cooverknight

I don't understand why the hallmark of a good movie has to be that it's believable. Is opera believable? Is Sophocles believable? Is ballet believable. The way I see it, this film is closer to an operatic Greek Tragedy. Sure, we don't know what Walken wants to build a new hosptial in an impoverished neighborhood. It doesn't matter. Should there be exposition like, 'Guys, when I was doing time, prison taught me that stealing and killing should serve a higher purpose: to do good for society. I had a vision, get it? Case closed." King of NY is a fiction film, not a documentary. It's got a lot of style, even over the top style. But who said a movie can't be over the top? Singin' in the Rain is over the top. So is The Wizard of Oz. So is any horror film you watch. What's important is the interaction between the characters, and each scene glued together with the next scene. Even when characters are exagerrated like the goofy jive-ass walk of Lawrence Fishburne. I think it's more watchable by being outlandish. To see realistic killing and mayhem would be too disturbing and detract from the story line. Chris Walken walks around like a vampire as seen from the back with his great coat; he dances like an alien. In fact everyone in the movie has some quirk that places them half way in the world of crime and half way in the world of hell. Isn't that the way gangsters see the world: in some distorted bizarro configuration that is based on real life but not quite.

It's interesting that a film entitled Django Unchained, about a freed slave that becomes independent, has the major black character--played by Jamie Foxx--behaving fairly clueless throughout the film. Sure, you have to become socialized as a free man if you were a slave. While that may be accurate, it doesn't make for a compelling plot. In fact, I thought Jamie Foxx has this deadpan/confused demeanor through most of the film. The main character ends up being Dr. Schultz. In fact, Samuel Jackson's character is much better defined and more interesting than Foxx's. The film grows more and more gonzo as the story progresses, and approaches the level of slapstick. That's not necessarily bad, but it simply adds to the mixing of genres, which is also fine if it works, but it seemed to gimmickly to me. The salute to Italian westerns is fun, but Italians didn't have to contend with slavery as a serious issue--one that tore and still seems to tear apart the U. S. So, while the film is an interesting diversion, that's all it basically is.

I put 'The Stranger' in the top films ever made. Period! Before dismissing the hyperbole, let me give my creds.: Professional actor, film critic, playwright, screenwriter, fiction writer. I've seen equivalent of seeing 31/2 months of international film non-stop. I've seen 'The Stranger' 3 times in 2 days. Acting, mood, tone, screenplay, dialogue, tension, slow- burn, 'realistic' bizarre. A film in which the actors totally immerse themselves. Joel Edgerton & Sam Harris are supernaturally good. One criterion I use for judging a film is how difficult it is for the various creative elements to come together given the material. This story, then film, is very hard to pull off given there is a certain level of deception that must be attained in order for it to remain plausible. There are subtle moments in the film--nearly the entire film is about small, subtle interactions and laconic dialogue. This is a film that is visceral, intense, and troubling, and there is no actual violence depicted on the screen.