——The Conversation——

(A)

This is a hard movie to love. It’s cold, distant, and slow at times, and definitely not for everyone, but if you stick with it there is a wealth of great film making in there to discover. Why this movie didn’t win an Oscar for its sound design is beyond me, because not only does this film boast an impressive soundtrack, the sound is also exactly what the film is about. Gene Hackman as a surveillance expert who keeps everything secret, not giving away much of any personal details to anyone including the woman he loves, makes one slip up breaking his number one rule: don’t get invested in what you’re getting paid to investigate. His desire to understand a recording of an incomprehensible conversation in an effort to avoid being responsible for the death of another human being causes him to become a victim of his own work. I really liked the surveillance camera-like shots in his apartment, and what they meant to a character who is so used to spying on others that he’d rather not let anything be known about himself in fear that someone is spying on him. Although his character was difficult to understand, Hackman gave such a great performance that you really feel like you know this guy of whom you actually know next to nothing about. A great movie, definitely for the patient, but great nonetheless.

——Adaptation——

(A)

I think I might have enjoyed this movie even more the second time around. Why? Because you get to enjoy the intricacies much more after you know what’s going on in Kaufman’s crazy script. What’s great about the movie is how every rule about screenwriting mentioned in the movie is broken, and every thing Charlie said he was against he does anyway. The end of the film is complete Hollywood bullshit made up in order for something to happen in a movie where nothing really happens (and in a great shot at the end, everything ties back to flowers once again, even though the script got so lost along the way from what Charlie really wanted to write).

One thing I noticed this time though was the fact that Adaptation in many ways is The Three. It’s as if Charlie fractured his psyche into the three characters of Donald, Susan and LaRoche. Charlie, Susan and LaRoche are all different characters but they all are looking for the same thing, something they can hold onto and appreciate and truly love. Donald is the only character content with his place in the film, and while the other three struggle with a never ending story left without satisfaction, Donald is the only one happy, and he’s ironically the one to end the film. LaRoche lives a static existence collecting something intensely and then giving it up without ever really loving it, Susan is stuck writing a book out of a story that was barely long enough to run in the New Yorker and has no real ending, and Charlie is stuck trying to adapt something out of that flimsy premise for a book into a movie while dealing with his own emotional insecurities. Donald saves the movie by not caring about truth and beauty and all that, and just by wanting to end a good movie.

Another nice touch I noticed was in the scene where Donald is talking about fractured image systems to Charlie who thinks The Three is the worst overused idea ever, and doesn’t see the reality in shooting a film where three characters are the same person doing different things, Charlie is looking in a mirror at another Charlie while Donald talks in the next room. There are three Kaufman’s in the room at the same time. He’s once again broken his own rule, and successfully I might add. That’s why I love this movie. It’s probably the most accurate description I’ve ever seen or heard of the screenwriting process, hitting on every major problem I’ve ever had when trying to write something.

——The Medallion——

(C-)

Harry and I saw this yesterday. While I had a good time seeing the film with him, the movie itself was total shit. Real garbage. Probably Jackie Chan’s worst movie; it was really bad. The action scenes were usually shoddily edited together and the plot frequently made no sense. Actors sometimes stared at each other as if they didn’t know what their motivation was, or what their next line was suppose to be. And the soundtrack sounded as if it came off of a direct to video movie. Whenever something that was suppose to be funny was happening (which was extremely NOT funny) a little tuba solo would play in the background, apparently in lame sitcom fashion in order to clue you that this is in fact suppose to be funny. Oh man was this movie bad. It had some good parts, but they were so infrequent and sporadic that it really isn’t worth it unless you are with a friend to Mystery Science Theater it.

——Clerks——

(A-)

Kevin Smith’s first film is ironically the last one I’ve seen. And the best movie he’s made, I think. It’s really funny, really well written, and the meandering conversation based plot works at its best here, as well as Kevin Smith’s direction. Smith has never been good at moving the camera or editing, so its good that in this film the action rarely moves. Unfortunately when it does move you realize why Smith should be writing and not directing, and that’s why I gave this an A- instead of an A. Still, I really enjoyed watching this movie as it is low budget film making at its greatest.