Hannibal (2001)

I believe it’s original title was “Florence Is Beautiful And Also Hannibal”. Ridley Scott’s real talent is creating worlds, whether it’s the wholly believable blue-collar space flight of Alien or the way he shoots the city and crowd scenes here. I don’t think he’s one of the great master film visualists but goddamn does he know how to make an environment come to life. It’s this, coupled with the joy of watching Anthony Hopkins Hannibal-Lecter-Around that makes this movie work in spite of itself.

Even though the plot has no mystery whatsoever (at nearly all points you know exactly where everyone is, what everyone is doing, and what everyone is planning on doing) it’s pretty enjoyable for most of the time. Special jeers goes to Ray Liotta and his character. It’s rare that a bad performance is so thoroughly coupled with a poorly-written character that you can clearly distinguish one from the other, but there you go. Also jeers to Ridley Scott opting for AVID’s “low-frame blurry strobey slow-motion” effect too many times. Honestly, once is too much for that annoying film practice. When will filmmakers know that the only effect it achieves is making your film look like bad television. I’m sure your intentions are noble, but that aesthetic is forever connected to CSI flashbacks now, and it’s time for real filmmakers to abandon it. B-

Boogie Nights (1997)

I always knew this was mostly style over substance, but I think this is the first time I realized just how little substance there is. The entire 70’s portion of the film feels like it’s killing time, with no real direction and no real arcs. PTA sets up each character dazzlingly in the opening tracking shot, but only continues to set them up, again and again, clearly favoring fabulously shot parties over actual incident.

The biggest problem is probably that it focuses on Dirk, a character who’s entire arc consists of buffoon to asshole to buffoon. PTA is clearly far more interested in the filmmaking aspect, so it’s unfortunate that Jack Horner isn’t the main character, even if some of the worst dialogue in the movie (which has more than a couple wince-inducing lines) goes to him. Once the 80’s happen (seriously, it takes over an hour for this 155 minute film to get to it’s second act) it starts to pick up, but the thin sketches that PTA calls character keep us from ever getting too invested. Is it dazzling to look at? Sure. Does it have a couple truly amazing scenes? Undoubtedly. But is that enough to overlook these gaping holes? I say no. B

Magnolia (1999)

Hopefully by the time we record the Paul Thomas Anderson episode of the podcast I will have all of my many conflicting thoughts on this movie in some kind of sensical order that results in one single opinion. The performances range from great (Cruise) to horrible (Moore, Walters), the storylines range from great (John C. Reilly) to horrible (anything to do with the Whiz Kids, especially the modern-day one), the little directorial flourishes range from great (Wise Up, amphibian rain) to horrible (the obnoxious “Well Now Then” title card that comes after the rain, the dazzling and yet totally pointless prologue), the thematic content ranges from great (anything spelled out in Robards and Reilly’s speeches) to horrible (what the fuck do any of these stories have to do with the concepts of fate vs. coincidence?).

I still really like it (as draining and tiring as it is) and I do think most of the bad choices at least have some good to them (Macy’s storyline has no point, but his performance is incredible) and are the result of trying too hard, instead of not trying hard enough, which I can appreciate. Taken together, this and Boogie Nights feel like a film-lover exorcising a lot of stylistic ticks he picked over decades of watching and loving movies, and if that’s what it takes to make There Will Be Blood, I’m all for it. B+