Session 007 - Croupier
Who saw it and what are your thoughts on it?
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(88)
-
▼
September
(8)
- Married to the Movies (#2) - Black Snake Moan
- In the Screening Room - Alexander Payne's Citizen ...
- In the Screening Room - Mike Hodge's Croupier
- Recent Watches: September 2007
- Married to the Movies (#1) - Away From Her
- Month of Movies: September 2007
- In the Screening Room - Barry Levinson's Bugsy
- Film Script's Top 7 - Best Movie Franchises
-
▼
September
(8)
Followers
Contributors
Labels
Essential Links
- A.O. Scott
- All Movie Guide
- Brian's Richmond.com Articles
- Brian's Temple News Articles
- Bright Lights Film Journal
- Dark Horizons
- Film Reference
- Filmspotting
- Greatest Films
- Hollywood Elsewhere
- The Hot Blog
- The House Next Door
- Internet Movie Database
- Mean Dawg Movie Reviews
- Metacritic
- The New York Times - Movie Section
- Pinewood Dialogues
- Roger Ebert
- Rotten Tomatoes
- Sean Burns
- Senses of Cinema
- They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?
- Turner Classic Movie Database
- Watching the Directors
The Most Popular Film Script Posts
Widget by Blogger Buster
The Film Script E-Mail
Lists of Bests
5 comments:
Sorry still can't find Bugsy anywhere. It still is the top of my queue, but its arrival date is "LATE."
Anyways lets talk probably my favorite film since we started these screening rooms, Croupier. It has been a couple weeks since I saw it so my memory may be a little rusty, but I thought this was a top notch thriller. One you don't really expect to be thrilling, but you find yourself stirred and excited the entire time.
Clive Owen gives a fantastic breakthrough performance here. Very subdued, yet always demanding your attention. He commands the screen and the actions at work as he plays not one, not two, but three "roles." He plays Jack Manfred the writer. He plays Jake the croupier. Finally he also plays the narrator, who we can't really decipher whether they are the thoughts of Jack or Jake. The narration clearly gives it a noir quality. I kinda wish they just went straight for it and shot it in black and white, but it still is a well shot flick.
Mike Hodges directs with a still hand as he shoots classically beneath the actors. The blackjack scenes are always fun to watch even if they are simply filler. Dark yet well lit.
The supporting performers are all doing there best to upstage Clive to little affect. They are quite good, just not as good as Clive. Many of them seem to be MacGuffins. Whether they actually suit a purpose or not, they are there to throw you off the scent.
If I have one big problem, it was the forced love stories. Not that there wasn't chemistry between Clive and the ladies, but it was more that fact that it seemed forced. It seemed like it could have been handled better. Plus they didn't really evoke that femme fatale quality I want.The love between his wife, the croupier, and the South African gambler,..they don't really say much about him in my opinion.
What I do find though is his desire to live risk free. He doesn't gamble. He does his job and goes home. He doesn't cheat, yet. Once he finds that this croupier gig can make for a good story. He finds himself playing the lead, Jake, and we all know you can't have a risk-free protagonist. Suddenly Jack finds himself throwing caution into the wind as he spirals down this heist plot with women in hand. All in all a great time, but still didn't blow me away.
Can't wait to talk about Citizen Ruth. I've got a lot to say about that one.
It's amazing what different experiences people can have with the same film. Especially you and I chachi, because for two people who agreed on probably 90% of films, we've yet to really hit on one of these Screening Room Sessions. I've never disagreed with you so much. It's actually kind of a weirdly interesting phenomenon.
First off, Croupier sucks. There's horrendously little here for me to praise. Clive Owen shows up with his screen persona already intact (honestly, is Owen the new age Cary Grant, playing the same character in every single film?).
Well he is here. What you've seen before, you see here to a lesser degree. Women show up and decide to bare their breasts to Owen apparently just because he's there. It's honestly ridiculous how the women in this movie act towards his character. It's a writer's fantasy world. Two women decide to undress right in front of his eyes and one forgives him for cheating at the drop of a hat.
There's no emotion anywhere. This character is a dead fish. He 'doesn't gamble' is pretty much all we learn about him because he's constantly bullshitting his way through his life. He's boring, and it's horribly obvious that this persona is just the writer's coming out through Owen (hell, they make Owen's character a writer for no other purpose because of a weak imagination).
The thing I hate most in films (or in people) is being disingenuous and this film is 100% disingenuous. Jack is Jake. It's as plain as that. He's freakin' lying to himself from the beginning because he thinks he's better than that, but he's not. Jack/Jake/whoever, he's a piece of shit.
Also, I didn't buy the fact that Jack or Jake would sign up for this half-assed robbery plot. He spent the whole movie preaching about not gambling and not being a sucker and then he goes and makes a plainly obvious mistake and for what?
Plus isn't there something wrong about basing an entire movie around a character who refuses to do even he least interesting things? He deals cards and judges people because he knows the odds. And he takes pleasure in other people losing. Brilliant.
Honestly, there isn't a character I can think of right now outside of Tea Leoni's Spanglish character I can remember hating more (and at least she wasn't the star).
Terrible film. I agree it should have been black and white at least to try to capture the noir feel, but I feel it even failed at that. How it ever launched Owen's career I'll never know.
Also, don't worry about Bugsy. When you get it, you get it. I'm gonna jump over there and post my thoughts on that film before I start to forget everything though.
Oh, and am I the only one who thus far hates Matty Ballgame?
Okay, so apparently I've knocked you into a stupified silence... understandable. But you've got to at least admit that Matty Ballgame blows, right?
Filmspotting has not been the same without the late, great Sam Van Hallgren (yes, quitting is now enough for me to consider him tragically passed on) and Matty Ballgame seems to hate just about EVERYTHING. He's the worst type of film snob though (and yes this is a term I like to throw around compassionately from time to time but not in this case), because he seems to like only about 20% of the films he sees and EVERY other film that he watches immediately goes into the garbage pile without so much as a moment's hesitation.
He doesn't even stop to argue the merits of certain films... instead judging you for liking them (as he seems to with Adam) and then simply disregarding your opinion. It's one thing to throw away someone's opinion if they're trying to convince you of the merits of Wild Hogs. It's quite another if they're trying to point out the brilliance in a Cronenberg film or debate the merits of an Ang Lee or even Paul Haggis one. He seems so afraid to qualify his statement with some good to go with the bad that the guy comes across as totally black or white with no greys.
Where the hell is Sam? At least when he was absurdly wrong, he was entertaining doing it.
I really didn't know where to start with the whole Croupier talk. You give passionate reasons for not liking it, I just completely disagree with them, as did most critics.
As for Matty Ballgame, yeah I was definitely not digging his first few outings, but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. Hopefully he will embrace the critique part of critic more. His reasonings for not liking History of Violence and Eastern Promises just seemed ludicrous. I almost always disagreed with Sam, but at least he as passionate in his beliefs.
Alright, well I guess I'll let the Croupier discussion die out... although I don't feel that going with the critical opinion is a basis for any argument. The vast majority of film critics just happen to be completely wrong in this case.
Really, after seeing it I'm kind of shocked at its reception, I feel like it did nothing to earn the good reviews that it did receive. Oh well, you're just not gonna convince me on this one since we're standing with polar opposite reactions to it.
Since we've already gotten into it a little bit, I think Citizen Ruth will be good for debate. So that's up now. I've also added a few films to the 'upcoming' slate. I'm using the dates simply as a rough estimate. Most of the posts have been a few days or a week late. It's just really so we know what's coming up next. I'm trying to space them out but also give us time to talk about other things in the meantime.
Also, I'm planning on posting something of a 'Miscellaneous' discussion area for off-topic posts. Some place where we can rant about the most recent film news or how pathetic Britney Spears is or whatever we want to really. So that, and another "Married to the Movies" should be up this week as well.
Post a Comment