On this the 29th day of December, 2008, I am here to report that last night I watched my 100th film in the theater and have no accomplished the goal I set out to complete way back in 2005. I never again will have to force myself to watch a movie just to get the numbers. I don't need to worry about seeing 9 films a month or if I fail in one month have to worry about seeing 12 films in a month. The final four which I have yet to write reviews for because I've been extraordinarily lazy this past week or so are
Slumdog Millionaire - a charming and competent but not great film, the music was a lot of fun
Milk - Acting superb, Milk's homelife kind of boring. One of those important stories that I think needs to be told that somehow manages to be a very underwhelming film
Curious Case of Benjamin Button - honestly, I still am not entirely sure about this one. I liked it, just not sure how much or why.
Valkyrie - Well some times you end on a high note, sometimes you watch a Tom Cruise suck fest.
And finally some truly meaningless statistics:
Films Remaining: 0
Days Remaining: 3
Average Number of Films per Day to achieve goal: 0
Average Number of Films per Week to Achieve Goal: 0
Monday, December 29, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Let the Right One In
To say that Let the Right One In is one of the best vampire movies I have ever seen probably doesn't distinguish it that much. I mean there isn't exactly a long list of incredibly well done vampire films out there. (I fully expect an objection from Brad on that). Still beyond Murnau's Nosferatu, I can't think of a vampire movie I really enjoyed. (And truthfully that film underwhelmed me since I had already read Bram Stoker's Dracula). But what makes it remarkable is not that it is a good vampire film but rather that it is a surprisingly deep, intimate, sad and yes charming love story.
Oskar is a lonely boy. He lives with his mother and faces pretty disturbing abuse from one of the school bullies. When we meet him he is pantomiming a revenge sequence. He sees a strange night arrival through his window. The next night as he plays alone he meets Eli. She immediately warns him off from being his friend. To be sure a strange warning. As we continue to follow what happens to Oskar, each night Eli returns and they begin to connect in a strange way. There really isn't much that isn't well done here.
The film doesn't play with the vampire rules formula as many films do. Vampires can not go out in sunlight for instance. There is no explanation of how Eli became a vampire or how exactly her helper/slave?/relative? came to the job he holds in the film. There isn't really any expository dialog because the reality is one doesn't find a lot of expository dialog in real life. But that just made the film more intriguing. The unanswered questions make the story more interesting.
As I said there is a sad loneliness in Oskar and an equally sad loneliness in Eli. And their romance is equal parts first young love and completely sincere largely non-sexualized love. All this to a rather abysmal backdrop of a snowcapped Swedish town. It isn't just a story of a sad little boy or the story of a sad little girl, or just the story of a vampire or even an innocent love story. Its all of these things quite beautifully mixed together. And frankly I was charmed by it.
This isn't to say the film doesn't know how to show some teeth (no pun intended) when it needs to. There is a fair amount of blood, death and spontaneous combustion. All done well. I would honestly recommend it to anyone who is a fan of vampires, profoundly beautiful love stories and introspective looks at the outcasts of life. If you are a fan of all three, well sir or madam, I think you just hit the jackpot.
Oskar is a lonely boy. He lives with his mother and faces pretty disturbing abuse from one of the school bullies. When we meet him he is pantomiming a revenge sequence. He sees a strange night arrival through his window. The next night as he plays alone he meets Eli. She immediately warns him off from being his friend. To be sure a strange warning. As we continue to follow what happens to Oskar, each night Eli returns and they begin to connect in a strange way. There really isn't much that isn't well done here.
The film doesn't play with the vampire rules formula as many films do. Vampires can not go out in sunlight for instance. There is no explanation of how Eli became a vampire or how exactly her helper/slave?/relative? came to the job he holds in the film. There isn't really any expository dialog because the reality is one doesn't find a lot of expository dialog in real life. But that just made the film more intriguing. The unanswered questions make the story more interesting.
As I said there is a sad loneliness in Oskar and an equally sad loneliness in Eli. And their romance is equal parts first young love and completely sincere largely non-sexualized love. All this to a rather abysmal backdrop of a snowcapped Swedish town. It isn't just a story of a sad little boy or the story of a sad little girl, or just the story of a vampire or even an innocent love story. Its all of these things quite beautifully mixed together. And frankly I was charmed by it.
This isn't to say the film doesn't know how to show some teeth (no pun intended) when it needs to. There is a fair amount of blood, death and spontaneous combustion. All done well. I would honestly recommend it to anyone who is a fan of vampires, profoundly beautiful love stories and introspective looks at the outcasts of life. If you are a fan of all three, well sir or madam, I think you just hit the jackpot.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
An Affair to Remember
Each year as a supposed "treat" to the countless supporters of a certain local indie theater, the show a couple of films for free. These classic films are supposed to satisfy our appetite for the great films of the past so that for another year it can subject me to the worst in Roger Corman or Lucio Fulci 80s Horror dreck. Suffice to say the whole treat angers me but I can't exactly refuse to go out of protest since I would then miss a cinematic classic. I'll just bitterly complain about the whole thing where they will never know about it. I hear that's how things get changed.
This year's treat was An Affair to Remember. The 1957 classic starring Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr. Despite a questionable set up (I mean the cheating not the romance on a boat) this film quickly charms you into submission. Grant and Kerr are wonderful on screen together and you start rooting for them quickly. She doesn't love the man she is with so why shouldn't she pursue love with this new guy? And he has been aimlessly wondering for years between women looking for the one who will finally cause him to fall in love.
The two agree to meet in six months if they still care about one another on top of the Empire State Building. As you might expect from a romantic comedy, something comes up that prevents our lovers from reuniting and much of the remainder of the film is concerned with following them as they try to live their lives. Suffice to say it would take a rather heartless person not to be moved by the final scene between Kerr and Grant. Spoiler alert: It has a happy ending.
You really come out of it with a smile on your face and Grant and Kerr are personable and have great screen chemistry. You really can't miss with this for a nice pleasant romance.
This year's treat was An Affair to Remember. The 1957 classic starring Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr. Despite a questionable set up (I mean the cheating not the romance on a boat) this film quickly charms you into submission. Grant and Kerr are wonderful on screen together and you start rooting for them quickly. She doesn't love the man she is with so why shouldn't she pursue love with this new guy? And he has been aimlessly wondering for years between women looking for the one who will finally cause him to fall in love.
The two agree to meet in six months if they still care about one another on top of the Empire State Building. As you might expect from a romantic comedy, something comes up that prevents our lovers from reuniting and much of the remainder of the film is concerned with following them as they try to live their lives. Suffice to say it would take a rather heartless person not to be moved by the final scene between Kerr and Grant. Spoiler alert: It has a happy ending.
You really come out of it with a smile on your face and Grant and Kerr are personable and have great screen chemistry. You really can't miss with this for a nice pleasant romance.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
The Best...so far
I can't say with any certainty that this list won't change. Since there are any number of movies I yet want to see before the end of the year but of the 94 films I saw in theater this year these were my favorites (discluding the older films I got a chance to see on the big screen or the films that were technically 2007 releases).
Synecdoche, New York - best film I saw all year, have seen it five times, it gets me ever time, it gets deeper with each viewing. Stand out performance by Hoffman as usual but also great performances from Dianne Weist and others.
The remaining films are in no particular order:
Encounters at the End of the World - a Herzog documentary is always an experience (see: Grizzly Man) and this one is no exception. The way in which it delves into those deep eternal questions and reflects a variety of answers none of which is THE answer is quite beautiful and sublime. One of the high points for a year of documentaries
Man on Wire - You will be sucked in by Phillipe Petit and his drive to accomplish his dream even at the expense of loved ones and friends. Very compelling.
Gonzo - you don't even have to be a fan of Hunter S. Thompson to find this film about him and his unique contribution to history. There is also a heartfelt anger from his ex-wife that his suicide was not strength but weakness.
Moving Midway - History as local history has never been so intimate and compelling. It also combines history of film and ties a white family to its black relatives who were descended from slaves. This all to the back drop of watching the feat of moving an old plantation from one location to another.
Frozen River - two words: Melissa Leo. She stuns you in the opening minutes and never stops the whole movie.
Edge of Heaven - surprisingly moving and intricate story about various German Turkish people as the struggle with everything from religious persecution to family problems.
Vicky Christina Barcelona - more like a series of vignettes than a full movie but each one is fascinating to watch. The manner in which Woody Allen breaks up the narrative with a narrator to advance the story was effective on me and I typically hate voice over.
Special Mention: Reprise
I can't say this was my favorite because I was somewhat critical of it when I saw it but I've been coming back and thinking about it several times in the past few days and wishing I could see it again. I suspect I liked it more than I thought I did.
Synecdoche, New York - best film I saw all year, have seen it five times, it gets me ever time, it gets deeper with each viewing. Stand out performance by Hoffman as usual but also great performances from Dianne Weist and others.
The remaining films are in no particular order:
Encounters at the End of the World - a Herzog documentary is always an experience (see: Grizzly Man) and this one is no exception. The way in which it delves into those deep eternal questions and reflects a variety of answers none of which is THE answer is quite beautiful and sublime. One of the high points for a year of documentaries
Man on Wire - You will be sucked in by Phillipe Petit and his drive to accomplish his dream even at the expense of loved ones and friends. Very compelling.
Gonzo - you don't even have to be a fan of Hunter S. Thompson to find this film about him and his unique contribution to history. There is also a heartfelt anger from his ex-wife that his suicide was not strength but weakness.
Moving Midway - History as local history has never been so intimate and compelling. It also combines history of film and ties a white family to its black relatives who were descended from slaves. This all to the back drop of watching the feat of moving an old plantation from one location to another.
Frozen River - two words: Melissa Leo. She stuns you in the opening minutes and never stops the whole movie.
Edge of Heaven - surprisingly moving and intricate story about various German Turkish people as the struggle with everything from religious persecution to family problems.
Vicky Christina Barcelona - more like a series of vignettes than a full movie but each one is fascinating to watch. The manner in which Woody Allen breaks up the narrative with a narrator to advance the story was effective on me and I typically hate voice over.
Special Mention: Reprise
I can't say this was my favorite because I was somewhat critical of it when I saw it but I've been coming back and thinking about it several times in the past few days and wishing I could see it again. I suspect I liked it more than I thought I did.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Waiting it out
Patience is a virtue I'm pretty sure I don't have. My hands are shaking from the desire to complete the final six movies of my long (seemingly interminable) goal to see one hundred movies in one year. To those who think that isn't so difficult you may be right but I'm not a full time film reviewer and time and money are both considerable costs to consider. Since 2004 when I first realized that I had come within 25 or so films of the elusive 100, I have been trying to attain said magic number. Now with victory all but assured (and I suppose due to my confidence destined to fail), I want each of the final six to be worth the price of admission.
Here is what I'd like the final six to be but since a fair number of them are only limited release and most of my time this month will be in cities that never get limited release films, I may have to settle for slightly less.
The Wrestler - The Fountain may have been one of the biggest pieces of indulgent auteur crap I have ever seen but Aronofsky also made Requiem for a Dream which in terms of the relating the harsh reality of drug use, I've seen few better pieces of evidence. It was not a movie for one emotionally durable enough to watch utter personal destruction. And the man who made that film, in my opinion, can probably deliver on an emotional story of an aging "wrestler". Plus Mickey Rourke by all reports gives one hell of a performance. Add Marisa Tomei who pleasantly surprised me last year in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead and I'd say my interest is peaked.
The Brothers Bloom - Rian Johnson's first film was the amazingly good update of noir films in a modern day high school (Brick) starring the continually impressive Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Second films have of course a certain notoriety of not living up to the promise of the first, still I'm giving it a chance.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - This I can't entirely explain. I've never been that keen on David Fincher as a director. Brad Pitt is generally disparaged as an actor but there have been several times in his career that he took on serious roles that genuinely impressed me. Most recently his turn as Jesse James in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was frankly quite good (a claim I know a few will contest).
Revolutionary Road - Just reading the description this sounds like its right up my alley. Sam Mendes is hit or miss with me but Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet is a pretty undeniable acting duo. And how can you look at the below image and not get goose bumps? Are you heartless? (Apologies to all those without cinematic hearts)
Doubt - Basically because of Philip Seymour Hoffman who never fails to perform. Meryl Streep will no doubt be amazing as well.
Gran Torino - Last year, Eastwood released two films, the much maligned Flags of Our Fathers and the much better received Letters from Iwo Jima. I saw the latter and thought it was okay. This year Eastwood released the much "blahed" Changeling and soon this film. Oh and I didn't see any other film that looks to be released this year that had any real interest for me.
I should say this list is of future releases and I am definitely interested in seeing several films that have already been released that have yet to come to this area.
And I can only assume a series of seemingly random yet wacky events will occur in the next few weeks which will prevent me from accomplishing my goal. You know because Fate can be a bastard that way. Although I am somewhat looking forward to a period in my life that eerily resembles a sitcom. For the record: Synecdoche, New York? Seen it five times now. Is it that good? to me? Yes.
Here is what I'd like the final six to be but since a fair number of them are only limited release and most of my time this month will be in cities that never get limited release films, I may have to settle for slightly less.
The Wrestler - The Fountain may have been one of the biggest pieces of indulgent auteur crap I have ever seen but Aronofsky also made Requiem for a Dream which in terms of the relating the harsh reality of drug use, I've seen few better pieces of evidence. It was not a movie for one emotionally durable enough to watch utter personal destruction. And the man who made that film, in my opinion, can probably deliver on an emotional story of an aging "wrestler". Plus Mickey Rourke by all reports gives one hell of a performance. Add Marisa Tomei who pleasantly surprised me last year in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead and I'd say my interest is peaked.
The Brothers Bloom - Rian Johnson's first film was the amazingly good update of noir films in a modern day high school (Brick) starring the continually impressive Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Second films have of course a certain notoriety of not living up to the promise of the first, still I'm giving it a chance.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - This I can't entirely explain. I've never been that keen on David Fincher as a director. Brad Pitt is generally disparaged as an actor but there have been several times in his career that he took on serious roles that genuinely impressed me. Most recently his turn as Jesse James in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was frankly quite good (a claim I know a few will contest).
Revolutionary Road - Just reading the description this sounds like its right up my alley. Sam Mendes is hit or miss with me but Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet is a pretty undeniable acting duo. And how can you look at the below image and not get goose bumps? Are you heartless? (Apologies to all those without cinematic hearts)
Doubt - Basically because of Philip Seymour Hoffman who never fails to perform. Meryl Streep will no doubt be amazing as well.
Gran Torino - Last year, Eastwood released two films, the much maligned Flags of Our Fathers and the much better received Letters from Iwo Jima. I saw the latter and thought it was okay. This year Eastwood released the much "blahed" Changeling and soon this film. Oh and I didn't see any other film that looks to be released this year that had any real interest for me.
I should say this list is of future releases and I am definitely interested in seeing several films that have already been released that have yet to come to this area.
And I can only assume a series of seemingly random yet wacky events will occur in the next few weeks which will prevent me from accomplishing my goal. You know because Fate can be a bastard that way. Although I am somewhat looking forward to a period in my life that eerily resembles a sitcom. For the record: Synecdoche, New York? Seen it five times now. Is it that good? to me? Yes.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Running Tally - Part 11
November was kind of a crummy month in general but in terms of movie seeing, it was pretty productive. I added 9 to the tally which brings me just 6 short of my goal with a mere 31 days left. I just have to find six mildly interesting films between now and New Years and I will never have to strive to see 100 movies in a year again. Overall it has been good for the movies. Even the films I didn't like were still pretty damn good. Only two films were outright disasters in my opinion. And in addition, and renewing my sapped strength was the best film of the year, the odd yet powerful Synecdoche, New York. I rambled in my praise but let me just say I saw it four times in as many days. And I'll see it at least once more before year's end no doubt. Let's take a look at November in the movies:
Rachel Getting Married - despite some powerful performances I was underwhelmed by this film. It could have risen above and beyond. I was also a bit exhausted by the long and unnecessary love fest moments.
RocknRolla - Not as fresh as his first brit gangster films and in fact highly derivative but nevertheless there was a certain amount of charm and likability to the film. Diverting if nothing else.
Zack and Miri Make a Porno - at times really funny, at times a little to explicitly gross for me. Overall a charming film in the Judd Apatow new style of gross out comedy/sweet romance.
What Just Happened - disaster of a parody of a Hollywood producer played by DeNiro. Though slightly refreshing to have him not play a tough guy, the film just failed to deliver anything interesting.
Quantum of Solace - Jason Bourne should be Jason Borne and James Bond should be James Bond. I didn't think that after Casino Royale but after this mess I think the new direction might be a mistake. Maybe its just not being done well. CGI was laughable, laughable.
Transporter 3 - admittedly a guilty pleasure, not a good film by any stretch of the imagination.
JCVD - not a great film by any means but definitely had its odd moments. Somewhat intriguing self reflection by an aging b movie action star.
Happy Go Lucky - (review forthcoming) still haven't decided on this one, may need to rewatch.
Synecdoche, New York - how many ways can I say best film I've seen all year? Late in the movie a man playing a priest at a funeral gives a monolog that floors me every time.
That is the movie in capsule. The scene is cathartic. That scene makes a pretty great movie a unbelievable movie.
And so November ends pretty good. But what you really all came to see. Meaningless statistics.
Films Remaining: 6
Days Remaining (As of December 1): 31
Average Number of Films per Day to achieve goal: 0.19
Average Number of Films per Week to Achieve Goal: 1.2
Rachel Getting Married - despite some powerful performances I was underwhelmed by this film. It could have risen above and beyond. I was also a bit exhausted by the long and unnecessary love fest moments.
RocknRolla - Not as fresh as his first brit gangster films and in fact highly derivative but nevertheless there was a certain amount of charm and likability to the film. Diverting if nothing else.
Zack and Miri Make a Porno - at times really funny, at times a little to explicitly gross for me. Overall a charming film in the Judd Apatow new style of gross out comedy/sweet romance.
What Just Happened - disaster of a parody of a Hollywood producer played by DeNiro. Though slightly refreshing to have him not play a tough guy, the film just failed to deliver anything interesting.
Quantum of Solace - Jason Bourne should be Jason Borne and James Bond should be James Bond. I didn't think that after Casino Royale but after this mess I think the new direction might be a mistake. Maybe its just not being done well. CGI was laughable, laughable.
Transporter 3 - admittedly a guilty pleasure, not a good film by any stretch of the imagination.
JCVD - not a great film by any means but definitely had its odd moments. Somewhat intriguing self reflection by an aging b movie action star.
Happy Go Lucky - (review forthcoming) still haven't decided on this one, may need to rewatch.
Synecdoche, New York - how many ways can I say best film I've seen all year? Late in the movie a man playing a priest at a funeral gives a monolog that floors me every time.
"Everything is more complicated than you think. You only see a tenth of what is true. There are a million little strings attached to every choice you make. You can destroy your life every time you choose. But maybe you won't know for twenty years! And you may never ever trace it to its source. And you only get one chance to play it out. Just try and figure out your own divorce...
And they say there's no fate, but there is, it's what you create. And even though the world goes on for eons and eons, you are only here for a fraction of a fraction of a second. Most of your time is spent being dead, or not yet born. But while alive, you wait in vain wasting years for a phone call or a letter or a look from someone or something to make it all right, but it never comes. Or it seems to, but it doesn't really.
So you spend you time in vague regret or vaguer hope that something good will come along, something to make you feel connected, something to make you feel cherished, something to make you feel loved. And the truth is is, I feel so angry! And the truth is, I feel so fucking sad! And the truth is, I've felt so fucking hurt for so fucking long and for just as long, I've been pretending I'm okay, just to get along!
I don't know why. Maybe because...no one wants to hear about my misery...because they have their own. Well, fuck everybody. Amen."
That is the movie in capsule. The scene is cathartic. That scene makes a pretty great movie a unbelievable movie.
And so November ends pretty good. But what you really all came to see. Meaningless statistics.
Films Remaining: 6
Days Remaining (As of December 1): 31
Average Number of Films per Day to achieve goal: 0.19
Average Number of Films per Week to Achieve Goal: 1.2
Saturday, November 29, 2008
JCVD
The shear number of Jean Claude Van Damme movies I saw in my formative years is in retrospect embarrassing. Not just that I watched them (some more than once) but that I can vividly recall details from them. I'm just as guilty of watching far too many Steven Segal movies. But in my defense when you're a kid, there really isn't much better than shooting guns and beating people up. Now that is/was entertainment. I think my tastes have become more refined in the interim. Although as one can see I occasionally just enjoy a mindless fun action film. So a strange curiosity rolled up on me when I heard of the film JCVD. And a handful of at least mildly positive reviews encouraged this curiosity.
JCVD is a fiction film about Jean Claude Van Damme. Aging, not getting as many choice roles anymore, struggling for custody of his daughter, Van Damme returns to his native Belgium and soon finds himself in a bank robbery and hostage crisis. I won't say much more than that regarding the plot because there are some spoilers if I do, not that the turns of this film are not fairly obvious from the beginning. Still a great deal of the film cuts back and forth between the present and recent past showing how he would up in a post office/bank.
It isn't a great film by any means. Even when its acknowledging Hollywood action movies it also tends to mimic them verbatim. If you watch the movie and are surprised by anything I'll be shocked. But what is for the most part enjoyable and interesting, is Van Damme's introspective portrayal of himself. Sure he may not seem like the most fascinating actor to get this treatment but in reality a B movie actor who never gained the superstardom he sought and except as a joke doesn't have much of a real fan following either, its quite interesting and I sort of enjoyed the ride.
JCVD is a fiction film about Jean Claude Van Damme. Aging, not getting as many choice roles anymore, struggling for custody of his daughter, Van Damme returns to his native Belgium and soon finds himself in a bank robbery and hostage crisis. I won't say much more than that regarding the plot because there are some spoilers if I do, not that the turns of this film are not fairly obvious from the beginning. Still a great deal of the film cuts back and forth between the present and recent past showing how he would up in a post office/bank.
It isn't a great film by any means. Even when its acknowledging Hollywood action movies it also tends to mimic them verbatim. If you watch the movie and are surprised by anything I'll be shocked. But what is for the most part enjoyable and interesting, is Van Damme's introspective portrayal of himself. Sure he may not seem like the most fascinating actor to get this treatment but in reality a B movie actor who never gained the superstardom he sought and except as a joke doesn't have much of a real fan following either, its quite interesting and I sort of enjoyed the ride.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Transporter 3
I really like Jason Statham as an actor. He had great performances in Guy Ritchie's first two films, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch. I suspect he is a quite limited actor, however, and so I understand why he has preferred the action movie hero role as his predominant casting rubric. Truth be told he actually makes a pretty good action hero. He's largely taciturn but when he does speak he has that gruff, no nonsense voice. He can be a killer but emotes just enough that you know he's the good guy who deep down has the heart of gold. Even though he's been in a lot of terrible action films over the years, he always manages to be a redeeming quality.
The Transporter film series is admittedly pretty formulaic. Its whole raison d'etre is car chases, gun battles and martial arts. And the third installment just takes the tried and true formula and adds an admittedly shallow trick to it, so the adrenaline keeps flowing. Statham is Frank Martin, a former US special forces soldier and wheel man extraordinaire. He's forced into a job in which he must delivery a package to a specified location and if he goes more than 75 feet from the car, he blows up. This causes some outrageously absurd moments in the film but that's par for the course in action films any more.
It isn't a great action film but it delivers the goods in a satisfactory way. Yes, the acting and dialog are atrocious (save a certain exception, which I will mention later on). Yes the plot is overly convoluted and in fact the main villain even points this out at one point. But no one came to this film for good acting, dialog and intricately well thought out plots. We came to see a guy drive fast and take on hordes of the enemy in elaborate choreographed martial arts stunts. And you know what? The movie delivers.
The fight scenes are really fun to watch. Not the least of which is because I can actually follow what is happening. The director doesn't cut every .012 seconds during the action so that I have no idea what is happening. You can see the kicks, the punches, the elaborate and ludicrous use of Statham's wardrobe as weapons. Sure the chase sequences aren't great but the effective car chase sequence is a Holy Grail of action films and very hard to pull off or even to explain why the best ones are so effective. I also enjoy the 20 to 1 odds that Statham often faces. Yes, its over the top but its satisfying to watch.
I mentioned above that some of the acting and dialog wasn't completely awful. This is thanks to French actor Francois Berleand. He plays Inspector Tarconi a police investigator who is friend's with Martin despite the fact that one is criminal and one is police. He's been in every episode of this trilogy and has been memorable in each. He plays such a laid back bon vivant that I can't help but smile. A number of his conversations with Frank are amusing and give you the sense that these two are age old friends.
You know very well whether you are likely to enjoy Transporter 3 based on whether 1) in general you enjoy action films (even not so great ones) or 2) you enjoyed even remotely any of the previous two films. I for one was glad for the fun.
The Transporter film series is admittedly pretty formulaic. Its whole raison d'etre is car chases, gun battles and martial arts. And the third installment just takes the tried and true formula and adds an admittedly shallow trick to it, so the adrenaline keeps flowing. Statham is Frank Martin, a former US special forces soldier and wheel man extraordinaire. He's forced into a job in which he must delivery a package to a specified location and if he goes more than 75 feet from the car, he blows up. This causes some outrageously absurd moments in the film but that's par for the course in action films any more.
It isn't a great action film but it delivers the goods in a satisfactory way. Yes, the acting and dialog are atrocious (save a certain exception, which I will mention later on). Yes the plot is overly convoluted and in fact the main villain even points this out at one point. But no one came to this film for good acting, dialog and intricately well thought out plots. We came to see a guy drive fast and take on hordes of the enemy in elaborate choreographed martial arts stunts. And you know what? The movie delivers.
The fight scenes are really fun to watch. Not the least of which is because I can actually follow what is happening. The director doesn't cut every .012 seconds during the action so that I have no idea what is happening. You can see the kicks, the punches, the elaborate and ludicrous use of Statham's wardrobe as weapons. Sure the chase sequences aren't great but the effective car chase sequence is a Holy Grail of action films and very hard to pull off or even to explain why the best ones are so effective. I also enjoy the 20 to 1 odds that Statham often faces. Yes, its over the top but its satisfying to watch.
I mentioned above that some of the acting and dialog wasn't completely awful. This is thanks to French actor Francois Berleand. He plays Inspector Tarconi a police investigator who is friend's with Martin despite the fact that one is criminal and one is police. He's been in every episode of this trilogy and has been memorable in each. He plays such a laid back bon vivant that I can't help but smile. A number of his conversations with Frank are amusing and give you the sense that these two are age old friends.
You know very well whether you are likely to enjoy Transporter 3 based on whether 1) in general you enjoy action films (even not so great ones) or 2) you enjoyed even remotely any of the previous two films. I for one was glad for the fun.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Hallelujah!!
Charlie Kaufman, I'm pretty sure is getting more and more insane with each new work. And with each new work I am more and more impressed. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was very well written (even if I didn't think the film as a whole was great), Adaptation was one of the best pieces of evidence of what a good writer can do and now Synechdoche, New York which also marks the directorial debut of Mr. Kaufman. I cannot even begin to explain the plot. And perhaps it is best to do as fellow movie snob CinemaRomantico suggested and just say see it.
The difference here? I do absolutely think it is the best movie of the year. Sure that is a personal opinion. And not likely one to be shared. To be sure its semi-incoherent but I settled in half way through and smiled and hoped I would have a cinematic experience this year like I did several times last year. And now I can finally said I did. I'm seeing it again. No question. It will happen. And in my struggles of life, its like a bright message sent from above that the best movie I've seen this year falls almost a year to the day after I saw the best movie of 2007, No Country For Old Men.
I don't want to suggest that this film is anything like the Coen brothers masterpiece. I want to assure you it isn't like anything you've ever seen at all. I just know that I walked out with such a deep level of satisfaction that not one of life's problems that constantly assault us mattered for a few precious hours. This was movie 91 for the year and a small part of me wishes it had been number 100 just to end my going on 4 year dream with a bang. This is why I see movies. I'm lucky if I see one or two movies a year that make me feel this good.
Oh and you know what else? I swear this happened, I could't make this up. What should show up in my email inbox at virtually the precise moment the film ended? An email from a local cinema that has answered my request and the request of people like me to start hosting classic films on an ongoing basis. Durham being a bit underwhelming on the revival bandwagon unless you count bad 80s horror films. And now the endless possibilities of what I could see on the big screen lie before me! Do you understand the potential in all this?
I might literally die of happiness if I got to see Seventh Seal on the big screen. (to say the previous sentence is macabre given the subject matter of the film is like saying Titanic is about a sinking boat, but as it is my second favorite movie of all time, it must be said) It's freaking Christmas! people! See Synechdoche, New York, like CinemaRomantico, this is not a request, its a command. You'll probably hate it or call it pretentious, or say dude it was good but not that good. And I'll stare at you like you're some sort of alien. In fact, sorry to cut this rambling short, but I'm going back tonight. It has to be done.
The difference here? I do absolutely think it is the best movie of the year. Sure that is a personal opinion. And not likely one to be shared. To be sure its semi-incoherent but I settled in half way through and smiled and hoped I would have a cinematic experience this year like I did several times last year. And now I can finally said I did. I'm seeing it again. No question. It will happen. And in my struggles of life, its like a bright message sent from above that the best movie I've seen this year falls almost a year to the day after I saw the best movie of 2007, No Country For Old Men.
I don't want to suggest that this film is anything like the Coen brothers masterpiece. I want to assure you it isn't like anything you've ever seen at all. I just know that I walked out with such a deep level of satisfaction that not one of life's problems that constantly assault us mattered for a few precious hours. This was movie 91 for the year and a small part of me wishes it had been number 100 just to end my going on 4 year dream with a bang. This is why I see movies. I'm lucky if I see one or two movies a year that make me feel this good.
Oh and you know what else? I swear this happened, I could't make this up. What should show up in my email inbox at virtually the precise moment the film ended? An email from a local cinema that has answered my request and the request of people like me to start hosting classic films on an ongoing basis. Durham being a bit underwhelming on the revival bandwagon unless you count bad 80s horror films. And now the endless possibilities of what I could see on the big screen lie before me! Do you understand the potential in all this?
I might literally die of happiness if I got to see Seventh Seal on the big screen. (to say the previous sentence is macabre given the subject matter of the film is like saying Titanic is about a sinking boat, but as it is my second favorite movie of all time, it must be said) It's freaking Christmas! people! See Synechdoche, New York, like CinemaRomantico, this is not a request, its a command. You'll probably hate it or call it pretentious, or say dude it was good but not that good. And I'll stare at you like you're some sort of alien. In fact, sorry to cut this rambling short, but I'm going back tonight. It has to be done.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Quantum of Solace
Picking up shortly after the end of Casino Royale, we find James Bond (Daniel Craig) being chased by some bad guys. He eventually eludes them and brings a man in for questioning about a mysterious group called Quantum. A seemingly omnipresent international cabal with its hands in everything. Bond is a man on a mission to uncover this secret group which was partly responsible for the death of Vesper (Eva Green) from the last film. Bond is quickly in the thick of it all and has M (Judi Dench) thinking he is driven by revenge rather than duty. Quickly we are introduced to our villain Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) and another player Camille (Olga Kurylenko).
Don't worry if that didn't make much sense as the plot is the least of the problems of this film. I've read a number of "readings" of James Bond recently. Some advocating a return to the more campy cool, non brooding fight conglomerate enemies of the Spectra variety. Others approving of the new direction of a brooding Bond who fights more relevant 20th century problems. I'm not sure I care who is right and I enjoyed reasonably well Casino Royale but the creative juices behind this film don't seem to know which way to go either. Yes, Bond is brooding but he's fighting a multinational cabal of baddies known as Quantum whose goals aim more towards making lots of money rather than world domination.
The cutesiness of not having signature lines uttered continues in this film right down to an agonizing bit of dialog where a bartender describes all the contents of the martini that Bond is drinking but never says martini. Why? Who thought that was clever? Of course I felt a bit of queasiness in my stomach when I saw Paul Haggis' name flash on the screen with a writing credit. He's not exactly known for his subtlety from what I have seen and the script is no exception. But no one comes to a Bond movie for writing right? Probably a fair point but I'm not asking for it to win a screenwriting award, just not to be heavy handed and not bore me to the point of wishing I had just stayed home and stared at the wall for 2 hours.
Then there is Marc Forster and his seemingly lack of knowing what to do in an action sequence. The only thing that was boring me more than most of the narrative was most of the action sequences. Their rushed, lack tension and generally stirred no emotion beyond "meh" in me. They were also largely filled with what was either really poorly done green screening or even more poorly done actually stunts. Forster should probably stick to the films that don't require action sequences.
Daniel Craig is good with what he has (read: not much) and certainly has an intensity that is nice. Mathieu Amalric (who starred in one of my favorite movies of last year, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) does what he can with the regrettably one dimensional role he's been given as representative Bond villain. Then there is the beauty Olga Kurylenko who in every film I have seen her in has been treated by the men as some sort of mediocre woman judging by the complete lack of passion they have for her.
To be sure I was a supporter, avidly, of the new Bond (if you're curious here is my review short and sweet.) But upon reflection and given the direction this film took, I really miss the old Bond. We've got Jason Bourne for no non-sense no emotion spy action. Do we really want Bond as the British Bourne? If they keep going this way that is all he will be. And since the Bourne movies do Bourne better than the Bond movies, why would I continue to watch Daniel Craig? I'm not saying per se we should go back to the cold war era Bond but put a little bit more fun back in the film. Oh and give the directing reins to someone who at least knows his or her way around an action sequence.
P.S. if you're going to have a beautiful woman like Olga Kurylenko in your movie at least have Bond sleep with her. What's the world coming to?
Don't worry if that didn't make much sense as the plot is the least of the problems of this film. I've read a number of "readings" of James Bond recently. Some advocating a return to the more campy cool, non brooding fight conglomerate enemies of the Spectra variety. Others approving of the new direction of a brooding Bond who fights more relevant 20th century problems. I'm not sure I care who is right and I enjoyed reasonably well Casino Royale but the creative juices behind this film don't seem to know which way to go either. Yes, Bond is brooding but he's fighting a multinational cabal of baddies known as Quantum whose goals aim more towards making lots of money rather than world domination.
The cutesiness of not having signature lines uttered continues in this film right down to an agonizing bit of dialog where a bartender describes all the contents of the martini that Bond is drinking but never says martini. Why? Who thought that was clever? Of course I felt a bit of queasiness in my stomach when I saw Paul Haggis' name flash on the screen with a writing credit. He's not exactly known for his subtlety from what I have seen and the script is no exception. But no one comes to a Bond movie for writing right? Probably a fair point but I'm not asking for it to win a screenwriting award, just not to be heavy handed and not bore me to the point of wishing I had just stayed home and stared at the wall for 2 hours.
Then there is Marc Forster and his seemingly lack of knowing what to do in an action sequence. The only thing that was boring me more than most of the narrative was most of the action sequences. Their rushed, lack tension and generally stirred no emotion beyond "meh" in me. They were also largely filled with what was either really poorly done green screening or even more poorly done actually stunts. Forster should probably stick to the films that don't require action sequences.
Daniel Craig is good with what he has (read: not much) and certainly has an intensity that is nice. Mathieu Amalric (who starred in one of my favorite movies of last year, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) does what he can with the regrettably one dimensional role he's been given as representative Bond villain. Then there is the beauty Olga Kurylenko who in every film I have seen her in has been treated by the men as some sort of mediocre woman judging by the complete lack of passion they have for her.
To be sure I was a supporter, avidly, of the new Bond (if you're curious here is my review short and sweet.) But upon reflection and given the direction this film took, I really miss the old Bond. We've got Jason Bourne for no non-sense no emotion spy action. Do we really want Bond as the British Bourne? If they keep going this way that is all he will be. And since the Bourne movies do Bourne better than the Bond movies, why would I continue to watch Daniel Craig? I'm not saying per se we should go back to the cold war era Bond but put a little bit more fun back in the film. Oh and give the directing reins to someone who at least knows his or her way around an action sequence.
P.S. if you're going to have a beautiful woman like Olga Kurylenko in your movie at least have Bond sleep with her. What's the world coming to?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Trying to stay calm
I'm really not trying to put the cart before the horse here but a moment of perspective is needed. Back in 2006 when I started keeping a running tally of the movie I saw and the first year I actually attempted to complete the 100 movies in a year goal, I managed 85 movies. Last year, 2007 I tweaked that up 88. As of last night I watched film number 89 for the year 2008. Unfortunately to see even close to a hundred movies in a year it requires one to see a lot of crap (if you live in a down such as I do where you take what they give in terms of indie or foreign fare. So 11 films left and I can finally retire this really sad goal.
What Just Happened
Ben (Robert DeNiro) is one of Hollywood's 30 most powerful producers (so he tells us personally) and the movie starts with him at a test screening of a new film by a British director called "Fiercely". The audience does not react well to the film and the ending has a shocking thing that disturbs most of the audience. This causes huge problems for tough minded studio head Lou (Catherine Keener). Ben must juggle the director, Lou as well as another project starring Bruce Willis. Willis has showed up on set with a shaggy beard and 30 pounds of extra weight. This is a problem for the studio. In addition to his work woes, Ben is dealing with two ex-wives and children as well as other aspects of his personal life.
If the goal of this film is to dismiss the glorious mythos of Hollywood, then it succeeds. Ben and his problems throughout the movie are as mundane and boring as it gets. As he drives from one place to another constantly with a blue tooth headphone in his ear, talking quickly and smoothing over problems. The life of a Hollywood producer couldn't possibly be more monotonous and boring. Even when he's having obscenities hurled at him by an actor the level of excitement never really rises. Which is kind of odd because you would expect it too.
I can't be entirely sure that the goal is to dismiss the mythos of Hollywood. It may in fact be that this movie is so poorly constructed that it just makes you bored. As we get this insider look (which has been better done via parody) we also get a glimpse of Ben's private life. And I say glimpse because its always quick and not very well fleshed out. Again perhaps because his life is consumed with his job but there is an entire sub sub plot with one of his daughter's that makes less than zero sense and has no satisfactory conclusion.
DeNiro is blissfully underplayed. No over the top bad ass here. In fact he's about as weak kneed and spineless as you might expect of a Hollywood producer. Not to demean producers but life has to suck pretty bad when you are basically being manhandled on a daily basis by studio heads and prima donna actors. The only one in the movie who shows any emotion is Bruce Willis playing himself and even his outbursts seem stilted and unconvincing.
The film is boring and low key and honestly upon consideration I'm amazed I sat through the entire thing. Which is really to bad because DeNiro and director Barry Levinson gave quite an entertaining film in Wag the Dog eleven years ago.
If the goal of this film is to dismiss the glorious mythos of Hollywood, then it succeeds. Ben and his problems throughout the movie are as mundane and boring as it gets. As he drives from one place to another constantly with a blue tooth headphone in his ear, talking quickly and smoothing over problems. The life of a Hollywood producer couldn't possibly be more monotonous and boring. Even when he's having obscenities hurled at him by an actor the level of excitement never really rises. Which is kind of odd because you would expect it too.
I can't be entirely sure that the goal is to dismiss the mythos of Hollywood. It may in fact be that this movie is so poorly constructed that it just makes you bored. As we get this insider look (which has been better done via parody) we also get a glimpse of Ben's private life. And I say glimpse because its always quick and not very well fleshed out. Again perhaps because his life is consumed with his job but there is an entire sub sub plot with one of his daughter's that makes less than zero sense and has no satisfactory conclusion.
DeNiro is blissfully underplayed. No over the top bad ass here. In fact he's about as weak kneed and spineless as you might expect of a Hollywood producer. Not to demean producers but life has to suck pretty bad when you are basically being manhandled on a daily basis by studio heads and prima donna actors. The only one in the movie who shows any emotion is Bruce Willis playing himself and even his outbursts seem stilted and unconvincing.
The film is boring and low key and honestly upon consideration I'm amazed I sat through the entire thing. Which is really to bad because DeNiro and director Barry Levinson gave quite an entertaining film in Wag the Dog eleven years ago.
Zack and Miri Make A Porno
Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks) have been friends for a long time. They now live from paycheck to paycheck together in a small apartment in Monroeville, PA. Financially irresponsible they have their power and water turned off on the same day. They have recently attended their ten year high school reunion and there met a gay porn star. This gives Zack the idea that they should make an amateur porn movie starring themselves and a cadre of local strippers and enthusiastic actors.
If ever there was a movie with multiple personality disorder it is this one. There is no doubt that you are watching a Kevin Smith movie because large segments of the film are raunchy. Swearing, sex and one bit of scatological joke that could have gone unseen by me. It also happens to have a rather sweet side to it. The sincere connection between Zack and Miri is in classic romantic comedy style and has classic rom-com plot development. Rogen is of course always a good choice for that lovable loser role and Banks despite her beauty pulls off a very cool, normal woman vibe (i.e. you could believe she would fall for a lovable loser like Zack).
Smith's previous attempt at sentimentality (Jersey Girl) fell to far into the sappy mode. I think Smith has missed his mark here again by relying a bit too much on his trade mark crudeness. Which isn't to say I didn't enjoy the film. Which I sort of did. The crude parts made me laugh on more than one occasion and the sweet romance was endearing. The problem was the two don't really fit together very well. And yes I do think there is a composition that works (e.g. 40 Year Old Virgin). Clearly there is some drive by Smith to find the perfect mix and he does seem to be getting closer and perhaps his next attempt will succeed (sadly he'll probably return to a Mallrats 2 in the interim).
If I seem indifferent or confused on the film, I think it wholly a result of the fact that the film falls short of the sum of its parts. There is also a small part starring the current Superman and fellow Iowa native Brandon Routh. He plays a former classmate of Zack and Miri who is now involved with Justin Long's gay pornstar. Basically these scenes involve Long being flamboyant and crude while Routh tries to keep from laughing. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking the movie, I just felt like mentioning it. In the end it was okay.
If ever there was a movie with multiple personality disorder it is this one. There is no doubt that you are watching a Kevin Smith movie because large segments of the film are raunchy. Swearing, sex and one bit of scatological joke that could have gone unseen by me. It also happens to have a rather sweet side to it. The sincere connection between Zack and Miri is in classic romantic comedy style and has classic rom-com plot development. Rogen is of course always a good choice for that lovable loser role and Banks despite her beauty pulls off a very cool, normal woman vibe (i.e. you could believe she would fall for a lovable loser like Zack).
Smith's previous attempt at sentimentality (Jersey Girl) fell to far into the sappy mode. I think Smith has missed his mark here again by relying a bit too much on his trade mark crudeness. Which isn't to say I didn't enjoy the film. Which I sort of did. The crude parts made me laugh on more than one occasion and the sweet romance was endearing. The problem was the two don't really fit together very well. And yes I do think there is a composition that works (e.g. 40 Year Old Virgin). Clearly there is some drive by Smith to find the perfect mix and he does seem to be getting closer and perhaps his next attempt will succeed (sadly he'll probably return to a Mallrats 2 in the interim).
If I seem indifferent or confused on the film, I think it wholly a result of the fact that the film falls short of the sum of its parts. There is also a small part starring the current Superman and fellow Iowa native Brandon Routh. He plays a former classmate of Zack and Miri who is now involved with Justin Long's gay pornstar. Basically these scenes involve Long being flamboyant and crude while Routh tries to keep from laughing. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking the movie, I just felt like mentioning it. In the end it was okay.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist
As per Cinema Romantico's request, I'll try to elucidate my hatred of the recent film Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist. This may prove difficult since it has been some time since I saw it, I found 90% of the film painful beyond reckoning, and as a result I went to another movie that night just to wash the memory from my mind (it was only partially successful). Despite the titular heroes sharing the names of two great bantering movie icons (Nick (William Powell) and Nora (Myrna Loy) of The Thin Man) quick witted and interesting characters they are not.
Plot synopsis vaguely: Nick has been dumped by Tris (Alexis Dziena) and hasn't gotten over her and leaves her mixed CDs. Typically Nora gets these after digging them from the trash and really likes his taste. Coincidence causes the two of them to wind up at a night club together and various other coincidences cause them to spend the night roaming New York City trying to find some band that performs live shows in clandestine locations. In typical rom com style they disagree and agree and show interest in one another and then not and then blah blah blah. Who the hell cares.
Issue 1: The infinite play list is filled with songs and bands that I only assume are hip and hopping right now among today's youth but its all just noise to me and rather wretched noise for the most part. Despite all evidence to the contrary I am not an 80 year old man (well maybe in spirit). Maybe someone else will enjoy the music.
Issue 2: Why at any moment am I to believe these two are interested in each other? Beyond liking the same music (which they barely establish) and a few far too short moments where the two characters actually converse with one another, I never found one thing that helped explain what they saw in each other. And clearly the filmmakers were aiming from some spiritual connection motif not just lust. So what the hell gives?
Issue 3: It wasn't the Thin Man (or even had dialog that would make the Thin Man proud). At the production stage someone should have insisted on character name change. Oh you know what movie it also isn't? Although its certainly aiming to be in some ways? Before Sunrise. Yeah See in that film we got long conversations between the two characters and low and behold we had a reason to believe they would spend a night talking and arrange to meet at some future point. If they had cut out half the crappy music and drunk girl subplot and had actual genuine moments of conversation between Nick and Nora, this film might have actually had some redeemable quality.
Now lets end on a happier note:
Reporter: Say listen, is he working on a case?
Nora Charles: Yes, he is.
Reporter: What case?
Nora Charles: A case of scotch. Pitch in and help him.
Plot synopsis vaguely: Nick has been dumped by Tris (Alexis Dziena) and hasn't gotten over her and leaves her mixed CDs. Typically Nora gets these after digging them from the trash and really likes his taste. Coincidence causes the two of them to wind up at a night club together and various other coincidences cause them to spend the night roaming New York City trying to find some band that performs live shows in clandestine locations. In typical rom com style they disagree and agree and show interest in one another and then not and then blah blah blah. Who the hell cares.
Issue 1: The infinite play list is filled with songs and bands that I only assume are hip and hopping right now among today's youth but its all just noise to me and rather wretched noise for the most part. Despite all evidence to the contrary I am not an 80 year old man (well maybe in spirit). Maybe someone else will enjoy the music.
Issue 2: Why at any moment am I to believe these two are interested in each other? Beyond liking the same music (which they barely establish) and a few far too short moments where the two characters actually converse with one another, I never found one thing that helped explain what they saw in each other. And clearly the filmmakers were aiming from some spiritual connection motif not just lust. So what the hell gives?
Issue 3: It wasn't the Thin Man (or even had dialog that would make the Thin Man proud). At the production stage someone should have insisted on character name change. Oh you know what movie it also isn't? Although its certainly aiming to be in some ways? Before Sunrise. Yeah See in that film we got long conversations between the two characters and low and behold we had a reason to believe they would spend a night talking and arrange to meet at some future point. If they had cut out half the crappy music and drunk girl subplot and had actual genuine moments of conversation between Nick and Nora, this film might have actually had some redeemable quality.
Now lets end on a happier note:
Reporter: Say listen, is he working on a case?
Nora Charles: Yes, he is.
Reporter: What case?
Nora Charles: A case of scotch. Pitch in and help him.
RocknRolla
Guy Ritchie has had a bizarre career in directing. His first film Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels still stands as his best entry in the world of film. It was funny, slick and had twists and turns that kept it all going. His follow up Snatch was also clever and fun but not quite as clever and fun as his first film. I never saw what by most accounts were disasters Swept Away and Revolver. So what caused his percipitous drop in quality of film making? Was is his now defunct marriage to Madonna? Time will only tell.
Out front I'll admit I liked RocknRolla. No, its not a great film and it falls as short or shorter of Snatch than Snatch did of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. But still it had a certain amount of charm tied up in it. The plot within plots story line that Ritchie favors is getting a bit limp but enjoyable performances from the likes of Tom Wilkinson and Gerard Butler carry the film through and as a gigantic fan of The Wire, I couldn't help but be happy to see Idris Elba (Stringer Bell for those not in the know).
Ritchie might seriously consider moving away from the British gangster genre. Even at his best he falls short of some of the best the genre has ever offered. And you can see the legacy of such films in Ritchie's work. I felt more than once like I was watching a bit of a poor man's Long Good Friday and lets face it Long Good Friday in my opinion is about as good as it gets in British gangster films. Typically when one mentions all the actors seem to be having a good time and so you have a good time watching, I protest. But here I must admit I was smiling more than I thought I should be and burst into laughter a few times as well.
I can't say I'd see it again or buy it on dvd but I was glad I saw it. Now excuse me why I go re-watch Long Good Friday and you should go re-watch it as well. (Allow me to pray for your soul if you haven't seen it.)
Out front I'll admit I liked RocknRolla. No, its not a great film and it falls as short or shorter of Snatch than Snatch did of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. But still it had a certain amount of charm tied up in it. The plot within plots story line that Ritchie favors is getting a bit limp but enjoyable performances from the likes of Tom Wilkinson and Gerard Butler carry the film through and as a gigantic fan of The Wire, I couldn't help but be happy to see Idris Elba (Stringer Bell for those not in the know).
Ritchie might seriously consider moving away from the British gangster genre. Even at his best he falls short of some of the best the genre has ever offered. And you can see the legacy of such films in Ritchie's work. I felt more than once like I was watching a bit of a poor man's Long Good Friday and lets face it Long Good Friday in my opinion is about as good as it gets in British gangster films. Typically when one mentions all the actors seem to be having a good time and so you have a good time watching, I protest. But here I must admit I was smiling more than I thought I should be and burst into laughter a few times as well.
I can't say I'd see it again or buy it on dvd but I was glad I saw it. Now excuse me why I go re-watch Long Good Friday and you should go re-watch it as well. (Allow me to pray for your soul if you haven't seen it.)
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Rachel Getting Married
If, as my friend and fellow blogger CinemaRomantico says, Rachel Getting Married is the best film of the year then that is a really sad statement of films this year. It's not a bad film, it just isn't a great film or even a really good film. Its basically an okay film that gets elevated above its mediocrity by the lackluster year we've had and some strong performances.
The film takes place over a weekend as Rachel (Rosemarie Dewitt) is getting married. Her sister Kym (Anne Hathaway) is released from rehab for the occasion and all the issues of her life are coming with her. The fact that the whole wedding weekend is seemingly one giant love fest of multiculturalism save for occasional flare ups by Kym exposing the family drama is just a little too saccharine sweet for me. Tie that in with the wobbly hand held camera that films most of the action and I was queasy for a considerable part of the film.
For the love of all that is just set the camera down! I don't care if the point is to give a documentary feel or to make you feel as if you are in the house (I doubt the latter since last I checked my vision didn't rock softly like a boat in choppy water when I participate in activities (unless I've been drinking)). The film is at its most annoying when overwhelming me with happy, happy speech or music number in the rehearsal dinner or the actual wedding. I'd have been so much happier if the film had been 20 minutes shorter and had just cut out a lot of these scenes of love (but I admit I'm cynical).
It is at its most compelling when it is exposing that in fact the family isn't so cutesy and straight-laced. Rachel and Kym's father tends to prioritize Kym. Their mother is distant and lacking affection. The family fights are really intriguing. Still even as they are compelling they also never rise above what we've seen before from this kind of film. Add in all the nauseating rocking camera and the paradisaical nature of the wedding and its all just too much for me.
I admit my cynicism may be influencing me here and it has fine elements (and Anne Hathaway could be nominated for her performance and I wouldn't gripe) but it just wasn't great.
The film takes place over a weekend as Rachel (Rosemarie Dewitt) is getting married. Her sister Kym (Anne Hathaway) is released from rehab for the occasion and all the issues of her life are coming with her. The fact that the whole wedding weekend is seemingly one giant love fest of multiculturalism save for occasional flare ups by Kym exposing the family drama is just a little too saccharine sweet for me. Tie that in with the wobbly hand held camera that films most of the action and I was queasy for a considerable part of the film.
For the love of all that is just set the camera down! I don't care if the point is to give a documentary feel or to make you feel as if you are in the house (I doubt the latter since last I checked my vision didn't rock softly like a boat in choppy water when I participate in activities (unless I've been drinking)). The film is at its most annoying when overwhelming me with happy, happy speech or music number in the rehearsal dinner or the actual wedding. I'd have been so much happier if the film had been 20 minutes shorter and had just cut out a lot of these scenes of love (but I admit I'm cynical).
It is at its most compelling when it is exposing that in fact the family isn't so cutesy and straight-laced. Rachel and Kym's father tends to prioritize Kym. Their mother is distant and lacking affection. The family fights are really intriguing. Still even as they are compelling they also never rise above what we've seen before from this kind of film. Add in all the nauseating rocking camera and the paradisaical nature of the wedding and its all just too much for me.
I admit my cynicism may be influencing me here and it has fine elements (and Anne Hathaway could be nominated for her performance and I wouldn't gripe) but it just wasn't great.
Running Tally - Part 10
Despite not really posting at all in the month of October, I did actually manage to see a few films. My lack of posting has probably thrilled more than few people who don't care for my opinions and my horrible grammar. Still partly because I had more pressing concerns and partly because I haven't seen anything that inspired me to write, I never wrote about the six movies I did manage to see (although I am always optimistic that I will return to make some banal comment on these films. Six is shy of the average I needed for the month to just pull off the 100 goal and this has me admittedly worried.
Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist - This movie was so bad and made me so angry that I immediately left the theater afterwards (yes I sat through the whole film) and went to another movie. A movie I admit I didn't pay to see.
Appaloosa - I really hoped this would redeem my movie going night. I was raised on Westerns and all I read said Harris desired to make an old school western. He failed. Miserably. At least 3:10 to Yuma which I also didn't like much was trying to be something interesting. This movie can't even do an homage right.
Moving Midway - All hail the year of the documentary. Okay so sure some of the documentaries I saw this year are not technically 2008 releases but who cares I have seen so many good documentaries this year. As a movie critic I'm not a big fan of Godfrey Cheshire (the director of the film) but as for storytelling he's amazing. The film incorporates the history of film, the history of his family and the history of a house and the South in such a unique and compelling way.
The Garden of Earthly Delights - The third film of Lech Majewski that was showcased and a very interesting love story. Again Majewski is clearly doing very interesting things with the camera and it doesn't look like his other two films which is more than can be said for many a director. Not great but compelling none the less.
W. - No compelling narrative and more like a series of snapshots of the life of our current president and nothing that isn't already known pretty well or completely made up. Maybe Bush isn't that interesting but if so why not use creative license to make him so.
A Girl Cut In Two - The whole film felt out of place and after the fact I read an article that said it was based on a real 19th century event and suddenly it was clear. Don't set a story in the modern age if you are beholden to 19th century themes and morals. When it wasn't confusing it was just unbelievable.
But what you all came here to see, meaningless statistics.
Films Remaining: 15
Days Remaining (As of November 1): 61
Average Number of Films per Day to achieve goal: 0.25
Average Number of Films per Week to Achieve Goal: 1.67
Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist - This movie was so bad and made me so angry that I immediately left the theater afterwards (yes I sat through the whole film) and went to another movie. A movie I admit I didn't pay to see.
Appaloosa - I really hoped this would redeem my movie going night. I was raised on Westerns and all I read said Harris desired to make an old school western. He failed. Miserably. At least 3:10 to Yuma which I also didn't like much was trying to be something interesting. This movie can't even do an homage right.
Moving Midway - All hail the year of the documentary. Okay so sure some of the documentaries I saw this year are not technically 2008 releases but who cares I have seen so many good documentaries this year. As a movie critic I'm not a big fan of Godfrey Cheshire (the director of the film) but as for storytelling he's amazing. The film incorporates the history of film, the history of his family and the history of a house and the South in such a unique and compelling way.
The Garden of Earthly Delights - The third film of Lech Majewski that was showcased and a very interesting love story. Again Majewski is clearly doing very interesting things with the camera and it doesn't look like his other two films which is more than can be said for many a director. Not great but compelling none the less.
W. - No compelling narrative and more like a series of snapshots of the life of our current president and nothing that isn't already known pretty well or completely made up. Maybe Bush isn't that interesting but if so why not use creative license to make him so.
A Girl Cut In Two - The whole film felt out of place and after the fact I read an article that said it was based on a real 19th century event and suddenly it was clear. Don't set a story in the modern age if you are beholden to 19th century themes and morals. When it wasn't confusing it was just unbelievable.
But what you all came here to see, meaningless statistics.
Films Remaining: 15
Days Remaining (As of November 1): 61
Average Number of Films per Day to achieve goal: 0.25
Average Number of Films per Week to Achieve Goal: 1.67
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Running Tally - Part 9
I know you fervent readers have been wondering where the tally for September was. Or you know the exact opposite of that. Well another month down and I saw a sufficient amount of movies to not feel worried about the goal. And the best part about it all was that most of the films I saw were free. Of course I've lacked any real inspiration as far as writing some reviews up but hopefully that changes soon for my own sake. So I added seven more to the tally this month. The end is in sight.
Redacted - It tries hard to be cutting edge and largely fails.
Angelus - Wonderfully shot and picturesque and quite amusing tale.
Clando - A convoluted mess of a film.
Edge of Heaven - well conceived and well acted film about Turkish men and women.
Wojaczek - Well done biopic.
Transsiberian - a mess of a thriller which didn't even make good use of its one compelling aspect (it takes place on a train in Siberia with no where to go)
Standard Operating Procedure (review forthcoming) - Wonderful documentary (this has been quite the year for me seeing documentaries).
I'm tempted to declare this the year of documentaries for me. Granted not all the documentaries I saw were releases of this year but still what I've seen in documentaries has been quite brilliant.
And now what you've all come to see, meaningless statistics.
Films Remaining: 21
Days Remaining (As of October 1): 92
Average Number of Films per Day to achieve goal: 0.23
Average Number of Films per Week to Achieve Goal: 1.50
Redacted - It tries hard to be cutting edge and largely fails.
Angelus - Wonderfully shot and picturesque and quite amusing tale.
Clando - A convoluted mess of a film.
Edge of Heaven - well conceived and well acted film about Turkish men and women.
Wojaczek - Well done biopic.
Transsiberian - a mess of a thriller which didn't even make good use of its one compelling aspect (it takes place on a train in Siberia with no where to go)
Standard Operating Procedure (review forthcoming) - Wonderful documentary (this has been quite the year for me seeing documentaries).
I'm tempted to declare this the year of documentaries for me. Granted not all the documentaries I saw were releases of this year but still what I've seen in documentaries has been quite brilliant.
And now what you've all come to see, meaningless statistics.
Films Remaining: 21
Days Remaining (As of October 1): 92
Average Number of Films per Day to achieve goal: 0.23
Average Number of Films per Week to Achieve Goal: 1.50
Wojaczek
I never quite realized how amazingly hard it is to write objectively about a film when the director is in attendance and afterwards takes questions. His or her answers will inevitably skew what you just saw. This conflicts me for two reasons. One, I desire at least one day to think about a movie before I talk about it. This often leads to frustrating questions from others mere minutes after the movie is over of "how was it?" or what'd you think?" This is a most frustrating question when one hasn't decided what one thinks. Or if I have decided but am not quite sure of why or wants to further reflect on it.
The second reason is that inevitably I will only be able to think about the film after the fact on the terms defined by the auteur. On one level I crave that sort of insider information which was going through the head of the director or writer. This is particularly fabulous when I see an image and say "wow" and then hear the film maker state the importance of that image. But at the same time I lose the ability to truly look past his intent and find something else.
Lech Majewski, who directed the wonderfully visual and entertaining story of Angelus was present at the viewing of his biopic about a Polish poet named Wojaczek. He is as you might expect of an artist at times charming, refreshing in his straight forwardness and with just a hint of the underlying temperamental nature (i.e. you have sense he can be a real asshole if he wants to be). He took a handful of generic questions formulated by film theorists more than film lovers and turned them into interesting answers about the nature of getting independent films made.
He talked of the power and beauty of paintings and how each viewing of a brilliant painting rewards countless new things. And it is clearly with this view that he approaches film making. In that regard he is amazing for trying experimental things and succeeding. He may not feel that the film is as amazing a medium as painting but I do. In fact I would take his view of paintings that each viewing reveals something new and argue that a truly great film can do the same thing. Granted a film takes more commitment and there are so many things to balance that more often than not a great film is not achieved.
But that isn't to say certain films do not achieve it. Some films are groundbreaking because they travel new paths, some are amazing because they do ever thing they are supposed to do to perfection. Some films I watch 25 times and find something new and fascinating in them ever time. Thin Red Line in my opinion is such a film as is Ingmar Bergman's Winter Light and I could name others. Regardless of that it was quite refreshing to hear Majewski speak about art and film and if for no other reason his films are worth watching because they don't just adhere to a formula and they aren't mindless popcorn drivel. They are trying to be art.
Majewski noted that Wojaczek was a mythic figure in his youth and that his poetry in Polish is so beautiful and almost entirely untranslatable. In a nice summation of the film, Majewski himself on the night I viewed the film said (and I'm paraphrasing): "I couldn't make his poetry a film, so I tried to make the film a poem."
Wojaczek was a bright young poet with some serious manic depressive symptoms. Fearless in life in a era and location that was practically immobilized by fear. The film follows him in his last days as he interacts with friends and strangers and leads a ultimately destructive lifestyle. Opening with startling imagery and affecting a mythic stature the film follows Wojaczek and often pauses for beautiful imagery.
In terms of its impression on me, I found Angelus a far more beautiful film with its explicit attempts to recreate painting in staged film settings. But that is not fair to the film at hand, since its objectives are clearly different. In as much as its stated goal was to create a mythic narrative, I think it succeeds (another viewer held a different opinion). Admittedly the translation was not great, nor were the subtitles always legible and I found this distracted me most often.
I guess in the end I'm mostly positive about the film although I didn't enjoy it as much as his other film. And as this wordy post suggests I was more struck by the nature of the director than the film. But I must admit the imagery of the final scene was as powerful as anything I've seen in a while.
The second reason is that inevitably I will only be able to think about the film after the fact on the terms defined by the auteur. On one level I crave that sort of insider information which was going through the head of the director or writer. This is particularly fabulous when I see an image and say "wow" and then hear the film maker state the importance of that image. But at the same time I lose the ability to truly look past his intent and find something else.
Lech Majewski, who directed the wonderfully visual and entertaining story of Angelus was present at the viewing of his biopic about a Polish poet named Wojaczek. He is as you might expect of an artist at times charming, refreshing in his straight forwardness and with just a hint of the underlying temperamental nature (i.e. you have sense he can be a real asshole if he wants to be). He took a handful of generic questions formulated by film theorists more than film lovers and turned them into interesting answers about the nature of getting independent films made.
He talked of the power and beauty of paintings and how each viewing of a brilliant painting rewards countless new things. And it is clearly with this view that he approaches film making. In that regard he is amazing for trying experimental things and succeeding. He may not feel that the film is as amazing a medium as painting but I do. In fact I would take his view of paintings that each viewing reveals something new and argue that a truly great film can do the same thing. Granted a film takes more commitment and there are so many things to balance that more often than not a great film is not achieved.
But that isn't to say certain films do not achieve it. Some films are groundbreaking because they travel new paths, some are amazing because they do ever thing they are supposed to do to perfection. Some films I watch 25 times and find something new and fascinating in them ever time. Thin Red Line in my opinion is such a film as is Ingmar Bergman's Winter Light and I could name others. Regardless of that it was quite refreshing to hear Majewski speak about art and film and if for no other reason his films are worth watching because they don't just adhere to a formula and they aren't mindless popcorn drivel. They are trying to be art.
Majewski noted that Wojaczek was a mythic figure in his youth and that his poetry in Polish is so beautiful and almost entirely untranslatable. In a nice summation of the film, Majewski himself on the night I viewed the film said (and I'm paraphrasing): "I couldn't make his poetry a film, so I tried to make the film a poem."
Wojaczek was a bright young poet with some serious manic depressive symptoms. Fearless in life in a era and location that was practically immobilized by fear. The film follows him in his last days as he interacts with friends and strangers and leads a ultimately destructive lifestyle. Opening with startling imagery and affecting a mythic stature the film follows Wojaczek and often pauses for beautiful imagery.
In terms of its impression on me, I found Angelus a far more beautiful film with its explicit attempts to recreate painting in staged film settings. But that is not fair to the film at hand, since its objectives are clearly different. In as much as its stated goal was to create a mythic narrative, I think it succeeds (another viewer held a different opinion). Admittedly the translation was not great, nor were the subtitles always legible and I found this distracted me most often.
I guess in the end I'm mostly positive about the film although I didn't enjoy it as much as his other film. And as this wordy post suggests I was more struck by the nature of the director than the film. But I must admit the imagery of the final scene was as powerful as anything I've seen in a while.
Transsiberian
Brad Anderson directed a surprisingly good horror film a couple of years back called Session 9, a film I thank Wretched Genius for recommending. Its a real shame because Transsiberian is not a surprisingly good thriller. Its a bland, uninteresting work with little going for it other than its setting and it circles down to absurdity very quickly.
Roy (Woody Harrelson) and Jessie (Emily Mortimer) are Christian missionaries who have just finished work in China and are taking the train across Siberia to Moscow before taking a plane back to the States. They meet and befriend another couple Abby (Kate Mara) and Carlos (Eduardo Noriega). Soon it is realized that Carlos and Abby might be drug smugglers and things become interesting when Ben Kingsley's Russian detective appears on the train.
Problem one is up front right away. Not one of the actors (some of them fairly reliable) seems appropriately cast. Kingsley has a bizarre accent and seems out of place. Mortimer's Jessie doesn't act at all like a reformed bad girl for most of the movie. Only Harrelson comes even close to pulling off his limited dimension character and he still misses.
Second is the increasingly stupid plot which relies on thinly veiled attempts to trick the audience for no real reason. And then on occasion random chance that prevents characters from discovering important evidence. All this rounding out to a out right silly ending that made me glad someone else paid for my ticket to the theater.
Roy (Woody Harrelson) and Jessie (Emily Mortimer) are Christian missionaries who have just finished work in China and are taking the train across Siberia to Moscow before taking a plane back to the States. They meet and befriend another couple Abby (Kate Mara) and Carlos (Eduardo Noriega). Soon it is realized that Carlos and Abby might be drug smugglers and things become interesting when Ben Kingsley's Russian detective appears on the train.
Problem one is up front right away. Not one of the actors (some of them fairly reliable) seems appropriately cast. Kingsley has a bizarre accent and seems out of place. Mortimer's Jessie doesn't act at all like a reformed bad girl for most of the movie. Only Harrelson comes even close to pulling off his limited dimension character and he still misses.
Second is the increasingly stupid plot which relies on thinly veiled attempts to trick the audience for no real reason. And then on occasion random chance that prevents characters from discovering important evidence. All this rounding out to a out right silly ending that made me glad someone else paid for my ticket to the theater.
The Edge of Heaven
Faith Akin's film on Turkish Muslims living in Germany and in Turkey is engaging and interesting from its opening to its close. It follows a popular trend of films of hypothesizing a world that is smaller than we think. The stories being told here are about people who are connected even when they don't know it. This is much in the style of Alejandro González Iñárritu and others with their connected narratives. As a general rule I find this sort of narrative annoying but Akin thankfully steers clear of many of the realizations of its a small world after all. In fact many moments in the film stress how simple actions keep two connected people from ever meeting.
The film starts with Yeter, Nejat and his father Ali. Yeter is a prostitute, who is preferred by Ali. A pair of fundamentalist Muslims note that she is living in sin one day and offer her the opportunity to repent. She quickly takes up an offer to live as a concubine of sorts with Ali. She meets Nejat and they get along well. An unfortunate accident sends Nejat on a quest to find Yeter's daughter Ayten. Ayten has had here own story as a radical protester of the Turkish government, she flees to Germany to find her mother. There she meets and falls in love with Lotte who helps her with her case for asylum.
Its hard to say more without revealing significant plot points. Suffice to say that overall the story telling is very effective, moving and engaging. There are occasional overdone moments such as "near miss" moments of two story lines that are kind of annoying. These are usually made up by deeply intimate moments of character development. The most moving of which acts like a security camera capturing the grief of a mother from a fixed overhead shot.
The film is wonderfully developed in terms of character and beautifully shot. It tackles interesting topics including forgiveness. It feels like a real world both the Turkish community in Germany and Turkey itself.
The film starts with Yeter, Nejat and his father Ali. Yeter is a prostitute, who is preferred by Ali. A pair of fundamentalist Muslims note that she is living in sin one day and offer her the opportunity to repent. She quickly takes up an offer to live as a concubine of sorts with Ali. She meets Nejat and they get along well. An unfortunate accident sends Nejat on a quest to find Yeter's daughter Ayten. Ayten has had here own story as a radical protester of the Turkish government, she flees to Germany to find her mother. There she meets and falls in love with Lotte who helps her with her case for asylum.
Its hard to say more without revealing significant plot points. Suffice to say that overall the story telling is very effective, moving and engaging. There are occasional overdone moments such as "near miss" moments of two story lines that are kind of annoying. These are usually made up by deeply intimate moments of character development. The most moving of which acts like a security camera capturing the grief of a mother from a fixed overhead shot.
The film is wonderfully developed in terms of character and beautifully shot. It tackles interesting topics including forgiveness. It feels like a real world both the Turkish community in Germany and Turkey itself.
Clando
Clando starts in Cameroon. Serious economic problems in the country have led many to find work by being non authorized taxi drivers called "Clandos". Anatole the main character starts as a clando but is soon asked to go to Germany by a wealthy man to find his son. Anatole goes to Germany where he gets involved with an activist white woman and locates the wealthy man's son.
If my description is foggy and confusing its partly because it has been almost a month since I saw it and am only now writing about it. It is partly because the narrative of the film is such a mess that I found it almost entirely impossible to follow. It jumps back and forth in time and into dream sequences (I think they are dream sequences) so often that only the most dedicated even bothers to try to keep up.
IT offers some interesting looks into Cameroonian culture but these are infrequent and much of the film takes place in Germany rather than Cameroon. It asks broadly but offers no satisfying answers to questions of how to protest government: by violence or otherwise. This confusion of how to act seems to transfer to the confusion of the film making and narrative.
If my description is foggy and confusing its partly because it has been almost a month since I saw it and am only now writing about it. It is partly because the narrative of the film is such a mess that I found it almost entirely impossible to follow. It jumps back and forth in time and into dream sequences (I think they are dream sequences) so often that only the most dedicated even bothers to try to keep up.
IT offers some interesting looks into Cameroonian culture but these are infrequent and much of the film takes place in Germany rather than Cameroon. It asks broadly but offers no satisfying answers to questions of how to protest government: by violence or otherwise. This confusion of how to act seems to transfer to the confusion of the film making and narrative.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Angelus
Taking a cue from my recent trip to Poland and the fact that my cousin is now happily married to a nice young Polish woman, I decided recently to take advantage of an opportunity to watch a Polish director. A film series on the works of Lech Majewski has been showing recently and so I jumped in with eager anticipation for what Poland had to offer. He is an artist and painter and has more than a bit in common with Julian Schnabel. Schnabel of course directed one of my favorite films from last year The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Majewski wrote the story for Basquiat which Schnabel directed. Both have an eye for the visual and a way of framing a scene so beautifully that one can't help but stare breathlessly as one does when observing a great piece of art work.
Angelus tells the story of a strange commune of men who are given three prophecies when their master dies. The first two seem to come true and when they see what they interpret as the sign of the third they take action to stop the destruction of the world. The story if filled with eccentric characters and scenes including but not limited to a guy blowing himself up, an attempt to scale the communist party headquarters and other such zaniness. The story is actually quite funny at times and the images coming at you are sometimes overwhelming.
More artistically driven than narratively, there are some absolutely gorgeous images in this film. Be it an opening sequence where a group of minors walk towards the camera with their headlamps shining forth or one of the many "picture" scenes. That is scenes with titles at the top or bottom which seem to start or end as snapshots in time and represent singular themes such as betrayal. All of it is quite beautiful and at times downright memorizing. The story seems ancillary but by no means unimportant. There is clearly a wonderful connection between the paintings that the characters create and the "paintings" of individual scenes.
In the end it was a pleasant and amusing film that was absolutely wonderful to look at and if you should get the chance I recommend you see it.
Angelus tells the story of a strange commune of men who are given three prophecies when their master dies. The first two seem to come true and when they see what they interpret as the sign of the third they take action to stop the destruction of the world. The story if filled with eccentric characters and scenes including but not limited to a guy blowing himself up, an attempt to scale the communist party headquarters and other such zaniness. The story is actually quite funny at times and the images coming at you are sometimes overwhelming.
More artistically driven than narratively, there are some absolutely gorgeous images in this film. Be it an opening sequence where a group of minors walk towards the camera with their headlamps shining forth or one of the many "picture" scenes. That is scenes with titles at the top or bottom which seem to start or end as snapshots in time and represent singular themes such as betrayal. All of it is quite beautiful and at times downright memorizing. The story seems ancillary but by no means unimportant. There is clearly a wonderful connection between the paintings that the characters create and the "paintings" of individual scenes.
In the end it was a pleasant and amusing film that was absolutely wonderful to look at and if you should get the chance I recommend you see it.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Ranting
As I continue to view and explore those canonical films of the past I've come to the following conclusions:
1) I wish I had been born forty years earlier (and lived in a culturally active city) so I could have seen the great craftsmen (Kurosawa, Bergman, Goddard, Bresson, etc) and their works when they came out originally.
2) I love films that tackle BIG themes and I wish more would do so in this day and age. There is nothing more fascinating to me than Bergman tackling the idea of religion or Tarkovsky asking what true love is.
And since I can't be born earlier than I was, I want to implore the filmmakers of the cinematic world to start making BIG theme films. Sure we are going to get a lot of crap but were occasionally going to get a great film. The key is to never propose an answer, just set up the question probe the edges a bit and leave us thinking for ourselves. Fellow blogger cinemaromantico just posted a rant on similar themes and gave us this great line "I hold the high the opinion that a movie can only explain the most pertinent, most essential mysteries of life without truly discussing them." (Cinema Romantico)
Three of my favorite films ever all deal with BIG nay HUGE themes, some multiple themes. Andrei Tarkovsky's Solaris handles love, memory, and countless other themes. Ingmar Bergman's Winter Light deals with the silence of god, love (again), miscommunication, and I could go on and on. And of course Terrence Malick's Thin Red Line well sweet maria what doesn't it tackle: war, peace, paradise, paradise lost, religion, love (yet again), sacrifice, man, nature and it goes on and on. And I love every one of those movies because they have a thousand points to investigate and you are rewarded with something great each and every time you view it.
As soon as I can make sense of my own thoughts (and probably after reviewing each a couple of times just to remind me how fantastic they are) I plan to rant at length on each of these films. Of course that is a big as soon as, since my mind is a jumble of desire to vomit forth everything I am thinking about each and every scene in these movies. Which would not only bore the life out of all you obligatory readers but would probably make people angry as well.
So I'm here waiting for a movie that will tell a story worth telling and while its going along suddenly I'll wide eyed and smiling realize holy crap its not just about the story, its about ten thousand things more. Its about love and mistakes and the human condition and sweet maria these movie is wonderful. Is that too much to ask?
1) I wish I had been born forty years earlier (and lived in a culturally active city) so I could have seen the great craftsmen (Kurosawa, Bergman, Goddard, Bresson, etc) and their works when they came out originally.
2) I love films that tackle BIG themes and I wish more would do so in this day and age. There is nothing more fascinating to me than Bergman tackling the idea of religion or Tarkovsky asking what true love is.
And since I can't be born earlier than I was, I want to implore the filmmakers of the cinematic world to start making BIG theme films. Sure we are going to get a lot of crap but were occasionally going to get a great film. The key is to never propose an answer, just set up the question probe the edges a bit and leave us thinking for ourselves. Fellow blogger cinemaromantico just posted a rant on similar themes and gave us this great line "I hold the high the opinion that a movie can only explain the most pertinent, most essential mysteries of life without truly discussing them." (Cinema Romantico)
Three of my favorite films ever all deal with BIG nay HUGE themes, some multiple themes. Andrei Tarkovsky's Solaris handles love, memory, and countless other themes. Ingmar Bergman's Winter Light deals with the silence of god, love (again), miscommunication, and I could go on and on. And of course Terrence Malick's Thin Red Line well sweet maria what doesn't it tackle: war, peace, paradise, paradise lost, religion, love (yet again), sacrifice, man, nature and it goes on and on. And I love every one of those movies because they have a thousand points to investigate and you are rewarded with something great each and every time you view it.
As soon as I can make sense of my own thoughts (and probably after reviewing each a couple of times just to remind me how fantastic they are) I plan to rant at length on each of these films. Of course that is a big as soon as, since my mind is a jumble of desire to vomit forth everything I am thinking about each and every scene in these movies. Which would not only bore the life out of all you obligatory readers but would probably make people angry as well.
So I'm here waiting for a movie that will tell a story worth telling and while its going along suddenly I'll wide eyed and smiling realize holy crap its not just about the story, its about ten thousand things more. Its about love and mistakes and the human condition and sweet maria these movie is wonderful. Is that too much to ask?
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Haxan
Sweet maria. What the hell did I just watch? Attempting to equate witchcraft of the past with modern day psychological disorders but via a crazy story of witch craft with re-enacted scenes of the most bizarre and strange kind. Benjamin Christensen's strange documentary at times makes use of real documents such as plates from various books on witchcraft and at times uses actors and sets to show either the fear and paranoia of earlier ages or the nature of witch craft practices.
It is at times bizarre, at times strangely comical and at times down right confounding. Most mesmerizing are those scenes of witch ritual often with Christensen himself parading around as Satan and the strangest things occurring. Favorite moment: a skeletal horse walks past the frame and then back again in the background. If you want to see an early experience in crazy cult film style film making, this one tops the list.
It is at times bizarre, at times strangely comical and at times down right confounding. Most mesmerizing are those scenes of witch ritual often with Christensen himself parading around as Satan and the strangest things occurring. Favorite moment: a skeletal horse walks past the frame and then back again in the background. If you want to see an early experience in crazy cult film style film making, this one tops the list.
Broken Blossoms
Apparently Broken Blossoms was a response to his critics about racism. Its story is one in which an Asian man falls in love with a young white woman. She has an abusive father and after a rough night she winds up under the Asian's care. I found the story uninteresting, the blatant attempt to show he wasn't prejudiced makes it obvious that he really was and it lacks the grandeur of his earlier works. Everyone from the girl to her father and the oriental are the most thinly veiled stereotypes that are not interesting.
Intolerance
D.W. Griffith followed up his controversial Birth of a Nation with a an epic tale inspired by Italian cinema such as Cabiria. Intolerance starts stating Griffith's view of the world. Intolerance happens all the time. It resulted in tragedy throughout history, destroyed love and civilizations and he wants to show it is the same now as it ever was. There are four tales in the film. A tale taking place in ancient Babylon, the story of the Passion of Christ, the telling of the slaughter of the Huguenots and a modern day tale of meddling women activists.
Of the four, the passion gets the least screen time in this long movie. Perhaps because it was and is the best known but that made it for me all the more uninteresting and unnecessary. The Huguenots story was also truncated for reasons that make most of that narrative incomprehensible. But the Babylon sequence is rich and full of life and amazing set design and has a decently engaging story of a woman in love with the king of Babylon. Likewise the story of the modern woman and her struggle to raise her child while her husband is in jail and then her baby is taken away is compelling.
As the film enforces its notion of time and returns repeatedly too a fixed image of a woman rocking a cradle we cut back and forth between these stories. Late in the film as the drama intensifies the cuts come faster and faster and it is effective. You feel the pressure of what is happening. As the tragedies start to mount you feel an ever increasing sense of sorrow. Babylon falls, Christ is crucified, the Huguenots are slaughtered.
This builds to a chase sequence of a car trying to catch a train. Can the woman get a gubernatorial pardon before her husband is hanged? I won't say but depending on your notion of movies you might be disappointed or happy. But the Babylon sequence and the modern tale carry the film. It could have been tighter if they had cut the other two sequences but maybe not. It like its predecessor has its fair share of 19th century Southern elitist biases but doesn't come off as overtly troublesome as Birth of a Nation and seems to be and attempt to silence his critics and shows he clearly missed the point of the criticism.
Of the four, the passion gets the least screen time in this long movie. Perhaps because it was and is the best known but that made it for me all the more uninteresting and unnecessary. The Huguenots story was also truncated for reasons that make most of that narrative incomprehensible. But the Babylon sequence is rich and full of life and amazing set design and has a decently engaging story of a woman in love with the king of Babylon. Likewise the story of the modern woman and her struggle to raise her child while her husband is in jail and then her baby is taken away is compelling.
As the film enforces its notion of time and returns repeatedly too a fixed image of a woman rocking a cradle we cut back and forth between these stories. Late in the film as the drama intensifies the cuts come faster and faster and it is effective. You feel the pressure of what is happening. As the tragedies start to mount you feel an ever increasing sense of sorrow. Babylon falls, Christ is crucified, the Huguenots are slaughtered.
This builds to a chase sequence of a car trying to catch a train. Can the woman get a gubernatorial pardon before her husband is hanged? I won't say but depending on your notion of movies you might be disappointed or happy. But the Babylon sequence and the modern tale carry the film. It could have been tighter if they had cut the other two sequences but maybe not. It like its predecessor has its fair share of 19th century Southern elitist biases but doesn't come off as overtly troublesome as Birth of a Nation and seems to be and attempt to silence his critics and shows he clearly missed the point of the criticism.
Redacted
Redacted certainly tries very hard. Based loosely on a real life tragedy in Iraq involving US soldiers who raped a young Iraqi woman and killed her family. Brian De Palma is right filled with outrage. He and we should be disturbed by such actions. We should wonder why such things happen. It is not per se that these soldiers are evil but in tense and hostile situations the psychological effects of war can be massive. And every time I hear about something that should outrage us, I wonder what the army was doing to try to prevent it. Not that I think there are any clear cut answers. And at the very least the film does make you think and does make you question.
Its format is like a cobbled together documentary. Consisting of "found" footage of a French documentary team, a soldier's video journal and various security cameras from bases and check points, we get the fictional narrative of a military unit responsible for a check point. We see what I guess is pretty close to accurate the procedure of a checkpoint and the frustration of soldiers who lose friends to IEDs and attacks. We see the pressure and the attempts to work off the stress.
The trouble is that it doesn't feel like a documentary, it feels forced and contrived. A gimmick. The acting is a little questionable and the primary evil doers don't really get anything resembling fully fleshed out characters. This is not an attempt to understand all sides nor does that need to be the intent but I think it does a disservice to solving problems to paint people as demons. Perhaps that is the historian in me. Near movie's end we get the briefest and oddest confession of one of the culprits about his brother that seems almost out of place.
The film ends with real photos of tragedy in Iraq that are disturbing and unsettling and clearly that is the point. But I ultimately feel a director as talented as De Palma could have shown us he was angry in a much better film.
Its format is like a cobbled together documentary. Consisting of "found" footage of a French documentary team, a soldier's video journal and various security cameras from bases and check points, we get the fictional narrative of a military unit responsible for a check point. We see what I guess is pretty close to accurate the procedure of a checkpoint and the frustration of soldiers who lose friends to IEDs and attacks. We see the pressure and the attempts to work off the stress.
The trouble is that it doesn't feel like a documentary, it feels forced and contrived. A gimmick. The acting is a little questionable and the primary evil doers don't really get anything resembling fully fleshed out characters. This is not an attempt to understand all sides nor does that need to be the intent but I think it does a disservice to solving problems to paint people as demons. Perhaps that is the historian in me. Near movie's end we get the briefest and oddest confession of one of the culprits about his brother that seems almost out of place.
The film ends with real photos of tragedy in Iraq that are disturbing and unsettling and clearly that is the point. But I ultimately feel a director as talented as De Palma could have shown us he was angry in a much better film.
Babylon A.D.
To the base of adoring fans who have waited breathlessly for my review of Babylon A.D. I deeply apologize. Yeah right, as if anyone who is reading this can really barely contain themselves because a self proclaimed idiot hasn't yet expressed his opinion on a end of summer action film. Plot synopsis? Is there even a point? To sum up: dystopian future, weird psychic lady and Vin Diesel. There is something about religion and science but its so boring I find it hard to even care.
This movie is truly and regrettably awful. Vin Diesel has made a career of sorts playing these tough action heroes some he pulls off moderately well (though I still like him best (and it may be the only movie I liked him in) in Pitch Black). Here he is bland and uninteresting and the camera is moving around so much it really doesn't matter what he does, since you will never see it. Let's all agree to a new rule for movies, if your fight sequence has 10583 cuts in a 45 seconds of film then you need to step back and just give us a few damn seconds of sustained shots.
As the film moves it gets increasingly ludicrous and questionable, has an odd cameo by Lambert Wilson (memorable from Matrix Reloaded (one of the few things that was memorable from that movie) but not memorable here. Then rap it up in a nonsensical way and basically forget or show that all that came before is to no purpose. Thanks Babylon A.D. for reminding me why I am ever a bitter person when it comes to movies.
This movie is truly and regrettably awful. Vin Diesel has made a career of sorts playing these tough action heroes some he pulls off moderately well (though I still like him best (and it may be the only movie I liked him in) in Pitch Black). Here he is bland and uninteresting and the camera is moving around so much it really doesn't matter what he does, since you will never see it. Let's all agree to a new rule for movies, if your fight sequence has 10583 cuts in a 45 seconds of film then you need to step back and just give us a few damn seconds of sustained shots.
As the film moves it gets increasingly ludicrous and questionable, has an odd cameo by Lambert Wilson (memorable from Matrix Reloaded (one of the few things that was memorable from that movie) but not memorable here. Then rap it up in a nonsensical way and basically forget or show that all that came before is to no purpose. Thanks Babylon A.D. for reminding me why I am ever a bitter person when it comes to movies.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Chaplin Mutuals
I want to be Charlie Chaplin. Now I say that not really knowing anything about his life. It could have been miserable for all I know. But his screen presence is downright phenomenal to watch. If I thought for one minute I could pull of his strange waddle I think I'd do it all the time. Watching him perform in the Mutual shorts, a series of twelve shorts he made in 1916-1917 for the Mutual Film Corporation which he wrote, directed and produced (and made a gob load of money for doing) one can't help but admire how gifted he is.
The stories are entertaining and filled with amazing stunts all performed with a fluid grace by Mr. Chaplin. I encourage you to watch them if you never have or revisit them if you saw them once. Each is short and the return on your investment is more than generous. I won't describe each one but merely mention some of my favorite moments from the twelve.
The Floorwalker - one word: escalator.
The Fireman - Chaplin's scaling of a building to rescue a damsel in distress is so wonderfully fluid and graceful.
One A.M. - Chaplin playing drunk is fantastic and although the bed gets much attention as it should, the other props are well used as well. I was particularly fond of the spinning table.
The Count - Chaplin on the dance floor while simultaneously fighting off a rival suitor.
The Pawnshop - When Charlie takes apart a clock that was brought into the shop I was in tears from laughing.
Behind the Screen - It had a pie fight, how can I not love it?
The Rink - Every single skating sequence was wonderful.
The stories are entertaining and filled with amazing stunts all performed with a fluid grace by Mr. Chaplin. I encourage you to watch them if you never have or revisit them if you saw them once. Each is short and the return on your investment is more than generous. I won't describe each one but merely mention some of my favorite moments from the twelve.
The Floorwalker - one word: escalator.
The Fireman - Chaplin's scaling of a building to rescue a damsel in distress is so wonderfully fluid and graceful.
One A.M. - Chaplin playing drunk is fantastic and although the bed gets much attention as it should, the other props are well used as well. I was particularly fond of the spinning table.
The Count - Chaplin on the dance floor while simultaneously fighting off a rival suitor.
The Pawnshop - When Charlie takes apart a clock that was brought into the shop I was in tears from laughing.
Behind the Screen - It had a pie fight, how can I not love it?
The Rink - Every single skating sequence was wonderful.
Frozen River
Ray Eddy (Melissa Leo) is mother of two whose husband has just run off with their savings and left her with the bills and debts and all on only a part time job at a discount store. She is the epitome of the working poor. When she seeks out her husband she discovers his car has been co-opted by a local Indian woman, Lila (Misty Upham) who uses it to smuggle illegal immigrants into the US from Canada. Desperate for money and unable to get ahead in her regular work, Ray forms an uncomfortable alliance with the Mohawk woman to use her car to smuggle immigrants.
This requires the two to drive across the frozen river that separates the US from Canada carrying two immigrants in a trunk. Ray has suspicion in general of Lila and Lila doesn't think too highly of white people and there first few encounters are ones of distrust and racism. In addition Ray has to keep up appearances for her youngest son while trying to keep in line her older son who recognizes the hardship they are in. Her fear of being caught and her anxiety about potentially letting terrorists into the country are outweighed by her crushing need for money.
Overall the film is a fairly devastating character study of a working poor single mother who is fighting against odds stacked against her. The problems of simply feeding her kids is frequently at issue and Ray seems to get no breaks. But in addition it develops a very fascinating relationship between Lila and Ray who overcome there distrust and come to a decent understanding of each other's life.
Melissa Leo carries the story for the most part. The ending might be a bit forced and there are two points in the film that I thought a bit much but overall it was well done. We first see Leo crying at movie's open and you get from moment one a real sense of the mountain she is caring on her shoulders. She never surrenders or gives up despite how hopeless it all seems.
This requires the two to drive across the frozen river that separates the US from Canada carrying two immigrants in a trunk. Ray has suspicion in general of Lila and Lila doesn't think too highly of white people and there first few encounters are ones of distrust and racism. In addition Ray has to keep up appearances for her youngest son while trying to keep in line her older son who recognizes the hardship they are in. Her fear of being caught and her anxiety about potentially letting terrorists into the country are outweighed by her crushing need for money.
Overall the film is a fairly devastating character study of a working poor single mother who is fighting against odds stacked against her. The problems of simply feeding her kids is frequently at issue and Ray seems to get no breaks. But in addition it develops a very fascinating relationship between Lila and Ray who overcome there distrust and come to a decent understanding of each other's life.
Melissa Leo carries the story for the most part. The ending might be a bit forced and there are two points in the film that I thought a bit much but overall it was well done. We first see Leo crying at movie's open and you get from moment one a real sense of the mountain she is caring on her shoulders. She never surrenders or gives up despite how hopeless it all seems.
Elegy
Ben Kingsley plays David Kepesh an aging professor who is facing the reality of old age. He has been for much of his life a perpetual bachelor seducing young women at his university and trying to act younger than he is. He has a good friend played by Dennis Hopper and friend with benefits that he sees every couple of months played by Patricia Clarkson. As the film begins he becomes interested in new student Consuela (Penelope Cruz). The film follows their relationship and Kepesh's struggle with his sense of getting older.
There seem to be a great deal of films dealing with aging professors coming out of recent. Some are better than others and although I should not try to judge a movie based on another I can't help but think the themes here have been done much better. Part of it may be that I don't care about Kepesh as a character. He isn't compelling. His problems are not universal and he's largely immature. And since I don't care what happens to him what is the point of caring about the movie?
There is present a sense of old age and growing old but its shallow and rarely at the front and center. There is nothing to suggest any real issue of age. He is not ailing in health. His mind is sound. Its merely his own perception that he is not the young seducer that he once was. I prefer Peter O'Toole's lecherous old man in Venus to Kingsley's Kepesh in terms of insight into old age and performance. And as far as aging intellectuals and problems that are real last year's Starting Out in the Evening is a better investment of your time.
There seem to be a great deal of films dealing with aging professors coming out of recent. Some are better than others and although I should not try to judge a movie based on another I can't help but think the themes here have been done much better. Part of it may be that I don't care about Kepesh as a character. He isn't compelling. His problems are not universal and he's largely immature. And since I don't care what happens to him what is the point of caring about the movie?
There is present a sense of old age and growing old but its shallow and rarely at the front and center. There is nothing to suggest any real issue of age. He is not ailing in health. His mind is sound. Its merely his own perception that he is not the young seducer that he once was. I prefer Peter O'Toole's lecherous old man in Venus to Kingsley's Kepesh in terms of insight into old age and performance. And as far as aging intellectuals and problems that are real last year's Starting Out in the Evening is a better investment of your time.
Man on Wire
According to Phillipe Petit, he wanted to wire walk across the gap between the Twin Towers even before they were completed. With a goal like that and a seemingly uncrushable spirit and belief that nothing is impossible one can only be amazed at the audacity of the stunt and the compelling nature of its execution. Man on Wire the new film that documents Petit's journey from wire walker obscurity to an amazing feat of human determination is everything I could want in a documentary.
Petit previously had exploits of wire walking between the spires of Notre Dame and across the Syndey Harbor Bridge but those as the film presents it were only amateur practice runs to the difficulty of the stunt he desired to perform. Taking a narrative approach that evokes a great heist movie (and I suspect this would have made an amazing fiction film) we are introduced to the dream, the players who helped make it happen and the journey from youthful dreams to accomplishment of the seemingly impossible.
The story is compelling. The interviews are interesting and heartfelt. The archival footage of Petit and crew planning in France, training and discussing the problems is all wonderfully explored. Dramatic re-enactments are used at times to hint at the anxiety of those moments that are undocumented particularly those inside the towers. But tying this all firmly together and what kept me smiling most of the film was Phillipe Petit.
He is so full of life that one can't help but admire and laugh. Frenetic and excitable he recalls his memories of youth and his dreams so vividly that I'm not sure one needs the re-enactments. Its not hard to imagine a young Petit coming up and asking you "would you like to help me out" and in his enthusiasm finding yourself sneaking into a large building to help him walk a high wire. And it is Petit who is so interesting and lively that is the heart of why this film is so entertaining and heartfelt.
So much so that you can just sense how heartbroken he must have been on 9/11/2001. More recent events are wisely kept out of the film but Petit's dream and realization and the ever present imagery of the Twin Towers cannot help us the viewers from thinking about it. And that makes it all the more poignant. See it, you won't regret it.
Petit previously had exploits of wire walking between the spires of Notre Dame and across the Syndey Harbor Bridge but those as the film presents it were only amateur practice runs to the difficulty of the stunt he desired to perform. Taking a narrative approach that evokes a great heist movie (and I suspect this would have made an amazing fiction film) we are introduced to the dream, the players who helped make it happen and the journey from youthful dreams to accomplishment of the seemingly impossible.
The story is compelling. The interviews are interesting and heartfelt. The archival footage of Petit and crew planning in France, training and discussing the problems is all wonderfully explored. Dramatic re-enactments are used at times to hint at the anxiety of those moments that are undocumented particularly those inside the towers. But tying this all firmly together and what kept me smiling most of the film was Phillipe Petit.
He is so full of life that one can't help but admire and laugh. Frenetic and excitable he recalls his memories of youth and his dreams so vividly that I'm not sure one needs the re-enactments. Its not hard to imagine a young Petit coming up and asking you "would you like to help me out" and in his enthusiasm finding yourself sneaking into a large building to help him walk a high wire. And it is Petit who is so interesting and lively that is the heart of why this film is so entertaining and heartfelt.
So much so that you can just sense how heartbroken he must have been on 9/11/2001. More recent events are wisely kept out of the film but Petit's dream and realization and the ever present imagery of the Twin Towers cannot help us the viewers from thinking about it. And that makes it all the more poignant. See it, you won't regret it.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Running Tally - Part 8
Well this month has been very productive for movie viewing if for nothing else. Granted there were a few really awful movies endured in the course of things but there were also some really refreshing ones as well. And from a disappointing showing of only 7 films last month, I managed a whopping 15 this month. Some were even free. And as the summer movie season ends and the cinematic hope of Fall movies dawns us, I'll maintain my cinematic idealism that there will be films as good this year as last. Though my personal cynicism suspects it won't happen. But fingers crossed. Plus this was the month for documentaries
Month Recap:
The Wackness - largely forgettable
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor - the Yetis putting their arms up like American football goal post judges still infuriates me about this awful movie.
Swing Vote - Very weak political satire
Pineapple Express - I laughed a few times, the action sequences were poorly done, and the last act is just terrible and unconvincing.
Gonzo: The Life and Works of Hunter S Thompson - I thoroughly enjoyed this doc on the late Hunter S Thomspon. It was entertaining, educational and heartfelt.
Tell No One - well done and entertaining thriller with its sole big action piece being very well done.
Encounters at the End of the World - Soulful, beautifully shot and asking those deep, difficult, unanswerable questions that I love so much. Fantastic, best film I've seen so far this year.
Tropic Thunder - Not for me. Felt like a parody of a parody of Hollywood. Downey, Jr. was good. Tom Cruise did not impress me.
Vicky Christina Barcelona - if I could afford it right now I'd probably see this one. Allen directs wonderfully and the leads are great. Again it has all that great questioning that I enjoy.
Bottle Shock - Terrible, just terrible.
Death Race - If you can on occasion just sit and watch a mindless action flick this one does well. It doesn't even try to develop its characters and just brings on the gore and explosions.
Man on Wire (review forthcoming) - A fantastic story that feels like a crime caper and is helped along by the sheer vivacity of Phillipe Petit.
Elegy (review forthcoming) - There have been way better tales about people dealing with old age, one of my favorites from last year "Starting Out in the Evening" being notable.
Frozen River (review forthcoming) - Very well done film about a desperate working poor mother.
Babylon A.D. (review forthcoming) - I suppose it was right to leave the summer season with a really terrible summer action film.
And now what you've all come to see, meaningless statistics.
Films Remaining: 28
Days Remaining (As of September 1): 122
Average Number of Films per Day to achieve goal: 0.23
Average Number of Films per Week to Achieve Goal: 1.56
Month Recap:
The Wackness - largely forgettable
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor - the Yetis putting their arms up like American football goal post judges still infuriates me about this awful movie.
Swing Vote - Very weak political satire
Pineapple Express - I laughed a few times, the action sequences were poorly done, and the last act is just terrible and unconvincing.
Gonzo: The Life and Works of Hunter S Thompson - I thoroughly enjoyed this doc on the late Hunter S Thomspon. It was entertaining, educational and heartfelt.
Tell No One - well done and entertaining thriller with its sole big action piece being very well done.
Encounters at the End of the World - Soulful, beautifully shot and asking those deep, difficult, unanswerable questions that I love so much. Fantastic, best film I've seen so far this year.
Tropic Thunder - Not for me. Felt like a parody of a parody of Hollywood. Downey, Jr. was good. Tom Cruise did not impress me.
Vicky Christina Barcelona - if I could afford it right now I'd probably see this one. Allen directs wonderfully and the leads are great. Again it has all that great questioning that I enjoy.
Bottle Shock - Terrible, just terrible.
Death Race - If you can on occasion just sit and watch a mindless action flick this one does well. It doesn't even try to develop its characters and just brings on the gore and explosions.
Man on Wire (review forthcoming) - A fantastic story that feels like a crime caper and is helped along by the sheer vivacity of Phillipe Petit.
Elegy (review forthcoming) - There have been way better tales about people dealing with old age, one of my favorites from last year "Starting Out in the Evening" being notable.
Frozen River (review forthcoming) - Very well done film about a desperate working poor mother.
Babylon A.D. (review forthcoming) - I suppose it was right to leave the summer season with a really terrible summer action film.
And now what you've all come to see, meaningless statistics.
Films Remaining: 28
Days Remaining (As of September 1): 122
Average Number of Films per Day to achieve goal: 0.23
Average Number of Films per Week to Achieve Goal: 1.56
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Cabiria
A dear friend decided to watch films in chronological order to educate herself on early film and to watch the progression of film from its origins to the present day. She compiled a list of films from numerous sources stretching from the silent age to the present. I admit I am jealous that I never thought of this and I am amazed at her thoroughness in compiling the list. She was kind enough to share it with me and I have myself began to explore films from this list.
Cabiria was released in 1914 and directed by Giovanni Pastrone. It tells the story of Cabiria a young Roman girl who is lost by her family during an eruption of Vesuvius. She winds up in Carthage to be sacrificed to one of their gods. A Roman spy named Fulvius Axilla in Carthage entwines his fate to her's and rescues Cabiria. Thus we see partially through the eyes of a Roman commander the great Punic War waged between Carthage and Rome from 218 to 201 BCE.
The story if solid if a bit jingoistic and the national fervor of Romans defeating Carthaginians is easy to read as referencing the Italo-Turkish war that occurred a couple years before. But it is entertaining nonetheless for its side stepping history and telling a story within the time frame. The sets are fantastic and I was particularly pleased with the Temple of Moloch sequence. In fact as far as early cinema is concerned it is impressive that such long narrative is maintainable with no dialog and sparse inter-titles.
I've already mentioned the temple of Moloch sequence which is worth repeating. The sets for the temple itself are wonderful, the sacrifice room is so well decorated. Then the escape sequence which is at times a bit slapstick but nevertheless riveting. Later in the film Roman soldiers make a human stair to let Fulvius gain access to a town and it is wonderful to watch and a marvel to think of accomplishing. It is these little moments and the realization that no one had done these things much before that really stay with you.
Cabiria was released in 1914 and directed by Giovanni Pastrone. It tells the story of Cabiria a young Roman girl who is lost by her family during an eruption of Vesuvius. She winds up in Carthage to be sacrificed to one of their gods. A Roman spy named Fulvius Axilla in Carthage entwines his fate to her's and rescues Cabiria. Thus we see partially through the eyes of a Roman commander the great Punic War waged between Carthage and Rome from 218 to 201 BCE.
The story if solid if a bit jingoistic and the national fervor of Romans defeating Carthaginians is easy to read as referencing the Italo-Turkish war that occurred a couple years before. But it is entertaining nonetheless for its side stepping history and telling a story within the time frame. The sets are fantastic and I was particularly pleased with the Temple of Moloch sequence. In fact as far as early cinema is concerned it is impressive that such long narrative is maintainable with no dialog and sparse inter-titles.
I've already mentioned the temple of Moloch sequence which is worth repeating. The sets for the temple itself are wonderful, the sacrifice room is so well decorated. Then the escape sequence which is at times a bit slapstick but nevertheless riveting. Later in the film Roman soldiers make a human stair to let Fulvius gain access to a town and it is wonderful to watch and a marvel to think of accomplishing. It is these little moments and the realization that no one had done these things much before that really stay with you.
Andrei Rublev
Nine months ago I discovered the wonderful world of Andrei Tarkovsky. I found his first feature film Ivan's Childhood so starkly beautiful that I proclaimed it one of the most beautiful film I had ever seen. (http://movieidiot.blogspot.com/2007/11/ivans-childhood.html). And I can still recall what I found to be the most beautiful shot in the film vividly. But not only was the film so wonderful to view for its cinematography but it also had a dark and wonderful story of a boy of lost innocence in war. Unfortunately Tarkovsky's second film Andrei Rublev was far more difficult for me to get through. It was long and I only got about half way through before giving up and returning it. And so now nine months later I re-rented it and attempted round two.
The titular character was an icon painter in 15th century Russia and the story follows him as he goes through his life. But at times he is not the central character but rather an observer and practically invisible for sections of the film. It is an impressive manipulation of narrative. Admittedly I found the story less interesting than his first but one must respect that same attention to detail. The fact that he really wants to push the boundaries of what story telling can do. Tarkovsky is a film maker like we don't really see anymore. One who is constantly pushing at the edges shwoing what can be done with images, symbolism, narrative.
The fact that the titular character disappears at times reveals that the real protagonist is Russia itself. From the grandeur of painting cathedrals to the horror of Tartar hoards destroying and pillaging a town one cannot help but be intrigued. And the film concludes with a long narrative about a boy who is set on making a bell despite knowing nothing about how to do so. The climax of that sequence is poignant and amazing. I admit that this one didn't enthrall me that much but I could never deny that I was watching a genius work and that in all likelihood I was missing something. But enduring it is worth the effort.
The titular character was an icon painter in 15th century Russia and the story follows him as he goes through his life. But at times he is not the central character but rather an observer and practically invisible for sections of the film. It is an impressive manipulation of narrative. Admittedly I found the story less interesting than his first but one must respect that same attention to detail. The fact that he really wants to push the boundaries of what story telling can do. Tarkovsky is a film maker like we don't really see anymore. One who is constantly pushing at the edges shwoing what can be done with images, symbolism, narrative.
The fact that the titular character disappears at times reveals that the real protagonist is Russia itself. From the grandeur of painting cathedrals to the horror of Tartar hoards destroying and pillaging a town one cannot help but be intrigued. And the film concludes with a long narrative about a boy who is set on making a bell despite knowing nothing about how to do so. The climax of that sequence is poignant and amazing. I admit that this one didn't enthrall me that much but I could never deny that I was watching a genius work and that in all likelihood I was missing something. But enduring it is worth the effort.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Death Race
Well what can one really say about Death Race. Ever so loosely based on the 1975 Roger Corman produced classic Death Race 2000, the film proudly displays Corman's name at the opening titles. Jensen Ames (Jason Statham) is a former professional race car driver who has just been laid off in the ever increasingly bad US economy. He's framed for his wife's murder and sent to Terminal Prison, a modern day Alcatraz run by a greedy corporation and supervised by Hennessey (Joan Allen). The pride and joy of Terminal Prison is "Death Race" a grueling, kill or be killed race over three days. The winner of five races gets released from prison.
The star of Death Race "Frankenstein" has been killed and Hennessey needs a replacement driver. The racers are characters themselves, notable Tyrese Gibson as Machine Gun Joe a driver with a grudge against Frankenstein. Then there is the pit crew with notable Ian McShane as "Coach". And blah, blah, blah. Honestly do you even care? I saw the movie and I can't say I cared. What do you need to know? Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson you should probably know that. He's direct a fair amount of horrible films and a fair share of watchable if not in any way great films. Hot busy women? check. Fast cars and race sequences? check. Gratuitous violence and gore? check.
In the end the film was mindless but at times mindless can be good. I can barely recall any major plot developments. There were a fair amount of silly scenes that aren't worth repeating. But you get the races and the blood and it doesn't take itself that seriously. You can easily scarf down a bag full of popcorn and not feel like you've lost that much of your life. I do want to stress it is not a "good" action film. It just happened to make me chuckle a few times and I didn't walk out filled with a desire to set fire to something (not that any movie has ever done that).
The star of Death Race "Frankenstein" has been killed and Hennessey needs a replacement driver. The racers are characters themselves, notable Tyrese Gibson as Machine Gun Joe a driver with a grudge against Frankenstein. Then there is the pit crew with notable Ian McShane as "Coach". And blah, blah, blah. Honestly do you even care? I saw the movie and I can't say I cared. What do you need to know? Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson you should probably know that. He's direct a fair amount of horrible films and a fair share of watchable if not in any way great films. Hot busy women? check. Fast cars and race sequences? check. Gratuitous violence and gore? check.
In the end the film was mindless but at times mindless can be good. I can barely recall any major plot developments. There were a fair amount of silly scenes that aren't worth repeating. But you get the races and the blood and it doesn't take itself that seriously. You can easily scarf down a bag full of popcorn and not feel like you've lost that much of your life. I do want to stress it is not a "good" action film. It just happened to make me chuckle a few times and I didn't walk out filled with a desire to set fire to something (not that any movie has ever done that).
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Fall Movies
As the summer winds down and the blatant blockbusters are replaced by the blatant Oscar seeking films a warm feeling comes over me. Because even if the year isn't as great as last year, I have confidence that at least one or two gems will surface and its films like that which keep me driving on and hoping to find that great classic. EW just released its Fall Preview issue and having read through it I am interested in the following upcoming films.
Miracle at St. Anna - Spike Lee can make a really good movie and I'm interested to see how he tackles the WW2 genre.
Burn After Reading - I'm a bit wary of Cohen Brothers comedies but I'm giving them a chance to wow me in comedy they way the wowed me in drama last year. (Interesting side note: while viewing a trailer last night of this film in a crowded theater, everyone seemed unsure and uneasy about it until they saw the Cohens named and then they thought it looked really good and funny. Power of a name for you)
Appaloosa - Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen as strong silent type cowboys in the old school style. Sounds similar to Open Range a few years back and I always love a good traditional western.
Righteous Kill - Mainly its the fanboy in me, hoping for great things from the pairing of DeNiro and Pacino.
The Duchess - Kiera Knightly is pretty and she's actually been fairly impressive as an actress in her last few dramatic roles plus Ralph Fiennes.
Elite Squad - reference was made to City of God which was an excellent film although from all I can tell the only connection is that both films are Brazilian.
Body of Lies - Ridley Scott directing DiCaprio and Russell Crowe in a thriller (yeah expectations are high but these guys have earned it)
RocknRolla - I've never seen the disaster that was Swept Away or the recent critical bomb Revolver but Guy Ritchie still has a place in my cinematic heart thanks to Snatch and especially Lock Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels.
W. - I'm just intrigued by what Oliver Stone will do with it.
Synechdoche, New York - Philip Seymour Hoffman, Katherine Keener and Charlie Kaufman (again just a hope I'm not let down by that promise)
Brothers Bloom - from the director of Brick (which was excellent) plus Mark Ruffalo
The Road - I just started reading this and in one day I'm halfway through. Its surprisingly compelling as a story. Viggo Mortensen feels like pretty good casting from what I can tell.
The Soloist - Joe Wright impressed me with Pride and Prejudice, underwhelmed me with Atonement (though he floored my friend Nick) and I'm eager to see what he has up his sleeve next. Throw Jamie Foxx and Robert Downey, Jr into the mix and my interest is peeked.
Quantum of Solace - I enjoyed Casino Royale quite a bit and am interested in returning to the new Bond.
Revolutionary Road - I'd probably see it just to see DiCaprio and Winslett act circles around everyone but it actually sounds really intriguing as well.
The Curious Case of Benjamen Button - David Fincher really impressed me with Zodiac
And of course I'm hopeful of a rare gem of a foreign film along the way as well.
Miracle at St. Anna - Spike Lee can make a really good movie and I'm interested to see how he tackles the WW2 genre.
Burn After Reading - I'm a bit wary of Cohen Brothers comedies but I'm giving them a chance to wow me in comedy they way the wowed me in drama last year. (Interesting side note: while viewing a trailer last night of this film in a crowded theater, everyone seemed unsure and uneasy about it until they saw the Cohens named and then they thought it looked really good and funny. Power of a name for you)
Appaloosa - Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen as strong silent type cowboys in the old school style. Sounds similar to Open Range a few years back and I always love a good traditional western.
Righteous Kill - Mainly its the fanboy in me, hoping for great things from the pairing of DeNiro and Pacino.
The Duchess - Kiera Knightly is pretty and she's actually been fairly impressive as an actress in her last few dramatic roles plus Ralph Fiennes.
Elite Squad - reference was made to City of God which was an excellent film although from all I can tell the only connection is that both films are Brazilian.
Body of Lies - Ridley Scott directing DiCaprio and Russell Crowe in a thriller (yeah expectations are high but these guys have earned it)
RocknRolla - I've never seen the disaster that was Swept Away or the recent critical bomb Revolver but Guy Ritchie still has a place in my cinematic heart thanks to Snatch and especially Lock Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels.
W. - I'm just intrigued by what Oliver Stone will do with it.
Synechdoche, New York - Philip Seymour Hoffman, Katherine Keener and Charlie Kaufman (again just a hope I'm not let down by that promise)
Brothers Bloom - from the director of Brick (which was excellent) plus Mark Ruffalo
The Road - I just started reading this and in one day I'm halfway through. Its surprisingly compelling as a story. Viggo Mortensen feels like pretty good casting from what I can tell.
The Soloist - Joe Wright impressed me with Pride and Prejudice, underwhelmed me with Atonement (though he floored my friend Nick) and I'm eager to see what he has up his sleeve next. Throw Jamie Foxx and Robert Downey, Jr into the mix and my interest is peeked.
Quantum of Solace - I enjoyed Casino Royale quite a bit and am interested in returning to the new Bond.
Revolutionary Road - I'd probably see it just to see DiCaprio and Winslett act circles around everyone but it actually sounds really intriguing as well.
The Curious Case of Benjamen Button - David Fincher really impressed me with Zodiac
And of course I'm hopeful of a rare gem of a foreign film along the way as well.
Bottle Shock
In 1976, the year of the US Bicentennial, a British oenophile staged a contest between French wines and California wines as a stunt. It was like a shot heard round the world when the winners of the tasting by French professionals was not French wine but Napa Valley wine. The film based on a true story attempts to tell this tale. Attempts I say because although it is certainly a important point in history and does seem worthy of a tale, I'm not convinced this was it.
People will think of Sideways when they hear or see this, not because it is anything like that film but because its about wine and has lots of wine lingo interspersed in its dialog. Whereas that film had interesting characters and nice driving plot, Bottle Shock flounders in mediocrity and one dimensional characters. It feels unnuanced, seems more interested in building a boring subplot of a love triangle than anything else and has inexplicable leaps in sense.
Bill Pullman plays a perfectionist asshole wine maker, Chris Pine plays his lazy, hippie son and so on and so on. It doesn't have any real laughs, the agonizingly forced love triangle which gets no interesting resolution and a climax that is already a known and forgone conclusion and thus totally uninteresting. It basically feels like a mess of lazy film making and writing in hopes of making a few dollars off other people's success.
People will think of Sideways when they hear or see this, not because it is anything like that film but because its about wine and has lots of wine lingo interspersed in its dialog. Whereas that film had interesting characters and nice driving plot, Bottle Shock flounders in mediocrity and one dimensional characters. It feels unnuanced, seems more interested in building a boring subplot of a love triangle than anything else and has inexplicable leaps in sense.
Bill Pullman plays a perfectionist asshole wine maker, Chris Pine plays his lazy, hippie son and so on and so on. It doesn't have any real laughs, the agonizingly forced love triangle which gets no interesting resolution and a climax that is already a known and forgone conclusion and thus totally uninteresting. It basically feels like a mess of lazy film making and writing in hopes of making a few dollars off other people's success.
Vicky Christina Barcelona
When Woody Allen is on his game, he can make a deeply satisfying movie. When he isn't on his game, watching his work is excruciatingly painful. It was deeply satisfying to watch Vicky Christina Barcelona. It is perhaps not a complete masterpiece but it is one of his better films in some time. Its well acted, well constructed and searches deeply to the answer of some interesting questions about love and companionship.
Vicky (Rebecca Hall) is logical, reserved, happily engaged and seeking to finish a thesis on Catalan Identity in Barcelona. Christina (Scarlett Johansson) is irrational, free spirited, single and seeking art and semi hedonism as she accompanies Vicky. As the two explore Barcelona they meet Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem) a passionate painter who speaks directly and has a good share of emotional issues relating to his life and ex-wife. The three have a complicated relationship throughout the film. Vicky is torn between the comfort of her boring fiance and the excitement of the wild Juan Antonio. Christina sense a similarity of spirit in Juan Antonio. He sees compatibility in Christina but something intriguing in Vicky.
In the mix is Juan Antonio's ex Maria Elena (Penelope Cruz). Maria Elena is a fireball of emotion with a love and conflict with Juan Antonio. The film revolves around these people as it tries to find a particular form of love and companionship. Their actions feel real and unforced. There are moments of pain and joy and it all is very effective. It is all set to the backdrop of the beautiful Barcelona. Allen uses a narrator for much of the film and I am typically angered by voice over but here it has purpose. He advances the story through the mundane details and we therefore experience a summer and life in interesting vignettes.
There are excellent performances by the leads here. Bardem's Spanish lover is nuanced enough that he is not just a stereotype and while you will get no overtones of his rule following sociopath of last year's No Country For Old Men you can see he is in fact an excellent actor. Penelope Cruz is wonderful doing well in both Spanish and English as the fiery passion and art inspiring whirlwind. Woody Allen has a talent for finding roles that are perfect for the somewhat limited ability of Scarlett Johansson. Rebecca Hall just is utterly charming to watch. Her uncertainty mixed with her unrestrained moments are just so much fun. She's beautiful and smart and I confess to having a crush on her very early in the film as she tries to rationalize away her own feelings.
And kudos to Allen for doing what so few in film are willing to do. Sometimes things don't turn out well in the end. Sometimes we don't learn from our mistakes or we don't reach a new understanding. Sometimes we end up right back where we started and we have to start all over in hopes of finding the answer. The end of this film was so great for me. It felt right and natural and yes a little depressing but perfect.
Vicky (Rebecca Hall) is logical, reserved, happily engaged and seeking to finish a thesis on Catalan Identity in Barcelona. Christina (Scarlett Johansson) is irrational, free spirited, single and seeking art and semi hedonism as she accompanies Vicky. As the two explore Barcelona they meet Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem) a passionate painter who speaks directly and has a good share of emotional issues relating to his life and ex-wife. The three have a complicated relationship throughout the film. Vicky is torn between the comfort of her boring fiance and the excitement of the wild Juan Antonio. Christina sense a similarity of spirit in Juan Antonio. He sees compatibility in Christina but something intriguing in Vicky.
In the mix is Juan Antonio's ex Maria Elena (Penelope Cruz). Maria Elena is a fireball of emotion with a love and conflict with Juan Antonio. The film revolves around these people as it tries to find a particular form of love and companionship. Their actions feel real and unforced. There are moments of pain and joy and it all is very effective. It is all set to the backdrop of the beautiful Barcelona. Allen uses a narrator for much of the film and I am typically angered by voice over but here it has purpose. He advances the story through the mundane details and we therefore experience a summer and life in interesting vignettes.
There are excellent performances by the leads here. Bardem's Spanish lover is nuanced enough that he is not just a stereotype and while you will get no overtones of his rule following sociopath of last year's No Country For Old Men you can see he is in fact an excellent actor. Penelope Cruz is wonderful doing well in both Spanish and English as the fiery passion and art inspiring whirlwind. Woody Allen has a talent for finding roles that are perfect for the somewhat limited ability of Scarlett Johansson. Rebecca Hall just is utterly charming to watch. Her uncertainty mixed with her unrestrained moments are just so much fun. She's beautiful and smart and I confess to having a crush on her very early in the film as she tries to rationalize away her own feelings.
And kudos to Allen for doing what so few in film are willing to do. Sometimes things don't turn out well in the end. Sometimes we don't learn from our mistakes or we don't reach a new understanding. Sometimes we end up right back where we started and we have to start all over in hopes of finding the answer. The end of this film was so great for me. It felt right and natural and yes a little depressing but perfect.
Tropic Thunder
Tropic Thunder presents four actors trying to film a war movie. These actors run the gamut of Hollywood: aging action stars, funny men desperately trying to earn respect as actors, method actors who go overboard for a role and so on. When problems have the production in trouble, the director decides to direct a guerrilla movie in which his actors don't know what is coming. When something goes wrong and the actors are actually in danger, most of them are so self involved that they don't even realize they are no longer playing at games. The group of actors has its run in with local drug lords in the jungle and try to survive.
Beyond its send up of the action flick, the movie is also heavily focused on sending up Hollywood itself. The actors are all as initially conceived one dimensional. They have ridiculous agents and there is the studio head who is a gruff s.o.b. who swears and yells and threatens to succeed. There is Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) whose action films are not grossing as much any more and whose attempt at critical praise was panned. There is Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) who made a career on fat suits and fart jokes and has a massive drug habit. He too is looking for some critical praise. And then there is the multiple award winning method actor in extreme Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey, Jr.) who has undergone a medical form of black face to play an African American soldier.
Each of these portrayals has the makings of humor and certainly the trailers that represent their careers at the opening of the film are over the top but quite humorous. Sadly the promise fizzles out quickly. Much praise has been thrown out for Tom Cruise (called unrecognizable in his makeup) as the obstinate head of the studio. I was at best uncomfortable in most of his scenes (too be sure it could have been the point) and after seeing Cruise's interview with Matt Lauer, imagining him as an asshole isn't much of stretch and so I'm not terrible impressed with his ability to play one.
In fact the whole attempt to satirize the movie industry seems to have been done better by others. Bowfinger was loads of fun. Wag the Dog even had a fair amount of Hollywood satirizing going on. This film doesn't feel like its satirizing Hollywood but rather a hollow image of what the filmmaker thinks we the viewers think Hollywood is. (Got that?) Most of what had potential for humor is sucked out by crude jokes, stupid humor or at its worst focusing the scene on the wrong thing. Notably is the discussion between Downey, Jr and Stiller about playing mentally handicapped people in movies that is interesting but ruined by the repeated and unfunny use of the word "retard."
The movie degenerates pretty quickly especially in the final act as explosions and action set pieces are played up and the actor dilemmas get increasingly ridiculous and uninspiring. Attempts to ground the potential mindfield of the Downey, Jr's character is a real African American constantly pointing out the absurdity of Downey, Jr's portrayal. At times this works and at times it falls as flat as most of the movie. I can scarcely recall laughing at all in this "comedy". Mainly I was just bored and felt it insulted my and the movie goer's intelligence.
Beyond its send up of the action flick, the movie is also heavily focused on sending up Hollywood itself. The actors are all as initially conceived one dimensional. They have ridiculous agents and there is the studio head who is a gruff s.o.b. who swears and yells and threatens to succeed. There is Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) whose action films are not grossing as much any more and whose attempt at critical praise was panned. There is Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) who made a career on fat suits and fart jokes and has a massive drug habit. He too is looking for some critical praise. And then there is the multiple award winning method actor in extreme Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey, Jr.) who has undergone a medical form of black face to play an African American soldier.
Each of these portrayals has the makings of humor and certainly the trailers that represent their careers at the opening of the film are over the top but quite humorous. Sadly the promise fizzles out quickly. Much praise has been thrown out for Tom Cruise (called unrecognizable in his makeup) as the obstinate head of the studio. I was at best uncomfortable in most of his scenes (too be sure it could have been the point) and after seeing Cruise's interview with Matt Lauer, imagining him as an asshole isn't much of stretch and so I'm not terrible impressed with his ability to play one.
In fact the whole attempt to satirize the movie industry seems to have been done better by others. Bowfinger was loads of fun. Wag the Dog even had a fair amount of Hollywood satirizing going on. This film doesn't feel like its satirizing Hollywood but rather a hollow image of what the filmmaker thinks we the viewers think Hollywood is. (Got that?) Most of what had potential for humor is sucked out by crude jokes, stupid humor or at its worst focusing the scene on the wrong thing. Notably is the discussion between Downey, Jr and Stiller about playing mentally handicapped people in movies that is interesting but ruined by the repeated and unfunny use of the word "retard."
The movie degenerates pretty quickly especially in the final act as explosions and action set pieces are played up and the actor dilemmas get increasingly ridiculous and uninspiring. Attempts to ground the potential mindfield of the Downey, Jr's character is a real African American constantly pointing out the absurdity of Downey, Jr's portrayal. At times this works and at times it falls as flat as most of the movie. I can scarcely recall laughing at all in this "comedy". Mainly I was just bored and felt it insulted my and the movie goer's intelligence.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Forthcoming
Recently I've been thinking of trying to write essays on films and why they are so magical to me. So along with my reviews I will try to write said essays much as my cinematic arena essay on The Diving Bell and the Butterfly:Fathers and Sons.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Encounters At The End Of The World
The greatest thing about writing a review about a documentary? No plot synopsis. Encounters at the End of the World is the newest documentary from Werner Herzog. Simply put its about Antarctica. But nothing with Herzog is every simply put. Herzog journeys to the continent of ice inspired by underwater photography but it is not simply a documentary about sea creatures under the glacier. In fact the film touches on several researches going on there including volcanology, seal and penguin studies.
Herzog is not just interested in nature, he is interested in mankind as well. What drives man to do what he does. And Antarctica provides a unique possibility for finding some of those answers. What drives men and women from all walks of life to arguably the most inhospitable place on Earth? The film is filled with absolutely gorgeous photography of icy landscapes, exotic alien undersea life and enduring colonies of penguins and volcanoes and anything else you can imagine. By contrast there is the particularly jarring return regularly to McMurdo station a sprawling eye sore of industrial human presence in a virtually unspoiled landscape.
Inside the industrial nightmare are a menagerie of adventurers and scientists. Herzog takes time to put some of these men and women before his camera and to investigate what drove them to come to this land. They are ultimate dreamers. It is a sad realization that most of us will never go to places like Antarctica, many of us will never leave our home countries and some will never leave their home states. But here at the end of the world are people who escaped despotic oppression or threw off societal collars and came to live in a wonderland of fantasy.
Herzog is so good at contrasting man and nature and the drive of human beings. His film feels like a philosophic dissertation on man. To be sure it is scattered. It does not focus on one thing. It seems clear that you could make a documentary about almost any one of the many things going on at the strange southern continent. But the scattering gives both a broad view of the many marvels of an exotic land and feels fitting as one searches for the answer to a question that is by its nature perhaps unanswerable.
There is even a since of regret that such great natural places were not left untarnished. A short discourse on man's need to claim and conquer the final frontier brings on a melancholy to Herzog, emphasized by an interview with a glory seeker who wishes to hop on a pogo stick to the South Pole. It is enormously satisfying to watch a film whose concern is the human condition without the wider worries of our everyday world. There is little mention of global warming in this picture not because it isn't a serious threat but rather because the foregone conclusion of the film is that humans life will end in one way or another.
This film may well inspire some to throw off constraints of their lives and seek out Antarctica themselves. But even if it doesn't you should at least see it and for two hours explore a world you can't quite imagine and ask questions you can't easily answer. It is an experience you won't regret.
Herzog is not just interested in nature, he is interested in mankind as well. What drives man to do what he does. And Antarctica provides a unique possibility for finding some of those answers. What drives men and women from all walks of life to arguably the most inhospitable place on Earth? The film is filled with absolutely gorgeous photography of icy landscapes, exotic alien undersea life and enduring colonies of penguins and volcanoes and anything else you can imagine. By contrast there is the particularly jarring return regularly to McMurdo station a sprawling eye sore of industrial human presence in a virtually unspoiled landscape.
Inside the industrial nightmare are a menagerie of adventurers and scientists. Herzog takes time to put some of these men and women before his camera and to investigate what drove them to come to this land. They are ultimate dreamers. It is a sad realization that most of us will never go to places like Antarctica, many of us will never leave our home countries and some will never leave their home states. But here at the end of the world are people who escaped despotic oppression or threw off societal collars and came to live in a wonderland of fantasy.
Herzog is so good at contrasting man and nature and the drive of human beings. His film feels like a philosophic dissertation on man. To be sure it is scattered. It does not focus on one thing. It seems clear that you could make a documentary about almost any one of the many things going on at the strange southern continent. But the scattering gives both a broad view of the many marvels of an exotic land and feels fitting as one searches for the answer to a question that is by its nature perhaps unanswerable.
There is even a since of regret that such great natural places were not left untarnished. A short discourse on man's need to claim and conquer the final frontier brings on a melancholy to Herzog, emphasized by an interview with a glory seeker who wishes to hop on a pogo stick to the South Pole. It is enormously satisfying to watch a film whose concern is the human condition without the wider worries of our everyday world. There is little mention of global warming in this picture not because it isn't a serious threat but rather because the foregone conclusion of the film is that humans life will end in one way or another.
This film may well inspire some to throw off constraints of their lives and seek out Antarctica themselves. But even if it doesn't you should at least see it and for two hours explore a world you can't quite imagine and ask questions you can't easily answer. It is an experience you won't regret.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)