their characters to perfection. Never feeling forced or overbearing, the characters feel authentic, and are allowed to really flow with the film instead of trying to define it.

All aspects of the film ultimately come together in a manner most filmmakers would only dream of. Of course with a run time over 3 hours you can imagine that having everything would have to perfect or this would be one boring film. Instead it's a captivating character film with moral implications far exceeding that of most films in the same category. Yet it's really in the effort that I find most of the film's real quality comes out. With a budget of only $22million, Attenborough and Briley managed to build a true to form epic film about a man whose life went well beyond what many of us could even dream of achieving.

As biopics go Gandhi may well be the measure by which most are judged. All encompassing, beautifully written and directed, with performances for a lifetime.

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

STAR WARS: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK

DIRECTED BY: IRVIN KERSHNER
WRITTEN BY: LEIGH BRACKETT & LAWRENCE KASDAN
OVERALL SCORE: 10/10
TOP 100 FILMS: #63

After the events of the first film, Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), Han Solo (Harrison Ford), and Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) must split up so that Luke can continue his Jedi training, this time from the last remaining Jedi Master, Yoda (Frank Oz).

As a kid The Empire Strikes Back wasn't a personal favorite of mine in the Star Wars realm, that illustrious title stuck with Return of the Jedi. Alas as time passed my love geared toward the beauty and writing of Empire and less to the quirkiness and over the top finale of Jedi. Empire Strikes Back is a testament to everything that the Star Wars series held. Dark, and yet light hearted, action packed, yet with heavy handed morality, there's nothing clear cut, all shades of gray, and as such it's possibly the most captivating of all the Star Wars films. As director Kershner really tackles all the issues presented by Lucas and co., not shying away from the darker side of the force (I just had to say that), and really pushing the film forward.

There's a great sense of character in this second installment as well. The actors feel more comfortable with the dialogue and the different complexities of their characters. They don't shy away from certain words, and are willing to really put some thought into how their characters would act in certain situations. The new characters introduced in Yoda and Lando (Billy Dee Williams, who I still wish would have sneaked in a Malt Liquor plug) are fun, exciting, and great additions to the cast. They manage to be smart, wise, and yet contain a certain charm about them that defines much of the Star Wars cast.

Of course all their acting aside, we all know The Empire Strikes Back contains one of the top 5 twists to end all twists. As a kid who didn't whip out the wow mouth facial expression when that baby daddy drama was dropped on the audience (that's probably the worst line I've written ever... fail). Empire Strikes Back is entirely build up to that one moment. A forward thrust into the action packed finale, and as such Empire Strikes Back as an interesting critical film. It doesn't stand out on its own because it is a medium film, but somehow it manages to elevate above the rest. Perhaps because it doesn't try too hard to be cute or easy. It's comfortable being a bit dark, a little harsh, and yet it's insanely fun, and really gets you geared up for one of the all time greats. Perhaps because the other two are so light hearted we hardly realize it, but Empire Strikes Back will always be the glue that held the original series together.

While one of the darker installments in the Star Wars saga, The Empire Strikes Back is a critical and cinematic achievement, great from beginning to end.