Filmcap: The week of May 29-June 5

This week an uncharacteristically great but now-cancelled cop and corruption show, a movie that's pretty much a religious cop and corruption movie but in the Crusades, another film set during the Crusades but this time with a main character that never says a word, and then a for some reason a chick flick that's not a chick flick. As you can see I've been reviewing a lot of television recently because they've all been ending, but this is one of the last ones out of the show I've been watching. In two more posts from now I'll review "The Killing" and "Game of Thrones" and that will probably be the last of them until at least this winter. 

The Chicago Code: Season One (Shawn Ryan, 2011): Let me clarify, to the left I say this was season one, but actually this was the whole series. Yes, "The Chicago Code" was cancelled and there was and will only be one season of this show. It saddens me to say that, because this was really a great show that deserved a second season. Another new show I reviewed earlier called "Lights Out" was cancelled after one season as well, and while that show was great as well, I feel like a second of this season of this show would have brought more joy into my life than a second season of "Lights Out." "The Chicago Code" is one of the best shows of the last year that encapsulated both art and entertainment. Basically every one of the 13 episodes had compelling character-backed stories, and at their best they also contributed to a large mosaic of Chicago the show was creating, but unfortunately never finished creating.

Chicago politics is famous for its corruption and scandals, and this show deals with that directly. This show opens your eyes to city politics, and a type of politics that has such a large impact on peoples daily lives but doesn't seem to get treated with as much seriousness and vigor as national and international politics. This show did deal with those things in a great way. The main characters in this show are cops, but this isn't a cop show. It uses the police to shine lights on both the city government and the city's biggest criminals, both of whom have numerous connections with each other. The police are the perfect agency to comment on corruption, they're the ones who have the connections to both the people in the city and the people on the streets. Also, they're the ones who are supposed to stop it. The first few episodes set up the political situation in Chicago, while the next several were mostly individual stories wrapped around the ensuing corruption scandal that was beginning to get hot. But it's the last three episodes of the season that brought it all together in a thrilling, exciting way.

Even when the show had minor missteps in the middle of the season, it was always deeply entertaining. The main characters on this show were mostly very well rounded, and the ones who weren't were just waiting their turn. There was so much more that could have been done and it seems would have been done if there was more. Unfortunately there won't be, but at least we got 13 hours of some of the best police work on TV I've seen so far.
Season/Series Grade: B+

Kingdom of Heaven: The Directors Cut (Ridley Scott, 2005): I have never seen the theatrical cut of this film, a cut that was not very well received. This is the second time I've seen the directors cut, which some say is a bit better and some say is substantially better. Judging the directors cut on its own, without comparing to the theatrical, I can say that this historical epic is a much better film than its 39% on rotten tomatoes suggests (39% for the theatrical cut). Some say this film is avoiding the issue, which is religion, instead the film depicts the wars more as the faults of men using religion as an excuse. That's not something I can criticize the film for, that's exactly what is happening today. There are plenty of historical liberties that Scott takes with this film, but ultimately the message of respect for other religions and the wastefulness of religious conflict are positive messages that have relevance today. He made this film shortly after the War on Terror and the Iraq War began, and by getting the history of the Crusades to impose on your mind while you think about the War on Terror is a highly effective way to get across what Scott thinks about the current wars.

There's also the fact that Scott truly knows how to film a historical epic. This is one of the most well shot historical epics or sword-and-sandal films I've seen. The cold of Europe and desert heat of the Middle East both come across very well. The battle scenes are shot with an appropriately epic, and more importantly, brutal eye. I haven't been a huge fan of Scott's post-"Blade Runner" career, he's never seems to try to make masterpieces anymore, and even when he does try hard he always conforms to the Hollywood style. "Kingdom of Heaven" though is a bit better than much of his recent work. The way it's shot, and the way he gives thematic importance to the genre are refreshing. That's not to say he's perfect though. The characters in this film are not developed to say the least. The main character, played by Orlando Bloom, is incredibly unnecessary and his romantic subplot with the sister of the King is even more useless. He is a very Hollywood character who is just there to be a familiar character to go back to when he's done showing us the real story of the Crusades. Only in the end is when he actually does something important, and Scott and screenwriter William Monohan had to exaggerate a lot to actually make him a hero. The film is certainly not perfect in many ways. I can see why many film critics and Crusade historians would not like this film. But if you do ignore a couple things, you can find a lot to like about this film. It's not a dumbed down version of the Crusades from my point of view, yes the history is not all there, but the themes and messages are what's important.
Grade: B

Bridesmaids (Paul Feig, 2011): In modern Hollywood comedies, women are never real people. They're used as a way to comment on a man and to develop a male character, among many other things. Rarely are the films about them. Even when you have a Judd Apatow-directed, and admittedly pretty good movie, like "Knocked Up," in which a female character has quite a bit of screen time, it's still all about the male character (Seth Rogen in the case of "Knocked Up") who is doing all the developing and changing. In the Judd Apatow-produced "Bridesmaids" though, it's all about the female characters, it actually uses its 2-3 male characters to develop the female ones. The whole maid-of-honor story itself is very much a "chick flick" story, the issues at hand (female friendship) is very much a "chick flick" idea as well. But nonetheless the film still manages to be thoughtful enough with genuine gender-blind laughs that it almost transcends the "chick flick" genre.

To be clear, this is definitely not the female "The Hangover." There are barely any similarities. What this movie is, is very much a Judd Apatow film. He only produced it (it was directed by fellow "Freaks and Geeks" creator Paul Feig), but this film bears all the marks of a Judd Apatow directed film, apart from the obvious female-centric story. If you compare the Judd Apatow-produced films like "Superbad" and "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" with the Judd Apatow-directed films like "Knocked Up" and "Funny People," the main difference is the heart, emotion, and I guess you could say "level of seriousness" in the directed films over the ones he only produced. Kirsten Wiig's lead character is what makes the film so great. She's very much a Liz Lemon-type female character. She's down-and-out, has no job, has no husband or boyfriend, and she continues down this spiral after her best friend announces she's getting married. She's a great character who does a lot of learning over the course of the movie. One of the main flaws though of the film is that the third act is a bit too convenient and her character is not as interesting then as she is in the beginning and middle. While there are some gags in the film that go overboard in terms of the realism established in the film, most of it is very funny. This is not a laugh every minute film, instead it has a few memorable very hilarious scenes, which works better because that way it has time to actually create an interesting character. "Bridesmaids" isn't the feminist revolution Hollywood has been waiting for, but it's come pretty close.
Grade: B

Valhalla Rising (Nicolas Wending Refn, 2009): Not long ago I saw "Bronson," and in my review of that film I praised Nicolas Wending Refn as an extremely talented director. After watching his follow up "Bronson," I think Refn is even more talented than I thought he was, and the surprising thing is that "Valhalla Rising" is completely different from 'Bronson." That film was an experimental character study in which you just watch a mad man be mad. You get in his head and see the brutality and craziness without actually getting close enough to actually know why he's doing it. That film was kind of like "A Clockwork Orange" and "Fight Club." But the film he released after that, "Valhalla Rising," is not at all like that. This film is more like a Terrence Malick or Andrei Tarkovsky genre film. If one of those two directors made a film today about vikings in the Middle Ages this is very similar to how it would be. The film is immensely atmospheric and filled with breathtaking shots of the European landscape. Both the cinematography and the great ambient drone metal music make for a chilling atmosphere.

There is barely a logical story in this film. A one eyed man is held prisoner, kills many people, embarks with some people on a Crusade to take back Jerusalem, but they end up somewhere mysterious. There is a lot of mystery surrounding who this man is and where did he come from. He is the main character of the film but he never ever utters a single word in the film. All he does is brutal acts of violence. If there's one similarity between "Bronson" and "Valhalla Rising" it's the brutal violence in both films. In "Bronson" the violence makes the film a crazed violent trip, but the violence in "Valhalla Rising" creates this chilling atmospheric nightmare.

I've heard critics say a film is "like a nightmare" many times before, but I've never seen it so appropriate to say it for any other film other than "Valhalla Rising." It really is a nightmare that takes you through brutal violence, and possibly even to hell. The final chapters of the film (it's in six chapters) possibly depict a hell that is scary, but unlike anything you've seen. Those final chapters are definitely very weird, and there will be many interpretations as to what actually happens in this film. This is a movie I loved, but wanted to love it even more. The only reason I wouldn't give this film a perfect score is that the story and thematics of the film are only good enough for a 30 minute short film. I love slow atmospheric movies, but even I have to admit this film does it a bit too much when considering the religious themes it's trying to explore. This film could have been 30 minutes and it would have been a true masterpiece. Instead it's 90 minutes, but it's still such an amazing piece of work that has made me a true fan of Nicolas Wending Refn. I still haven't seen his "Pusher" trilogy from before "Bronson" and I am eagerly awaiting any and all projects from his future. If the phrase "Terrence Malick horror film" excites you, you will love this movie.
Grade: A-