Pierrot Le Fou(dir. Jean-Luc Godard)
REVIEW PENDING...
**** out of ****
Showing posts with label great. Show all posts
Showing posts with label great. Show all posts
Monday, June 16, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Oh Paris, Texas...
Paris, Texas(dir. Wim Wenders)[rewatch]
It's still one of the most profoundly moving meditations on family, love, sacrifice, and life in general.
**** out of ****
It's still one of the most profoundly moving meditations on family, love, sacrifice, and life in general.
**** out of ****
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Oh Oates and Carrandine...
The Shooting(dir. Monte Hellman)
I have never seen a film with expansive American desert as it's backdrop that felt so claustrophobic. The whole experience is one of disorientation with Hellman sometimes transitioning from a scene in an abrupt and perplexing manner. Much like the film's protagonist, the viewer has to always be on his/her toes since the journey is unexpected yet somehow feels entirely premeditated. The film's setting is really the star of the film and not Warren Oates, who still gives a good performance despite not being the star. It's shot in such a fashion that makes it so drab and unflattering that it makes all the recent films set in the desert look childish in comparison. The desert truly looks like purgatory, waiting to suffocate it's inhabitants. The editing of it's fatalistic ending is haunting in it's sun-drenched and off-beat rhythm. This is how you make an existential western. It's a masterpiece.
**** out of ****
Welcome to L.A.(dir. Alan Rudolph)
At first, it was sort of charming in it's romantic Altman-esque tapestry, but as it went along, you quickly realize how much of a master Altman was with juggling the characters and progressing the narratives in his films. The film just eventually became as aimless as its characters' love lives. Keith Carradine could be considered the main character and he essentially plays his womanizing character from Nashville in a less despicable manner with no mustache, just goatee. The whole film feels like a sub-par Nashville with characters that never feel wholly etched out and music that starts off fine but quickly becomes grating because of its repetitive sounding quality and it being overused past the point of tolerance. The film became repetitious and basically went nowhere. It has no idea what to do with it's vast repertoire of characters other than having them sometimes hook up with each other. It was bad.
*1/2 out of ****
I have never seen a film with expansive American desert as it's backdrop that felt so claustrophobic. The whole experience is one of disorientation with Hellman sometimes transitioning from a scene in an abrupt and perplexing manner. Much like the film's protagonist, the viewer has to always be on his/her toes since the journey is unexpected yet somehow feels entirely premeditated. The film's setting is really the star of the film and not Warren Oates, who still gives a good performance despite not being the star. It's shot in such a fashion that makes it so drab and unflattering that it makes all the recent films set in the desert look childish in comparison. The desert truly looks like purgatory, waiting to suffocate it's inhabitants. The editing of it's fatalistic ending is haunting in it's sun-drenched and off-beat rhythm. This is how you make an existential western. It's a masterpiece.
**** out of ****
Welcome to L.A.(dir. Alan Rudolph)
At first, it was sort of charming in it's romantic Altman-esque tapestry, but as it went along, you quickly realize how much of a master Altman was with juggling the characters and progressing the narratives in his films. The film just eventually became as aimless as its characters' love lives. Keith Carradine could be considered the main character and he essentially plays his womanizing character from Nashville in a less despicable manner with no mustache, just goatee. The whole film feels like a sub-par Nashville with characters that never feel wholly etched out and music that starts off fine but quickly becomes grating because of its repetitive sounding quality and it being overused past the point of tolerance. The film became repetitious and basically went nowhere. It has no idea what to do with it's vast repertoire of characters other than having them sometimes hook up with each other. It was bad.
*1/2 out of ****
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Oh Bob Dylan and Some Japanese Composer...
Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid[2005 cut](dir. Sam Peckinpah)
I wasn't a big fan of The Wild Bunch, which is the only film directed by Peckinpah I've had the pleasure to see. Much like Seven Samurai, a film I personally feel is overrated, it's overlong and contains a group of individuals that are never feel fully fleshed out even when all the time spent before their respective "showdown" is supposed to be time for "character development," but their characters never end up making a dent presence-wise so the time spent "developing" them mainly numbs the mind. This film, however, is simply incredible. It's the best revisionist western I've ever seen. I'd imagine seeing an earlier cut might change my mind about Peckinpah's genius with this film since this cut was made by people "following" Peckinpah's wishes even though they essentially overrode "his vision" and constructed, from what I've read, a tighter and better film. While The Wild Bunch was mainly an ugly vision of the old west, this is an elegiac vision filled with both beauty as well as ugliness, but mainly beauty. I dare anyone to watch Slim Pickens' character's death and not be moved by it's awe-inspiring poetry. The picture is nihilistic but in a more subtle and invigorating way than say No Country for Old Men. Both films focus on death, but this film's ability to make a peripheral character's death like Slim Pickens' seem monumentally tragic yet inevitable shows what's truly wrong with that film. I fucking love this.
**** out of ****
Pale Flower(dir. Masahiro Shinoda)
It doesn't come close to some of Seijun Suzuki's yakuza masterpieces, but that doesn't mean it's not invigorating and plus it doesn't even attempt to operate in the same realm as his films. It mainly plays ike Albert Camus' The Stranger with a hint of In a Lonely Place and Kiss Me Deadly set in Japan and with a yakuza instead of some French dude. I don't know why I was reminded of Kiss Me Deadly. Maybe all the car imagery? I guess In a Lonely Place is more apt with it's car imagery especially in concern with the whole speeding scene in this film reminding me of Bogart's character's speeding scene in that film except the one found here is more playful and harmless. This film is also nihilistic much like the picture above, but it's nihilism is viewed through the prism of a doomed and unfulfilled romance instead of a man trying to adapt to his harsh environment by basically selling his soul. It's not nearly as tragic as In a Lonely Place mainly because their romance never truly blossoms and disintegrates like the one found in that film, just the chance of it disintegrates. The main characters in this film and the one above both use killing almost as a form of spiritual suicide and subsequently a form of survival and coping. While the film above is more moving, it's hard to look at this film and label it as a minor work of any kind. Sure, it's not as intense and memorable as Double Suicide or the film above, but it still makes for a really good watch. I highly recommend.
***1/2 out of ****
I wasn't a big fan of The Wild Bunch, which is the only film directed by Peckinpah I've had the pleasure to see. Much like Seven Samurai, a film I personally feel is overrated, it's overlong and contains a group of individuals that are never feel fully fleshed out even when all the time spent before their respective "showdown" is supposed to be time for "character development," but their characters never end up making a dent presence-wise so the time spent "developing" them mainly numbs the mind. This film, however, is simply incredible. It's the best revisionist western I've ever seen. I'd imagine seeing an earlier cut might change my mind about Peckinpah's genius with this film since this cut was made by people "following" Peckinpah's wishes even though they essentially overrode "his vision" and constructed, from what I've read, a tighter and better film. While The Wild Bunch was mainly an ugly vision of the old west, this is an elegiac vision filled with both beauty as well as ugliness, but mainly beauty. I dare anyone to watch Slim Pickens' character's death and not be moved by it's awe-inspiring poetry. The picture is nihilistic but in a more subtle and invigorating way than say No Country for Old Men. Both films focus on death, but this film's ability to make a peripheral character's death like Slim Pickens' seem monumentally tragic yet inevitable shows what's truly wrong with that film. I fucking love this.
**** out of ****
Pale Flower(dir. Masahiro Shinoda)
It doesn't come close to some of Seijun Suzuki's yakuza masterpieces, but that doesn't mean it's not invigorating and plus it doesn't even attempt to operate in the same realm as his films. It mainly plays ike Albert Camus' The Stranger with a hint of In a Lonely Place and Kiss Me Deadly set in Japan and with a yakuza instead of some French dude. I don't know why I was reminded of Kiss Me Deadly. Maybe all the car imagery? I guess In a Lonely Place is more apt with it's car imagery especially in concern with the whole speeding scene in this film reminding me of Bogart's character's speeding scene in that film except the one found here is more playful and harmless. This film is also nihilistic much like the picture above, but it's nihilism is viewed through the prism of a doomed and unfulfilled romance instead of a man trying to adapt to his harsh environment by basically selling his soul. It's not nearly as tragic as In a Lonely Place mainly because their romance never truly blossoms and disintegrates like the one found in that film, just the chance of it disintegrates. The main characters in this film and the one above both use killing almost as a form of spiritual suicide and subsequently a form of survival and coping. While the film above is more moving, it's hard to look at this film and label it as a minor work of any kind. Sure, it's not as intense and memorable as Double Suicide or the film above, but it still makes for a really good watch. I highly recommend.
***1/2 out of ****
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Oh Iran Riddling You With Goals...
Offside(dir. Jafar Panahi)
It's amazing how seamless this film is in it's construction. Jafar Panahi discusses on the interview with him on the disc how he presents the material in a real-time manner and how some people actually thought he shot the whole film in one day. Since I watched the interview before viewing the film, I thought it was just people trying to flatter the director with these comments, but once I saw the film, it becomes understandable how one could think that. It's also amazing how compelling this film is given that it's mainly just a bunch of conversations with little variety in terms of setting. Richard Linklater should seriously take some notes while watching this film because this easily trumps anything I've seen directed by him. It's strange that I always end up becoming really fond of politically-tinged films since I'm pretty ambivalent when it comes to politics and I hate the notion that cinema, at least American cinema, can be viewed as "important" to society. Maybe, it's because most of the films that are labeled as "important" are usually Oscar-baiting pieces of shit. The reason I think I enjoy films like this, Battle of Algiers, and so on is most likely due to the filmmakers being passionate about what they're filming. There's a reason why shit like TMNT is shit because why would anybody give a shit about that shit? The film truly glows when it shows the celebration of the detainees along with their fellow countrymen after Iran's victory over Bahrain and perfectly drives it's message home. Why can't people just be able to celebrate together without restrictions that deny them their rights to expression and happiness? It's a masterpiece.
**** out of ****
Paprika(dir. Satoshi Kon)
Aqua Teen Hunger Force > this. It's hard not to compare the two since they're both animated mind trips, but where ATHF is bizarrely charming and engaging, this is just dull and pretentious. I don't hate anime craziness. I remember catching an episode of FLCL (pronounced Fooly Cooly to all those folks out of the loop) and being mesmerized by it's insanity. This, however, has no sense of spontaneity to it's craziness to mesmerize the viewer in any sort of way. It's much like Stardust in how the film expected the spectacle of it all to do all the work. I liked the music and it's kind of cool to look at, but in terms of containing anything remotely engaging, it falls flat. It equating film to a dream shared between a collective is interesting, but overall, it is mediocre.
** out of ****
It's amazing how seamless this film is in it's construction. Jafar Panahi discusses on the interview with him on the disc how he presents the material in a real-time manner and how some people actually thought he shot the whole film in one day. Since I watched the interview before viewing the film, I thought it was just people trying to flatter the director with these comments, but once I saw the film, it becomes understandable how one could think that. It's also amazing how compelling this film is given that it's mainly just a bunch of conversations with little variety in terms of setting. Richard Linklater should seriously take some notes while watching this film because this easily trumps anything I've seen directed by him. It's strange that I always end up becoming really fond of politically-tinged films since I'm pretty ambivalent when it comes to politics and I hate the notion that cinema, at least American cinema, can be viewed as "important" to society. Maybe, it's because most of the films that are labeled as "important" are usually Oscar-baiting pieces of shit. The reason I think I enjoy films like this, Battle of Algiers, and so on is most likely due to the filmmakers being passionate about what they're filming. There's a reason why shit like TMNT is shit because why would anybody give a shit about that shit? The film truly glows when it shows the celebration of the detainees along with their fellow countrymen after Iran's victory over Bahrain and perfectly drives it's message home. Why can't people just be able to celebrate together without restrictions that deny them their rights to expression and happiness? It's a masterpiece.
**** out of ****
Paprika(dir. Satoshi Kon)
Aqua Teen Hunger Force > this. It's hard not to compare the two since they're both animated mind trips, but where ATHF is bizarrely charming and engaging, this is just dull and pretentious. I don't hate anime craziness. I remember catching an episode of FLCL (pronounced Fooly Cooly to all those folks out of the loop) and being mesmerized by it's insanity. This, however, has no sense of spontaneity to it's craziness to mesmerize the viewer in any sort of way. It's much like Stardust in how the film expected the spectacle of it all to do all the work. I liked the music and it's kind of cool to look at, but in terms of containing anything remotely engaging, it falls flat. It equating film to a dream shared between a collective is interesting, but overall, it is mediocre.
** out of ****
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Oh Man Dick...
Superbad[Unrated Cut](dir. Greg Mottola)
Still feel about the same as I did when I saw it the first time, which means that I still don't buy Seth changing over night. You could make a point that he was always like that and was just being basically an obnoxious sleazeball for show, but really? He acts that way pretty much throughout the whole film even when he's with his best friend, who he should feel most comfortable around. I'll say now that I prefer this over Knocked Up because that film examined unplanned pregnancy in a too light and breezy way probably due to being told mainly from a male perspective, but this film has similar problems with it's portrayal of female characters because of it being told from a male perspective as well. This film is definitely funny, but it's hard not to feel that Seth is a sleaze and wish that Evan would find someone a little bit more decent as a friend. It's not a comedy classic like Rush Hour 3, but what is?
*** out of ****
Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters(dir. Dave Willis and Matt Maillero)
As a comedy, it's not particularly good. As an avant-garde WTF-fest in a similar vein to Inland Empire, it works surprisingly well, almost too well. The plot is rather simple, it's just the trying to describe individual moments and trying to make sense of them on a narrative level that proves difficult. A movie that is filled with killer gigantic exercise equipment and cannons that make kittens explode is bound to be a little incomprehensible and the film almost achieves a sense of grace with it's insanity. It is, indeed, #1 in the hood, G.
***1/2 out of ****
Drama/Mex(dir. Gerardo Naranjo)
Raw and honest. It's almost something Cassavetes would have made if he was Mexican and into this current trend of intertwining storylines with several characters. It's essentially two movies in one and really good ones at that. It never ends up trying to unify both stories together. The characters simply visit some of the same locales and end up seeing and running into each other several times, but they never converse with each other outside of Tigrillo asking Gonzalo for a ride. The stories are rather bleak, but the film consistently looks on the bright side, which is actually sort of refreshing especially after recent bleak films like No Country for Old Men that are needlessly pessimistic. I highly recommend.
***1/2 out of ****
We Own the Night(dir. James Gray)
I don't understand this film's average rating on Metacritic. Maybe, I'm just out of touch with the critics and regular film watchers, but I think this film is impeccable. I would label it as great and I'm definitely going to. Critics have compared this film to The Departed and I personally think this film makes that film look like dog shit in comparison. It's understandable why the critics compared the two since this film's marketing and trailers used a similar font to the one used by that film's marketing and Mark Wahlberg appears in both, but that film wishes it had this film's sense of Catholic guilt and spirituality. In a similar vein(my phrase of this forum post) to Michael Mann and Jean-Pierre Melville, James Gray uses criminality as a way to examine the soul. When Bobby's brother(Mark Wahlberg) is almost killed, he feels a profound sense of guilt that is seriously lacking in a film like The Departed that revels in death. In this film, death has much more weight and isn't something to be used for mere entertainment value. Bobby's path to redemption is never as easy as it is in a film like Black Snake Moan, he actually makes sacrifices. It easily contains the car chase of the year despite me not having seen The Bourne Ultimatum yet, but I can't imagine that film's car chase(s) being as emotionally charged and transcendental as the one found here. It's a masterpiece.
**** out of ****
Still feel about the same as I did when I saw it the first time, which means that I still don't buy Seth changing over night. You could make a point that he was always like that and was just being basically an obnoxious sleazeball for show, but really? He acts that way pretty much throughout the whole film even when he's with his best friend, who he should feel most comfortable around. I'll say now that I prefer this over Knocked Up because that film examined unplanned pregnancy in a too light and breezy way probably due to being told mainly from a male perspective, but this film has similar problems with it's portrayal of female characters because of it being told from a male perspective as well. This film is definitely funny, but it's hard not to feel that Seth is a sleaze and wish that Evan would find someone a little bit more decent as a friend. It's not a comedy classic like Rush Hour 3, but what is?
*** out of ****
Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters(dir. Dave Willis and Matt Maillero)
As a comedy, it's not particularly good. As an avant-garde WTF-fest in a similar vein to Inland Empire, it works surprisingly well, almost too well. The plot is rather simple, it's just the trying to describe individual moments and trying to make sense of them on a narrative level that proves difficult. A movie that is filled with killer gigantic exercise equipment and cannons that make kittens explode is bound to be a little incomprehensible and the film almost achieves a sense of grace with it's insanity. It is, indeed, #1 in the hood, G.
***1/2 out of ****
Drama/Mex(dir. Gerardo Naranjo)
Raw and honest. It's almost something Cassavetes would have made if he was Mexican and into this current trend of intertwining storylines with several characters. It's essentially two movies in one and really good ones at that. It never ends up trying to unify both stories together. The characters simply visit some of the same locales and end up seeing and running into each other several times, but they never converse with each other outside of Tigrillo asking Gonzalo for a ride. The stories are rather bleak, but the film consistently looks on the bright side, which is actually sort of refreshing especially after recent bleak films like No Country for Old Men that are needlessly pessimistic. I highly recommend.
***1/2 out of ****
We Own the Night(dir. James Gray)
I don't understand this film's average rating on Metacritic. Maybe, I'm just out of touch with the critics and regular film watchers, but I think this film is impeccable. I would label it as great and I'm definitely going to. Critics have compared this film to The Departed and I personally think this film makes that film look like dog shit in comparison. It's understandable why the critics compared the two since this film's marketing and trailers used a similar font to the one used by that film's marketing and Mark Wahlberg appears in both, but that film wishes it had this film's sense of Catholic guilt and spirituality. In a similar vein(my phrase of this forum post) to Michael Mann and Jean-Pierre Melville, James Gray uses criminality as a way to examine the soul. When Bobby's brother(Mark Wahlberg) is almost killed, he feels a profound sense of guilt that is seriously lacking in a film like The Departed that revels in death. In this film, death has much more weight and isn't something to be used for mere entertainment value. Bobby's path to redemption is never as easy as it is in a film like Black Snake Moan, he actually makes sacrifices. It easily contains the car chase of the year despite me not having seen The Bourne Ultimatum yet, but I can't imagine that film's car chase(s) being as emotionally charged and transcendental as the one found here. It's a masterpiece.
**** out of ****
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Oh SF...
Sink or Swim(dir. Su Friedrich)
Her films are intensely personal but are capable of sucking you in in an empathetic reverie. I've probably used this description before, but they really do play out like an intimate diary or journal entry that would be difficult to reveal to anybody due to how exposed emotionally they are. Much like some of her films, this film is her trying to come to terms with some aspect in her life and in this film, that would be her relationship with her largely absent father. Even though her films are intensely personal, she hardly ever presents the "story" as if it were her own. It could be anybody's story and she strives for a universality by focusing on the emotions instead of the details. The voice-over is detailed about certain events and memories about her father, but the main appeal is the emotions the voice-over conveys to the audience. It's almost cold and detached yet it's actually fiercely alive and emotional. Her poetic sensibility is immensely appealing to me so me labeling this as a masterpiece isn't that big of a surprise. It's a masterpiece.
**** out of ****
Cool Hands, Warm Heart(dir. Su Friedrich)
Images of women in the street protesting against the patriarchal society we live in by shaving their legs and armpits in public, cutting their hair, and skinning apples? The skinning apples didn't make all that much sense. Maybe it's supposed to represent how that particular woman feels being on a tiny stage, essentially exposing herself in public in an emotional sense. A woman eventually grabs her hand and takes her an arcade to have some fun(no, not sexual fun, get your mind out of the gutter). What does all this mean? This seems to be one of her more outspoken "message" films even though there's nothing didactic at all about it in the traditional sense with her evocative imagery and "storytelling." I feel what it's trying to convey is that feminism, especially of the lesbian sort, aims to create an environment where individuals can freely love without traditional gender rules, but the individuals trying to achieve this goal are also unable to love given the amount of time and energy they put into their effort. As the central woman is taken away by this unknown woman, there's a sense of liberation. As they have fun in the arcade, you can see that this is the protesters' vision of paradise and their ultimate goal. While my description probably makes it sound shittier than it really is, it's actually profoundly moving and thought-provoking unlike pseudo-feminist trash like The Vagina Monologues. It's another masterpiece.
**** out of ****
Scar Tissue(dir. Su Friedrich)
Another one of her more "message"-driven films and a little more heavy-handed or at least stretched compared to her other films of this type. Thankfully, it's not as bad as Lesbian Avengers Eat Fire, Too(I blame her co-director for everything that was wrong with that film). While it's duration is only 6 minutes, it's hard not to say that it feels a tad overlong even if it took me about half that time to figure out what she was trying to convey. The film is composed of images of men and woman in dress attire and the editing is much like a flicker film(or at least my understanding of them from what I've read). She conveys to the audience the unfairness of "acceptable" dress attire for men and woman. Men are able to wear suits and pants while woman must wear uncomfortable high-heels and skirts. While this thought is sound, it's not a particularly insightful one. It's probably the most subtle protest I've ever seen and I do agree with what she's saying, it just doesn't make all that great cinema. I still recommend.
*** out of ****
Her films are intensely personal but are capable of sucking you in in an empathetic reverie. I've probably used this description before, but they really do play out like an intimate diary or journal entry that would be difficult to reveal to anybody due to how exposed emotionally they are. Much like some of her films, this film is her trying to come to terms with some aspect in her life and in this film, that would be her relationship with her largely absent father. Even though her films are intensely personal, she hardly ever presents the "story" as if it were her own. It could be anybody's story and she strives for a universality by focusing on the emotions instead of the details. The voice-over is detailed about certain events and memories about her father, but the main appeal is the emotions the voice-over conveys to the audience. It's almost cold and detached yet it's actually fiercely alive and emotional. Her poetic sensibility is immensely appealing to me so me labeling this as a masterpiece isn't that big of a surprise. It's a masterpiece.
**** out of ****
Cool Hands, Warm Heart(dir. Su Friedrich)
Images of women in the street protesting against the patriarchal society we live in by shaving their legs and armpits in public, cutting their hair, and skinning apples? The skinning apples didn't make all that much sense. Maybe it's supposed to represent how that particular woman feels being on a tiny stage, essentially exposing herself in public in an emotional sense. A woman eventually grabs her hand and takes her an arcade to have some fun(no, not sexual fun, get your mind out of the gutter). What does all this mean? This seems to be one of her more outspoken "message" films even though there's nothing didactic at all about it in the traditional sense with her evocative imagery and "storytelling." I feel what it's trying to convey is that feminism, especially of the lesbian sort, aims to create an environment where individuals can freely love without traditional gender rules, but the individuals trying to achieve this goal are also unable to love given the amount of time and energy they put into their effort. As the central woman is taken away by this unknown woman, there's a sense of liberation. As they have fun in the arcade, you can see that this is the protesters' vision of paradise and their ultimate goal. While my description probably makes it sound shittier than it really is, it's actually profoundly moving and thought-provoking unlike pseudo-feminist trash like The Vagina Monologues. It's another masterpiece.
**** out of ****
Scar Tissue(dir. Su Friedrich)
Another one of her more "message"-driven films and a little more heavy-handed or at least stretched compared to her other films of this type. Thankfully, it's not as bad as Lesbian Avengers Eat Fire, Too(I blame her co-director for everything that was wrong with that film). While it's duration is only 6 minutes, it's hard not to say that it feels a tad overlong even if it took me about half that time to figure out what she was trying to convey. The film is composed of images of men and woman in dress attire and the editing is much like a flicker film(or at least my understanding of them from what I've read). She conveys to the audience the unfairness of "acceptable" dress attire for men and woman. Men are able to wear suits and pants while woman must wear uncomfortable high-heels and skirts. While this thought is sound, it's not a particularly insightful one. It's probably the most subtle protest I've ever seen and I do agree with what she's saying, it just doesn't make all that great cinema. I still recommend.
*** out of ****
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Oh Halloween...
The Fall of the House of Usher(dir. Jean Epstein)
I have a serious lack of experience with silent cinema. I'm not sure why. The score that accompanied this film was excellent. That's one thing that always seemed strange to me about silent cinema is that most of the time, they don't always have a default and "definitive" score for a film so your experience could be drastically different depending how you see it but whatever. The images were haunting and dream-like. It slightly dragged at certain parts, but other than that minor quibble, it is a masterpiece.
**** out of *****
Surspiria(dir. Dario Argento)
I spoke too soon with my comparison of him to John Woo. They obviously had really nothing in common before other than that they're great stylistically at their given genre, but now, having seen this, a more apt comparison would be to Seijun Suzuki given this film's over-stylized look. I'm starting to feel that I overrated Tenebre since it is starting to look mundane and dull because of this. The only thing Tenebre really had going for it in my mind were the overly violent murders while this contains a captivating world of horror and even more imaginative and elaborate murders. It's not really scary, but it's hard to disregard the film's creepy atmosphere, which is created mainly by the film's wonderful score by Goblin. I thought the Dawn of the Dead score was awesome, but man, this one easily dominates it. I easily consider it one of my top 5 favorite scores. The narrative doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it's easily more engaging than the mystery presented in Tenebre. The set design is amazing. The whole film is amazing. It's a masterpiece.
**** out of ****
Wolf Creek[Unrated cut](dir. Greg McLean)
I don't really understand how Roger Ebert gave this zero stars. It's not exactly pleasant, but nothing about it was out of line. Reading his review, you expect an hour and 40 minutes of women getting tortured when there's very little of that. This is an extremely well-executed genre piece that is physically and emotionally draining. It has some problems like employing basically an invincible boogeyman in it's narrative and maybe taking a little too long to get the "horror" going. It exploited it's narrative's "based on true events" aspect perhaps a little too much with it's ending, expecting this film to resonate more with the audience because it's "true." That just seems cheap and phony, but it's hard to knock the film too much since it's so tight and well-done. Now, I feel like I overrated The Thing. I highly recommend.
***1/2 out of ****
I have a serious lack of experience with silent cinema. I'm not sure why. The score that accompanied this film was excellent. That's one thing that always seemed strange to me about silent cinema is that most of the time, they don't always have a default and "definitive" score for a film so your experience could be drastically different depending how you see it but whatever. The images were haunting and dream-like. It slightly dragged at certain parts, but other than that minor quibble, it is a masterpiece.
**** out of *****
Surspiria(dir. Dario Argento)
I spoke too soon with my comparison of him to John Woo. They obviously had really nothing in common before other than that they're great stylistically at their given genre, but now, having seen this, a more apt comparison would be to Seijun Suzuki given this film's over-stylized look. I'm starting to feel that I overrated Tenebre since it is starting to look mundane and dull because of this. The only thing Tenebre really had going for it in my mind were the overly violent murders while this contains a captivating world of horror and even more imaginative and elaborate murders. It's not really scary, but it's hard to disregard the film's creepy atmosphere, which is created mainly by the film's wonderful score by Goblin. I thought the Dawn of the Dead score was awesome, but man, this one easily dominates it. I easily consider it one of my top 5 favorite scores. The narrative doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it's easily more engaging than the mystery presented in Tenebre. The set design is amazing. The whole film is amazing. It's a masterpiece.
**** out of ****
Wolf Creek[Unrated cut](dir. Greg McLean)
I don't really understand how Roger Ebert gave this zero stars. It's not exactly pleasant, but nothing about it was out of line. Reading his review, you expect an hour and 40 minutes of women getting tortured when there's very little of that. This is an extremely well-executed genre piece that is physically and emotionally draining. It has some problems like employing basically an invincible boogeyman in it's narrative and maybe taking a little too long to get the "horror" going. It exploited it's narrative's "based on true events" aspect perhaps a little too much with it's ending, expecting this film to resonate more with the audience because it's "true." That just seems cheap and phony, but it's hard to knock the film too much since it's so tight and well-done. Now, I feel like I overrated The Thing. I highly recommend.
***1/2 out of ****
Friday, October 26, 2007
Oh Smokey the Bear...
Miami Vice(dir. Michael Mann)[Original Cut]
The only differences that are readily apparent between the two cuts are the beginning and the music that is used in the final shoot out. The beginning in the original is much more abrupt given that it doesn't gradually let you fall into this world but ends up throwing you in the middle of it, expecting you to grasp what's going on. The viewer is forced to play catch up instead of simply sitting there passive. While playing catch up, the viewer might not ever grasp what's going on because a lot of the affairs and the story can be viewed as either painfully simple or painfully complex. The movie plays more of a deconstruction of itself with it's murky yet beautiful DV and giving the viewer action set-pieces that feel like another day of routine for it's protagonists. It's an anti-action action movie. One criticism that seems to be lobbed at this film often is the underdeveloped nature of it's characters. It's a criticism definitely worth noting especially since it was a problem that plagued my first viewing of the film in it's unrated form, but looking at the film now, it doesn't seem like a hindrance at all. These men are so involved in their careers that personality or character elude them since they're so preoccupied with going undercover and taking down drug lords to really care. Comparing these characters to other action characters like John McClane or James Bond shows the film's unsympathetic and honest portrayal of it's protagonists. It doesn't try to dress these characters up as smart or charming but as merely men doing their jobs. The level of professionalism in this film is downright intoxicating not just to this viewer but to the characters themselves. The romantic entanglements in the film don't seem to be really based on any traditional idea of attraction or love. The characters might find their lovers sexually attractive but that's clearly not what they find the most attractive. It's obviously an appreciation and lust for the other's professional mastery. Gong Li's businesswoman(forgot her name) barely knows Sonny before subsequently having sex with him. These type of quick sexual encounters happen all the time, but given the character's rather conservative demeanor, it feels like it must be a rare occurrence for her. The romantic encounters in this film practically play out as professional circle jerks. Mann not only uses these romances to create a sexual tension in this world of professional professionalism but to show the interchangeability and parallel nature between his two protagonists. He definitely gets this point across by having both protagonists have sex in the shower with their respective lover. Outside of the romance, the story could be viewed as fairly routine, but that's exactly what the film needed to be. It needed to feel routine since this type of work is supposed to be routine for it's protagonists so if it was super exciting in an action movie sort of way, it would feel false. A perfect example is the final shoot out in the film. If the intensity was notched up to match a film like say Live Free or Die Hard's intensity in that final shoot out sequence, this world of professional professionalism would basically fall apart. It's almost mundane in it's construction. Let's compare this scene to a scene in a film by a director that obviously has influenced Michael Mann, Jean-Pierre Melville. The heist scene in Le Cercle Rouge is comparable given it's low-key nature compared to other movie heists just like how the shoot out in this film compares to other shoot outs. The characters in that film don't scream or make a big fuss while performing the heist, they simply do it much like the characters in the shoot out of this film. Mann doesn't try to create false tension since it's a fairly routine occurrence for these characters. The film is a perfect match for it's characters' cold and precise demeanor up until the end, which is absolutely emotionally penetrating. This is where the underdeveloped nature of the characters turns into a blessing since the ending hints at development. They start appearing more human and graceful in their world of cold and precise professionalism. As you can tell, I fucking love this movie now. A rewatch was definitely beneficial, and I recommend everyone that didn't dig it the first time to give it another try. It's a masterpiece.
**** out of ****
Gone Baby Gone(dir. Ben Affleck)
Has easily one of the most haunting sequences of the year. If you haven't seen the movie yet, once you see it, you'll know exactly what I'm taking about. His approach to the material is impeccable, but the material itself isn't so impeccable. It's hard for me to stomach how this story leaves it's central mystery unresolved, moves on and then comes back to resolve it all nice and neatly. There is still moral baggage for the viewer to think about after viewing, but it's not nearly as engaging and honest as it could have been if it had ended relatively soon after the sequence mentioned above. Stories like these usually don't end on as happy of a note like this and it's narrative construction becomes readily apparent when it starts to initiate it's resolution when it was practically seamless before. I am looking forward to see what he directs next. I recommend.
*** out of ****
Planet Terror(dir. Robert Rodriguez)
The build-up is really fun, but once the action starts, it becomes increasingly tiresome. I have no idea whether Rodriguez wants the viewer to gawk at his creation or laugh at it. It doesn't matter since he's not successful when you approach his film from both ways. It's not nearly ridiculous enough in it's action to actually be fun. Give me Bruce Willis going off a jump with a snowmobile screaming any day of the week over this mediocre shit.
** out of ****
The only differences that are readily apparent between the two cuts are the beginning and the music that is used in the final shoot out. The beginning in the original is much more abrupt given that it doesn't gradually let you fall into this world but ends up throwing you in the middle of it, expecting you to grasp what's going on. The viewer is forced to play catch up instead of simply sitting there passive. While playing catch up, the viewer might not ever grasp what's going on because a lot of the affairs and the story can be viewed as either painfully simple or painfully complex. The movie plays more of a deconstruction of itself with it's murky yet beautiful DV and giving the viewer action set-pieces that feel like another day of routine for it's protagonists. It's an anti-action action movie. One criticism that seems to be lobbed at this film often is the underdeveloped nature of it's characters. It's a criticism definitely worth noting especially since it was a problem that plagued my first viewing of the film in it's unrated form, but looking at the film now, it doesn't seem like a hindrance at all. These men are so involved in their careers that personality or character elude them since they're so preoccupied with going undercover and taking down drug lords to really care. Comparing these characters to other action characters like John McClane or James Bond shows the film's unsympathetic and honest portrayal of it's protagonists. It doesn't try to dress these characters up as smart or charming but as merely men doing their jobs. The level of professionalism in this film is downright intoxicating not just to this viewer but to the characters themselves. The romantic entanglements in the film don't seem to be really based on any traditional idea of attraction or love. The characters might find their lovers sexually attractive but that's clearly not what they find the most attractive. It's obviously an appreciation and lust for the other's professional mastery. Gong Li's businesswoman(forgot her name) barely knows Sonny before subsequently having sex with him. These type of quick sexual encounters happen all the time, but given the character's rather conservative demeanor, it feels like it must be a rare occurrence for her. The romantic encounters in this film practically play out as professional circle jerks. Mann not only uses these romances to create a sexual tension in this world of professional professionalism but to show the interchangeability and parallel nature between his two protagonists. He definitely gets this point across by having both protagonists have sex in the shower with their respective lover. Outside of the romance, the story could be viewed as fairly routine, but that's exactly what the film needed to be. It needed to feel routine since this type of work is supposed to be routine for it's protagonists so if it was super exciting in an action movie sort of way, it would feel false. A perfect example is the final shoot out in the film. If the intensity was notched up to match a film like say Live Free or Die Hard's intensity in that final shoot out sequence, this world of professional professionalism would basically fall apart. It's almost mundane in it's construction. Let's compare this scene to a scene in a film by a director that obviously has influenced Michael Mann, Jean-Pierre Melville. The heist scene in Le Cercle Rouge is comparable given it's low-key nature compared to other movie heists just like how the shoot out in this film compares to other shoot outs. The characters in that film don't scream or make a big fuss while performing the heist, they simply do it much like the characters in the shoot out of this film. Mann doesn't try to create false tension since it's a fairly routine occurrence for these characters. The film is a perfect match for it's characters' cold and precise demeanor up until the end, which is absolutely emotionally penetrating. This is where the underdeveloped nature of the characters turns into a blessing since the ending hints at development. They start appearing more human and graceful in their world of cold and precise professionalism. As you can tell, I fucking love this movie now. A rewatch was definitely beneficial, and I recommend everyone that didn't dig it the first time to give it another try. It's a masterpiece.
**** out of ****
Gone Baby Gone(dir. Ben Affleck)
Has easily one of the most haunting sequences of the year. If you haven't seen the movie yet, once you see it, you'll know exactly what I'm taking about. His approach to the material is impeccable, but the material itself isn't so impeccable. It's hard for me to stomach how this story leaves it's central mystery unresolved, moves on and then comes back to resolve it all nice and neatly. There is still moral baggage for the viewer to think about after viewing, but it's not nearly as engaging and honest as it could have been if it had ended relatively soon after the sequence mentioned above. Stories like these usually don't end on as happy of a note like this and it's narrative construction becomes readily apparent when it starts to initiate it's resolution when it was practically seamless before. I am looking forward to see what he directs next. I recommend.
*** out of ****
Planet Terror(dir. Robert Rodriguez)
The build-up is really fun, but once the action starts, it becomes increasingly tiresome. I have no idea whether Rodriguez wants the viewer to gawk at his creation or laugh at it. It doesn't matter since he's not successful when you approach his film from both ways. It's not nearly ridiculous enough in it's action to actually be fun. Give me Bruce Willis going off a jump with a snowmobile screaming any day of the week over this mediocre shit.
** out of ****
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Oh John "Badman" & Jia...
Evan Almighty(dir. Tom Shadyac)
I have to admit that I was eventually won over by it's cheesy family-friendly nature. It stopped being horrible when it finally stopped using Steve Carrell essentially the same way as Wild Hogs used William H. Macy and had animals help him build his ark. After that point, the film became relatively funny in a campy way much like Full House except less cringe-inducing. This is a work of ARK.
**1/2 out of ****
Platform(dir. Jia Zhangke)
I'm not even going to attempt to analyze and criticize this film due to it's lack of an apparent narrative structure and it's pretty impossible for me to articulate how I felt while watching it. All I can say is that it's a masterpiece and definitely check it out.
**** out of ****
I have to admit that I was eventually won over by it's cheesy family-friendly nature. It stopped being horrible when it finally stopped using Steve Carrell essentially the same way as Wild Hogs used William H. Macy and had animals help him build his ark. After that point, the film became relatively funny in a campy way much like Full House except less cringe-inducing. This is a work of ARK.
**1/2 out of ****
Platform(dir. Jia Zhangke)
I'm not even going to attempt to analyze and criticize this film due to it's lack of an apparent narrative structure and it's pretty impossible for me to articulate how I felt while watching it. All I can say is that it's a masterpiece and definitely check it out.
**** out of ****
Monday, October 08, 2007
Oh Harry and Naomi...
Bug(dir. William Friedkin)
Main problem with this movie is that in order to get maximum enjoyment out of it, you have to at least think what this couple starts saying and thinking might be true even though it's obvious that they're off the wall bonkers. When a "doctor" comes into the picture, he reinforces what most of it's viewers were thinking: these people are fucking cuckoo. There are instances where it's hard to watch with a straight face just because of how ridiculous it can get like Peter hitting himself and practically having a seizure from trying to get the bugs off of him. I have to respect the film for being so willing to have it's protagonists go nuts despite most likely alienating most of it's audience and there's something of interest in watching the mental disintegration of these characters, but you just wish the film didn't expect it's audience to take it so seriously. It was ultimately decent.
**1/2 out of ****
Mulholland Dr.(dir. David Lynch)
This movie is simply unexplainable much like Inland Empire even though my review of that film consisted mainly of me using and abusing a pool metaphor. I'll try to explain it with a bunch of adjectives because that's what film criticism is mainly composed of. It's erotic. It's insane, but not as insane as Inland Empire. It's divine. It's a dream. It's a nightmare. It's beautiful. It's amazing. Naomi Watts gives easily one of the best performances an actress has ever given on celluloid. Watching the auditioning scene is simply exhilarating because of how forceful her performance is. Thank God, this movie's ending felt like a natural outgrowth of what preceded it because it would have been a shame to see this film fall apart like Inland Empire did. It's a masterpiece.
**** out of ****
Main problem with this movie is that in order to get maximum enjoyment out of it, you have to at least think what this couple starts saying and thinking might be true even though it's obvious that they're off the wall bonkers. When a "doctor" comes into the picture, he reinforces what most of it's viewers were thinking: these people are fucking cuckoo. There are instances where it's hard to watch with a straight face just because of how ridiculous it can get like Peter hitting himself and practically having a seizure from trying to get the bugs off of him. I have to respect the film for being so willing to have it's protagonists go nuts despite most likely alienating most of it's audience and there's something of interest in watching the mental disintegration of these characters, but you just wish the film didn't expect it's audience to take it so seriously. It was ultimately decent.
**1/2 out of ****
Mulholland Dr.(dir. David Lynch)
This movie is simply unexplainable much like Inland Empire even though my review of that film consisted mainly of me using and abusing a pool metaphor. I'll try to explain it with a bunch of adjectives because that's what film criticism is mainly composed of. It's erotic. It's insane, but not as insane as Inland Empire. It's divine. It's a dream. It's a nightmare. It's beautiful. It's amazing. Naomi Watts gives easily one of the best performances an actress has ever given on celluloid. Watching the auditioning scene is simply exhilarating because of how forceful her performance is. Thank God, this movie's ending felt like a natural outgrowth of what preceded it because it would have been a shame to see this film fall apart like Inland Empire did. It's a masterpiece.
**** out of ****
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Oh John & Lynne & Lynne & Jose...
Kill the Day(dir. Lynne Ramsay)
It tried to be compelling in it's vagueness, but it was more dull than mysterious. A junkie character can be interesting, but since he barely does anything remotely interesting, he's not interesting. The most interesting aspect about the character is the guilt-ridden memories he has from childhood. The film was still interesting in it's elliptical way. I recommend.
*** out of ****
Small Deaths(dir. Lynne Ramsay)
Pretty much perfect. It's amazing that this short film was made in the same year as the one above since this is much more accomplished artistically. I never understood why short films always have to be some gimmicky piece of shit or a condensed feature-length film. This shows that a truly great short film is one that is extremely simple yet mysterious. I loved how you see this girl's childhood and it all of a sudden jumps to her much bleaker present life. Highly recommended.
**** out of ****
Gasman(dir. Lynne Ramsay)
This is probably more technically accomplished than the previous film, but the previous film is still better. The concept of a child meeting her father's other family seems strangely intriguing and scary. The bit with the rock near the end seemed to be a little heavy-handed. It's as if it was trying to show the young character has learned to accept her previously unknown half-sister, but it felt like a cheap attempt at suspense. Other that that, it was really good.
***1/2 out of ****
Whirlpool(dir. Otto Preminger)
It felt fairly routine until the murder plot/case came around. Jose Ferrer is an intriguing villain. So charismatic that he has to be evil. He's easily the most compelling character in the picture. Without him, this would have only been decent. Gene Tierney's housewife is a little too housewife-y and Richard Conte's dedicated and respectable husband is a little too dedicated and respectable husband-y. Jose Ferrer's character brings a cynically Social Darwinistic outlook to the film that it really needs. This world needs a little corruption, without it, it might as well be Leave It to Beaver with kleptomania as it's subject of the week. Obviously, I have never seen an episode of Leave It to Beaver, but I've seen this. I highly recommend.
***1/2 out of ****
It tried to be compelling in it's vagueness, but it was more dull than mysterious. A junkie character can be interesting, but since he barely does anything remotely interesting, he's not interesting. The most interesting aspect about the character is the guilt-ridden memories he has from childhood. The film was still interesting in it's elliptical way. I recommend.
*** out of ****
Small Deaths(dir. Lynne Ramsay)
Pretty much perfect. It's amazing that this short film was made in the same year as the one above since this is much more accomplished artistically. I never understood why short films always have to be some gimmicky piece of shit or a condensed feature-length film. This shows that a truly great short film is one that is extremely simple yet mysterious. I loved how you see this girl's childhood and it all of a sudden jumps to her much bleaker present life. Highly recommended.
**** out of ****
Gasman(dir. Lynne Ramsay)
This is probably more technically accomplished than the previous film, but the previous film is still better. The concept of a child meeting her father's other family seems strangely intriguing and scary. The bit with the rock near the end seemed to be a little heavy-handed. It's as if it was trying to show the young character has learned to accept her previously unknown half-sister, but it felt like a cheap attempt at suspense. Other that that, it was really good.
***1/2 out of ****
Whirlpool(dir. Otto Preminger)
It felt fairly routine until the murder plot/case came around. Jose Ferrer is an intriguing villain. So charismatic that he has to be evil. He's easily the most compelling character in the picture. Without him, this would have only been decent. Gene Tierney's housewife is a little too housewife-y and Richard Conte's dedicated and respectable husband is a little too dedicated and respectable husband-y. Jose Ferrer's character brings a cynically Social Darwinistic outlook to the film that it really needs. This world needs a little corruption, without it, it might as well be Leave It to Beaver with kleptomania as it's subject of the week. Obviously, I have never seen an episode of Leave It to Beaver, but I've seen this. I highly recommend.
***1/2 out of ****
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Oh Ida & Rachel & Mira...
On Dangerous Ground(dir. Nicholas Ray)
It started off slow and was rather cold much like it's main character, but that quickly changed once the character gets relocated and meets Ida Lupino's character. She brings warmth and grace to the main character as well as the picture as a whole. The film is rather unsatisfying when it tries to please it's crowd with chases and the score becomes obnoxiously bombastic during these sequences. The score, however, is rather hypnotic when it's quiet and serene. I think I've put off saying this long enough, but this has to be one of the most moving experiences I've had in all of cinema. The last ten minutes are simply breathtaking. This film is fucking fantastic.
**** out of ****
The Fountain(dir. Darren Aronofsky)
Heartfelt, but somewhat brain dead. It's almost embarrassing in it's emotional sincerity and it is at given moments (Jackman's Spanish character gulping down the tree "jizz" all crazily made me LOL). It's a strange combination of grace and cheese. The film works best when it dwells on the feelings of lost one feels after a loved one dies and the film works worst when it dwells on it's spiritual mumbo jumbo. A majority of the scenes set in Izzy's story felt like filler while the future sections complimented the present story fairly well with it being a manifestation of Jackman's character's emotions. The whole thing could be deemed silly and at some points, it is, but there's something to be said about a film that was made with such conviction and compassion. Some of his stylistic touches seemed unnecessary and some scenes spelled things out a little too clearly for the audience, but there's still something here to marvel. The score was excellent and the film was visually stunning at points(mainly the future scenes). This isn't a great work of art, but it's a heartfelt one.
*** out of ****
Barcelona(dir. Whit Stillman)
I wasn't digging this in the beginning. I felt it was the perfect example of the Honkeys with Money and Problems genre and didn't give a shit about the characters. I took a food break and came back and I guess I gave into it somehow. It quickly became amusing in it's apparent trivialness. Mira Sorvino and Turska Bergen were smoking and you sit there wondering how were these self-obsessed intellectuals able to get these girls to go out with them? Some dialogue in the end attempts to answer that question rather amusingly. The movie as a whole was a highly amusing experience. I highly recommend seeing it.
***1/2 out of ****
It started off slow and was rather cold much like it's main character, but that quickly changed once the character gets relocated and meets Ida Lupino's character. She brings warmth and grace to the main character as well as the picture as a whole. The film is rather unsatisfying when it tries to please it's crowd with chases and the score becomes obnoxiously bombastic during these sequences. The score, however, is rather hypnotic when it's quiet and serene. I think I've put off saying this long enough, but this has to be one of the most moving experiences I've had in all of cinema. The last ten minutes are simply breathtaking. This film is fucking fantastic.
**** out of ****
The Fountain(dir. Darren Aronofsky)
Heartfelt, but somewhat brain dead. It's almost embarrassing in it's emotional sincerity and it is at given moments (Jackman's Spanish character gulping down the tree "jizz" all crazily made me LOL). It's a strange combination of grace and cheese. The film works best when it dwells on the feelings of lost one feels after a loved one dies and the film works worst when it dwells on it's spiritual mumbo jumbo. A majority of the scenes set in Izzy's story felt like filler while the future sections complimented the present story fairly well with it being a manifestation of Jackman's character's emotions. The whole thing could be deemed silly and at some points, it is, but there's something to be said about a film that was made with such conviction and compassion. Some of his stylistic touches seemed unnecessary and some scenes spelled things out a little too clearly for the audience, but there's still something here to marvel. The score was excellent and the film was visually stunning at points(mainly the future scenes). This isn't a great work of art, but it's a heartfelt one.
*** out of ****
Barcelona(dir. Whit Stillman)
I wasn't digging this in the beginning. I felt it was the perfect example of the Honkeys with Money and Problems genre and didn't give a shit about the characters. I took a food break and came back and I guess I gave into it somehow. It quickly became amusing in it's apparent trivialness. Mira Sorvino and Turska Bergen were smoking and you sit there wondering how were these self-obsessed intellectuals able to get these girls to go out with them? Some dialogue in the end attempts to answer that question rather amusingly. The movie as a whole was a highly amusing experience. I highly recommend seeing it.
***1/2 out of ****
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Oh Hal Hartley...
Fay Grim(dir. Hal Hartley)
It's always hard to articulate my thoughts on his movies due to the fact that it's such a personal experience for me and usually consists of me feeling "god, this is fucking perfect." Sure, no movie is perfect, but some of his movies are as close to perfect as you can possibly get at least with their material. This film took me by surprise. I expected it to be disappointing since the reviews for it have been fairly ho-hum, but this could possibly be his best. Every time I see one of his movies, I say that one is his best even though it's probably due to the fact that it's fresh in my mind and gut. It's amazing at how he basically demolishes Henry Fool in order to make this an enormously satisfying sequel since sequels are usually used to reinforce the film that precedes them. While this film makes Henry Fool perhaps more thematically shallow, you can still watch that film and pretend to be ignorant to the events that happen in this film. I wouldn't quite say this film is as thematically deep as Henry Fool was because it doesn't give the audience much to think about, but there's still some aspects that are fairly thought-provoking mainly how foreign relations are displayed as a confusing web-like mess. Most of the characters seem to be acting on past experiences much like how foreign policy usually is. Henry Fool, the character, probably should not have been shown in this film at all until the end mainly because he's too "big" of a character to have such little screen time. It took a whole feature-length film to really warm up to the character and having a five minute scene with him thrown in the narrative just halts the momentum of the film. The ending is one of those classic Hal Hartley endings where it ends ambiguously and almost unsatisfyingly until the music and credits roll and you sit there and think "god, that was fucking perfect." I could see how some of the stylistic touches like the Dutch angles and the slideshow shoot-outs could be off-putting to some people, but to me, it seems more honest. Hartley always seemed to point out the artifice in his films and employing these stylistic aspects makes the self-deconstructive nature of his work more upfront and accessible to new viewers in my mind. This is easily the best film of the year so far.
**** out of ****
It's always hard to articulate my thoughts on his movies due to the fact that it's such a personal experience for me and usually consists of me feeling "god, this is fucking perfect." Sure, no movie is perfect, but some of his movies are as close to perfect as you can possibly get at least with their material. This film took me by surprise. I expected it to be disappointing since the reviews for it have been fairly ho-hum, but this could possibly be his best. Every time I see one of his movies, I say that one is his best even though it's probably due to the fact that it's fresh in my mind and gut. It's amazing at how he basically demolishes Henry Fool in order to make this an enormously satisfying sequel since sequels are usually used to reinforce the film that precedes them. While this film makes Henry Fool perhaps more thematically shallow, you can still watch that film and pretend to be ignorant to the events that happen in this film. I wouldn't quite say this film is as thematically deep as Henry Fool was because it doesn't give the audience much to think about, but there's still some aspects that are fairly thought-provoking mainly how foreign relations are displayed as a confusing web-like mess. Most of the characters seem to be acting on past experiences much like how foreign policy usually is. Henry Fool, the character, probably should not have been shown in this film at all until the end mainly because he's too "big" of a character to have such little screen time. It took a whole feature-length film to really warm up to the character and having a five minute scene with him thrown in the narrative just halts the momentum of the film. The ending is one of those classic Hal Hartley endings where it ends ambiguously and almost unsatisfyingly until the music and credits roll and you sit there and think "god, that was fucking perfect." I could see how some of the stylistic touches like the Dutch angles and the slideshow shoot-outs could be off-putting to some people, but to me, it seems more honest. Hartley always seemed to point out the artifice in his films and employing these stylistic aspects makes the self-deconstructive nature of his work more upfront and accessible to new viewers in my mind. This is easily the best film of the year so far.
**** out of ****
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Oh Parker Posey...
Henry Fool(dir. Hal Hartley)
A masterpiece. It's hard to articulate my thoughts on this film. It's easily his most darkest film I've seen and his most Bresson-esque. His other films have Bresson qualities like how the characters act and talk in a fairly deadpan way almost like a comedic version of Bresson's signature non-acting and his characters usually at the end of his films attain a sense of grace. This film seems more Bresson-like mainly due to some shots of hands and body parts that were a staple to Bresson's visual grammar and some of the characters reminding me of some of the characters from his films like Simon Grim reminds me of the main character from Pickpocket, Simon's mother reminds me of Mouchette's mother with her being ambiguously ill, and Pearl definately reminds me of Mouchette. The film's world was also a cruel place much like the world in some of Bresson's films. This film has one of the most bizarrely moving moments I've ever seen. The moment consists of Henry Fool taking a massive dump a la Dumb and Dumber Harry Dunne-style and Parker Posey's character Fay Grim comes in and starts kissing his hand (another Bressonian touch) because he proposed to her. At first, the moment just seemed ridiculous and juvenile with Henry alone shitting on the toilet, but Hartley was able to morph the scene into something awkwardly and amazingly beautiful. Another memorable moment and probably the funniest was when Simon ends up barfing on a woman's bare ass cheek. She was forcing him to kiss her ass so the barfing on seems deserved. It's disgusting yet hilarious. This film deals with art. Henry Fool is a self-proclaimed brilliant struggling writer, but like his name implies, he's in fact a fool. Simon Grim lives a grim life and when Henry comes into his life, he is inspired to write "poetry." Some reviewers including Gene Siskel say the film should have shown Simon's poetry or at least gave some lines because the poetry is so controversial and is a major focus in the narrative, but that would have been just silly. The reactions to the poetry are what important, not the poetry itself. If the audience knew what the poetry was like, they would immediately come up with their own opinion of it. If they weren't left in the dark, the reactions that the audience don't agree with would seem unreasonable especially with the heated labels the poetry receives like pornographic. The narrative is driven by Henry's and Simon's quest to get his work published so the world can see it and cherish it. Henry also has his own work that he wants published once he's finished that he feels will change the world. This is were the foolishness of Henry Fool comes into play. Henry is overly grandiose and pretentious with his artistic endeavor. Everyone that eventually reads his work think it's garbage, but only 2 people in the film read it, which brings another point up: if Simon's work was only read by 2 people and the 2 people disliked the work, would he be in the same place as Henry? Henry could have easily became what Simon becomes if he had someone like himself in his life rallying his work. Hartley hits on this point near the end with Henry switching places with Simon to escape the law and this also hints at the notion that Henry and Simon are equally foolish, it's just that Simon had Henry to inspire him and help show off his work. The end also shows the sacrificial selfless nature of being an artist. Sure, you got to have a little Henry in you to want to make art, but once the work is out there, it's not yours anymore, it's the audience's. Simon takes a beating in this film literally and critically, which hammers the point of having to suffer for your work even further. There's still many layers to this film and I could probably spend even more time writing about it, but I think I've written enough. It's his best film that I have seen. It doesn't have as moving of an ending as Simple Men or Trust, but it's his most consistently great film. The endings in those films made me overlook some of their flaws, while this is practically flawless. I could see how someone thought it went on for too long, but I thought it's pacing and length was pretty much perfect. Gotta see Fay Grim now. Don't be a fool, see Henry Fool.
**** out of ****
A masterpiece. It's hard to articulate my thoughts on this film. It's easily his most darkest film I've seen and his most Bresson-esque. His other films have Bresson qualities like how the characters act and talk in a fairly deadpan way almost like a comedic version of Bresson's signature non-acting and his characters usually at the end of his films attain a sense of grace. This film seems more Bresson-like mainly due to some shots of hands and body parts that were a staple to Bresson's visual grammar and some of the characters reminding me of some of the characters from his films like Simon Grim reminds me of the main character from Pickpocket, Simon's mother reminds me of Mouchette's mother with her being ambiguously ill, and Pearl definately reminds me of Mouchette. The film's world was also a cruel place much like the world in some of Bresson's films. This film has one of the most bizarrely moving moments I've ever seen. The moment consists of Henry Fool taking a massive dump a la Dumb and Dumber Harry Dunne-style and Parker Posey's character Fay Grim comes in and starts kissing his hand (another Bressonian touch) because he proposed to her. At first, the moment just seemed ridiculous and juvenile with Henry alone shitting on the toilet, but Hartley was able to morph the scene into something awkwardly and amazingly beautiful. Another memorable moment and probably the funniest was when Simon ends up barfing on a woman's bare ass cheek. She was forcing him to kiss her ass so the barfing on seems deserved. It's disgusting yet hilarious. This film deals with art. Henry Fool is a self-proclaimed brilliant struggling writer, but like his name implies, he's in fact a fool. Simon Grim lives a grim life and when Henry comes into his life, he is inspired to write "poetry." Some reviewers including Gene Siskel say the film should have shown Simon's poetry or at least gave some lines because the poetry is so controversial and is a major focus in the narrative, but that would have been just silly. The reactions to the poetry are what important, not the poetry itself. If the audience knew what the poetry was like, they would immediately come up with their own opinion of it. If they weren't left in the dark, the reactions that the audience don't agree with would seem unreasonable especially with the heated labels the poetry receives like pornographic. The narrative is driven by Henry's and Simon's quest to get his work published so the world can see it and cherish it. Henry also has his own work that he wants published once he's finished that he feels will change the world. This is were the foolishness of Henry Fool comes into play. Henry is overly grandiose and pretentious with his artistic endeavor. Everyone that eventually reads his work think it's garbage, but only 2 people in the film read it, which brings another point up: if Simon's work was only read by 2 people and the 2 people disliked the work, would he be in the same place as Henry? Henry could have easily became what Simon becomes if he had someone like himself in his life rallying his work. Hartley hits on this point near the end with Henry switching places with Simon to escape the law and this also hints at the notion that Henry and Simon are equally foolish, it's just that Simon had Henry to inspire him and help show off his work. The end also shows the sacrificial selfless nature of being an artist. Sure, you got to have a little Henry in you to want to make art, but once the work is out there, it's not yours anymore, it's the audience's. Simon takes a beating in this film literally and critically, which hammers the point of having to suffer for your work even further. There's still many layers to this film and I could probably spend even more time writing about it, but I think I've written enough. It's his best film that I have seen. It doesn't have as moving of an ending as Simple Men or Trust, but it's his most consistently great film. The endings in those films made me overlook some of their flaws, while this is practically flawless. I could see how someone thought it went on for too long, but I thought it's pacing and length was pretty much perfect. Gotta see Fay Grim now. Don't be a fool, see Henry Fool.
**** out of ****
Monday, September 03, 2007
Oh Charles & Dieter & Yu & Hal & Kirk...
The Ex(dir. Jesse Peretz)
A lot of reviews talk about how it doesn't have the balls to make fun of crippled people, but it's trying to. I don't know. It's seems like this comedy wants to be almost a live-action cartoon like how Scrubs can be, but just doesn't pull it off. It doesn't have the sense of detached playfulness of a Naked Gun or Anchorman, two cherished and unquestionable comedy classics. Zach Braff basically channels his JD character from Scrubs into this relatively unlikeable jerk, who's only mildly likeable due to the fact that he's the only character who hates the jerkiest jerk in the picture, Jason Bateman. Jason Bateman is almost charming as the asshole in the wheelchair, but his character is ultimately not insidious enough to be all that likeable. His most devious pranks are taping over a videotape that could land Braff's character some street cred and putting gay porn on his laptop. Not exactly an evil mastermind. The most memorable character was the father played by Charles Grodin, who makes the movie watchable with his amusingly overly optimistic line readings. The mother played by Mia Farrow seemed like an escaped inmate from the local asylum and wasn't amusing, but creepy and out of place. I don't like stories that have one character that's a jerk that everybody loves except for the hero because they always feel false and contrived especially when the hero isn't that likeable of a guy either. All the most horrible things that happen to Braff's character are usually his fault. Starting a fire. Riding a bike into a car. His character is also a jerk for not taking the blame for some of his actions and terrorizing a kid. It was ultimately watchable, but it wasn't a totally pleasant experience.
** out of ****
Little Dieter Needs to Fly(dir. Werner Herzog)
Dare I say he's a better documentary filmmaker than a narrative one? Dieter Dengler is a charming person, but there's something definately off in the way he describes his story. He seems to be emotionally detached from the tales he tell even though he experienced them and probably the most disturbing aspect is that he almost seems to enjoy telling them. I guess it's good for making conversation being a POW and all, but still feels off. Herzog luckily openly critiques Dengler's detached nature through his narration and it's easy to see why, but if Dengler wasn't emotionally detached from those events in his life, the picture would have either not been made or have not turned out so well. When you see pictures of a young Dengler after being rescued crying, it's almost cathartic due to the present Dengler's almost robot-like nature, which comes to light especially during portions of the film where he does voice-over narration and tries to describe his emotions during some scenes almost as a way to tell the audience that he's still human. The end is emotionally overwhelming. You get a hint of what made Dengler wanted to fly as his Herzog's camera glides over rows and rows of airplanes. It's a truly beautiful cinematic moment. The fact that Herzog updated his film with some footage from Dengler's 2001 funeral shows that he had the upmost respect for the man. Like Dieter, this film flies. It's a masterpiece.
**** out of ****
Hana & Alice(dir. Shunji Iwai)
OhmyNews writes, "While the story is thin and feels stretched over 135 minutes, Iwai's subtle delineation of character and insight into adolescent life makes "Hana and Alice" a film to cherish." I ultimately agree. I might have to rewatch All About Lily Chou-Chou because I have a feeling I was overly critical of it. I wasn't sure of whether to give this film *** or ***1/2 because it was overlong, but after reading some reviews and serious deliberation, I feel it has enough beautiful moments in it's duration to make up for it.
***1/2 out of ****
The Unbelievable Truth(dir. Hal Hartley)
For a debut film, it was impressive. For a Hal Hartley film, it wasn't quite that impressive. It was good, but it's definately not in the league of Trust or Simple Men. This film doesn't feel as emotionally sincere as those pictures especially due to the fact that this film seems to put more significance on it's plot than it's central romance so it's not as hopelessly romantic and beautiful as those two films. It was good, but it's pretty forgettable. It's definately not as bad as Surviving Desire, though.
*** out of ****
The Bad and the Beautiful(dir. Vincente Minnelli)
Dug it up until the third story told by the screenwriter. There's something utterly wrong with a person trying to persuade a man that a guy isn't all that bad when he is partly responsible for killing his wife and when the guy tells him about his role in her death, he tries to justify it by saying she was just a nuisance anyway. That should have been cut out of the script and the film in general since it makes that character ultimately unlikeable for not being sensitive to that character's dislike of the studio head that he is trying to defend especially given the fact that his wife was played by Gloria Grahame. Hubba hubba. Gloria Grahame is miscasted as the interruptive wife because she's too sexy for that type of bit role. It's obvious between this and Ace in the Hole that Kirk Douglas is excellent at playing sons of bitches with a snake-like charm. A climatic scene performed by Douglas in this film is probably the greatest acting I have ever seen in a motion picture ever. The scene afterwards was particularly memorable for the audacity of it. Lana Turner is driving away from Douglas's mansion as an emotional wreck and almost gets in a car accident. The camera is in the car and it keeps rolling even as Turner's character spins car out and practically has an emotional breakdown from almost getting hit by a car and from the event that happened at Douglas's character's mansion. It's a melodramatic moment, but it's also a memorable one. The film wears out it's welcome with it's screenwriter's story because that man has every reason to hate Douglas's character's guts. The ending with the characters thinking about making the picture with his character seems ultimately false due to everybody's emotional baggage, but it could be read as a critique of Hollywood conditioning normal people into greedy bastards. It was still good despite it's flaws.
*** out of ****
A lot of reviews talk about how it doesn't have the balls to make fun of crippled people, but it's trying to. I don't know. It's seems like this comedy wants to be almost a live-action cartoon like how Scrubs can be, but just doesn't pull it off. It doesn't have the sense of detached playfulness of a Naked Gun or Anchorman, two cherished and unquestionable comedy classics. Zach Braff basically channels his JD character from Scrubs into this relatively unlikeable jerk, who's only mildly likeable due to the fact that he's the only character who hates the jerkiest jerk in the picture, Jason Bateman. Jason Bateman is almost charming as the asshole in the wheelchair, but his character is ultimately not insidious enough to be all that likeable. His most devious pranks are taping over a videotape that could land Braff's character some street cred and putting gay porn on his laptop. Not exactly an evil mastermind. The most memorable character was the father played by Charles Grodin, who makes the movie watchable with his amusingly overly optimistic line readings. The mother played by Mia Farrow seemed like an escaped inmate from the local asylum and wasn't amusing, but creepy and out of place. I don't like stories that have one character that's a jerk that everybody loves except for the hero because they always feel false and contrived especially when the hero isn't that likeable of a guy either. All the most horrible things that happen to Braff's character are usually his fault. Starting a fire. Riding a bike into a car. His character is also a jerk for not taking the blame for some of his actions and terrorizing a kid. It was ultimately watchable, but it wasn't a totally pleasant experience.
** out of ****
Little Dieter Needs to Fly(dir. Werner Herzog)
Dare I say he's a better documentary filmmaker than a narrative one? Dieter Dengler is a charming person, but there's something definately off in the way he describes his story. He seems to be emotionally detached from the tales he tell even though he experienced them and probably the most disturbing aspect is that he almost seems to enjoy telling them. I guess it's good for making conversation being a POW and all, but still feels off. Herzog luckily openly critiques Dengler's detached nature through his narration and it's easy to see why, but if Dengler wasn't emotionally detached from those events in his life, the picture would have either not been made or have not turned out so well. When you see pictures of a young Dengler after being rescued crying, it's almost cathartic due to the present Dengler's almost robot-like nature, which comes to light especially during portions of the film where he does voice-over narration and tries to describe his emotions during some scenes almost as a way to tell the audience that he's still human. The end is emotionally overwhelming. You get a hint of what made Dengler wanted to fly as his Herzog's camera glides over rows and rows of airplanes. It's a truly beautiful cinematic moment. The fact that Herzog updated his film with some footage from Dengler's 2001 funeral shows that he had the upmost respect for the man. Like Dieter, this film flies. It's a masterpiece.
**** out of ****
Hana & Alice(dir. Shunji Iwai)
OhmyNews writes, "While the story is thin and feels stretched over 135 minutes, Iwai's subtle delineation of character and insight into adolescent life makes "Hana and Alice" a film to cherish." I ultimately agree. I might have to rewatch All About Lily Chou-Chou because I have a feeling I was overly critical of it. I wasn't sure of whether to give this film *** or ***1/2 because it was overlong, but after reading some reviews and serious deliberation, I feel it has enough beautiful moments in it's duration to make up for it.
***1/2 out of ****
The Unbelievable Truth(dir. Hal Hartley)
For a debut film, it was impressive. For a Hal Hartley film, it wasn't quite that impressive. It was good, but it's definately not in the league of Trust or Simple Men. This film doesn't feel as emotionally sincere as those pictures especially due to the fact that this film seems to put more significance on it's plot than it's central romance so it's not as hopelessly romantic and beautiful as those two films. It was good, but it's pretty forgettable. It's definately not as bad as Surviving Desire, though.
*** out of ****
The Bad and the Beautiful(dir. Vincente Minnelli)
Dug it up until the third story told by the screenwriter. There's something utterly wrong with a person trying to persuade a man that a guy isn't all that bad when he is partly responsible for killing his wife and when the guy tells him about his role in her death, he tries to justify it by saying she was just a nuisance anyway. That should have been cut out of the script and the film in general since it makes that character ultimately unlikeable for not being sensitive to that character's dislike of the studio head that he is trying to defend especially given the fact that his wife was played by Gloria Grahame. Hubba hubba. Gloria Grahame is miscasted as the interruptive wife because she's too sexy for that type of bit role. It's obvious between this and Ace in the Hole that Kirk Douglas is excellent at playing sons of bitches with a snake-like charm. A climatic scene performed by Douglas in this film is probably the greatest acting I have ever seen in a motion picture ever. The scene afterwards was particularly memorable for the audacity of it. Lana Turner is driving away from Douglas's mansion as an emotional wreck and almost gets in a car accident. The camera is in the car and it keeps rolling even as Turner's character spins car out and practically has an emotional breakdown from almost getting hit by a car and from the event that happened at Douglas's character's mansion. It's a melodramatic moment, but it's also a memorable one. The film wears out it's welcome with it's screenwriter's story because that man has every reason to hate Douglas's character's guts. The ending with the characters thinking about making the picture with his character seems ultimately false due to everybody's emotional baggage, but it could be read as a critique of Hollywood conditioning normal people into greedy bastards. It was still good despite it's flaws.
*** out of ****
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Oh Makika Esumi...
Pistol Opera(dir. Seijun Suzuki)
He is fucking nuts. A poet of insanity. This film mesmerized me up until a little bit before the end where two fairly monologues took me out of the experience. The main actress was easily the best out of the film by being bad ass and amazingly sexy. The underage nudity was kind of off-putting, but it wasn't displayed in an erotic way so I can't be too offended by it. The ending is rather abrupt, but it fits in with the rest of the insanity. I almost feel like I'm underrating this and I'm pretty certain that the next time I watch it, I will feel it deserves ****, but for now, it gets
***1/2 out of ****
He is fucking nuts. A poet of insanity. This film mesmerized me up until a little bit before the end where two fairly monologues took me out of the experience. The main actress was easily the best out of the film by being bad ass and amazingly sexy. The underage nudity was kind of off-putting, but it wasn't displayed in an erotic way so I can't be too offended by it. The ending is rather abrupt, but it fits in with the rest of the insanity. I almost feel like I'm underrating this and I'm pretty certain that the next time I watch it, I will feel it deserves ****, but for now, it gets
***1/2 out of ****
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Oh Lena & Vanilla Ice & Jesus & Pauly...
300(dir. Zack Snyder)
Homophobic and homoerotic? You bet. This film's idea of manliness is defending a society with such good wholesome morals as throwing babies in pits to die if they won't make good warriors because of deformities or some visible sign of weakness. The film's look isn't all that great. There's been a lot of hoopla about the film's look, but it's visually uninteresting when compared to a film like Sin City. The most visually interesting aspect was one of the few non-computer generated aspects of the film and that was the main actress, Lena Headey. A breath of fresh air in this sausage-fest of a movie. The film throws around words like freedom and slavery to add weight to their cause, but you don't really care because the acting and dialogue is bad. It would have been fine if the movie was trying to be campy, but the film takes it's idea of masculinity too seriously and expects people to buy into it. Probably the most manly scene doesn't even concern any of the 300 spartans. It concerns Lena Headey's character and a politician. There's actually spontaniety and excitement to that scene that is seriously lacking in the rest of the film. The action is dull because of the extreme amount of slow motion intended to make all the teenage boys in the theater to go "that's hella sick, bro." Snyder makes Mel look like a minimalist when it comes to use of slow motion. It can't even deliver on the violence either because of the computer generated blood looking extremely fake. I'm sure, some could make an argument that it's stylish, but it's still shitty looking especially when the rest of the film is bland and fairly one-note. The color that you'll come away with is gold because the sun always lights the scene in a dull gold shade. I actually liked Xerxes more than any of the spartans because he was flamboyant and actually had personality. It was obvious that the director intended for all the male viewers to view Xerxes as a freak because he's pretty much a drag queen, but I find him more sympathetic than Leonidas or his men because he's accepting of the hunchback character. The hunchback's betrayal was probably supposed to be some huge blow to the audience and I could imagine the audience wishing Leonidas would have killed him, but he has way more personality than any of the 300 spartans. This movie sucked.
*1/2 out of ****
TMNT(dir. Kevin Munroe)
No Shredder + No Personality + No Vanilla Ice = No Good
*1/2 out of ****
The Life of Jesus(dir. Bruno Dumont)
I like how he displays these asshole characters as pretty much assholes. I think the title applies to the Arab character because he's easily the most sympathetic guy in the movie and well, he dies. He adds a sense of humanity to the picture that the film was lacking. The shots of actual penetration during the sex scenes were unnecessary. Along with seeing Freddy's mom's vagina after she got out of the bath, which amounted to about 2 seconds of the film and seemed as if the editor just didn't cut in time or something. The ending was moving in a sense, but you could picture it having a stronger emotional impact if you were able to sympathize with Freddy's character more.
***1/2 out of ****
Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters(dir. Paul Schrader)
This is the way you make a film about an artist. You show bits of his life and you show bits of his work. It shows how his life shaped his work and it shows how his work shaped him. Phillip Glass's score is amazing. This film would have been amazing if a moment near the end didn't feel so ridiculous and akward. It's easily the best film I've seen by him so far.
***1/2 out of ****
Homophobic and homoerotic? You bet. This film's idea of manliness is defending a society with such good wholesome morals as throwing babies in pits to die if they won't make good warriors because of deformities or some visible sign of weakness. The film's look isn't all that great. There's been a lot of hoopla about the film's look, but it's visually uninteresting when compared to a film like Sin City. The most visually interesting aspect was one of the few non-computer generated aspects of the film and that was the main actress, Lena Headey. A breath of fresh air in this sausage-fest of a movie. The film throws around words like freedom and slavery to add weight to their cause, but you don't really care because the acting and dialogue is bad. It would have been fine if the movie was trying to be campy, but the film takes it's idea of masculinity too seriously and expects people to buy into it. Probably the most manly scene doesn't even concern any of the 300 spartans. It concerns Lena Headey's character and a politician. There's actually spontaniety and excitement to that scene that is seriously lacking in the rest of the film. The action is dull because of the extreme amount of slow motion intended to make all the teenage boys in the theater to go "that's hella sick, bro." Snyder makes Mel look like a minimalist when it comes to use of slow motion. It can't even deliver on the violence either because of the computer generated blood looking extremely fake. I'm sure, some could make an argument that it's stylish, but it's still shitty looking especially when the rest of the film is bland and fairly one-note. The color that you'll come away with is gold because the sun always lights the scene in a dull gold shade. I actually liked Xerxes more than any of the spartans because he was flamboyant and actually had personality. It was obvious that the director intended for all the male viewers to view Xerxes as a freak because he's pretty much a drag queen, but I find him more sympathetic than Leonidas or his men because he's accepting of the hunchback character. The hunchback's betrayal was probably supposed to be some huge blow to the audience and I could imagine the audience wishing Leonidas would have killed him, but he has way more personality than any of the 300 spartans. This movie sucked.
*1/2 out of ****
TMNT(dir. Kevin Munroe)
No Shredder + No Personality + No Vanilla Ice = No Good
*1/2 out of ****
The Life of Jesus(dir. Bruno Dumont)
I like how he displays these asshole characters as pretty much assholes. I think the title applies to the Arab character because he's easily the most sympathetic guy in the movie and well, he dies. He adds a sense of humanity to the picture that the film was lacking. The shots of actual penetration during the sex scenes were unnecessary. Along with seeing Freddy's mom's vagina after she got out of the bath, which amounted to about 2 seconds of the film and seemed as if the editor just didn't cut in time or something. The ending was moving in a sense, but you could picture it having a stronger emotional impact if you were able to sympathize with Freddy's character more.
***1/2 out of ****
Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters(dir. Paul Schrader)
This is the way you make a film about an artist. You show bits of his life and you show bits of his work. It shows how his life shaped his work and it shows how his work shaped him. Phillip Glass's score is amazing. This film would have been amazing if a moment near the end didn't feel so ridiculous and akward. It's easily the best film I've seen by him so far.
***1/2 out of ****
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Oh Freddy Wiseman...
Hospital(dir. Frederick Wiseman)
The mundane and the beautiful. There are some "scenes" that take too long, but that's fine because in order for this to be a complete portrait of hospital life, you must show the monotony that doctors and nurses must experience since it is their work and all work can become monotonous. It's heart-breaking to see a man being so embarassed and ashamed for going to the doctor to see if he has testicular cancer that he almost bursts into tears. There are a lot memorable moments that Wiseman allows the viewer to see. One memorable "scene" is where a man who has taken an unknown pill fears that he is going to die. A user on IMDb said the "scene" was unnecessary because it is used for comedic effect, but I was honestly scared that the guy might have died even if the doctor kept reassuring him that he wasn't going to. His fear is so real that you can't help, but wonder if he will in fact die or not. He then throws up in a room, which is disgusting to see, but it is necessary to see it. My favorite moments were when loved ones of the patients came to see them and started showing affection towards them. One lovely, but horrifying scene is of a man who has been stabbed in the throat reaching out towards his lover's hand to hold it. Another moment that is both heart-breaking and uplifting is of a daughter seeing her mother as doctors try to restore her health and she goes over and strokes her head, kisses her on the chin with tears in her eyes. It's moments like these that provide warmth and reassurance that we're a flawed species, but we're still good at heart. This film shows that we all need individuals to help us out sometimes even if we're ashamed or too proud to get this help. The only Wiseman film that has rubbed me the wrong way was High School because it felt like he was critical of the people on screen and that just seems sleazy for a documentarian to do. It's easy to show the worst of people, but it's definately harder and more rewarding to show the beauty of an ugly situation. Amazing stuff.
**** out of ****
The mundane and the beautiful. There are some "scenes" that take too long, but that's fine because in order for this to be a complete portrait of hospital life, you must show the monotony that doctors and nurses must experience since it is their work and all work can become monotonous. It's heart-breaking to see a man being so embarassed and ashamed for going to the doctor to see if he has testicular cancer that he almost bursts into tears. There are a lot memorable moments that Wiseman allows the viewer to see. One memorable "scene" is where a man who has taken an unknown pill fears that he is going to die. A user on IMDb said the "scene" was unnecessary because it is used for comedic effect, but I was honestly scared that the guy might have died even if the doctor kept reassuring him that he wasn't going to. His fear is so real that you can't help, but wonder if he will in fact die or not. He then throws up in a room, which is disgusting to see, but it is necessary to see it. My favorite moments were when loved ones of the patients came to see them and started showing affection towards them. One lovely, but horrifying scene is of a man who has been stabbed in the throat reaching out towards his lover's hand to hold it. Another moment that is both heart-breaking and uplifting is of a daughter seeing her mother as doctors try to restore her health and she goes over and strokes her head, kisses her on the chin with tears in her eyes. It's moments like these that provide warmth and reassurance that we're a flawed species, but we're still good at heart. This film shows that we all need individuals to help us out sometimes even if we're ashamed or too proud to get this help. The only Wiseman film that has rubbed me the wrong way was High School because it felt like he was critical of the people on screen and that just seems sleazy for a documentarian to do. It's easy to show the worst of people, but it's definately harder and more rewarding to show the beauty of an ugly situation. Amazing stuff.
**** out of ****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)