Change Your Image
cintact
Reviews
Celeste & Jesse Forever (2012)
Accepting the Hard Truth.
Perhaps even an insult to even the intelligence of y-indie filmgoers, Lee Toland Krieger misses the mark completely, perhaps ruining what was best kept charming and personally contained in the writing of Rashida Jones and Will McCormack. Lost in the influx of medium brow, quirky, sexually blunt, awkward pseudo indie films, the branching-away-from the factorty Urban Outfitters equivalent, post Judd Apatow, striving for a bit more moving in the way of the Duplass, comes Celeste and Jesse, an unfunny romantic comedy which aims for a slightly impressionistic flair. In order for the film to work, the characters had to in some way be outsiders, underdogs, but it felt like watching boring people without souls trying too hard to be cute and share those "unique" moments, which were sadly few and far between. "Oh how funny, let's both jerk off objects which look like tiny penises and smoke some more weed and get drunk while we deal with out separation" but we're best friends! How subversive and challenging to audiences who are used to divorce movies! Disappointing. The casting is awful. There's no chemistry between Rashida and the annoyingly smug and frog-like Andy Samberg. Perhaps, the basic idea of the film, which one would hope to challenge our idea of divorce was at one point good enough to develop, but the casting threw everything off. The film tries too hard, ruining activities and gentrified places in Los Angeles many people hold dear-- Echo Park, Silverlake, downtown, Scrabble, yoga, obsessive dieting, dorky pop humor, but it takes moments which may have otherwise come out charming and cute to a dull place. It seems apparent that the director or (ghasp) even the characters simply have no personality to pull it off. They're not unlikable characters. They're just not interesting or quirky enough. Awkward and smart is all good, but at least have enough jeart to pull it off. At some point, one begins to think that Judd Apatow could have done it so much better. If it aims to be naturalistic, non-melodramatic,and blue, it should have been written that way. A friend of mine kept calling it Celine and Julie. What an insult to Rivette! Even if the director was going for naturalistic, there's nothing subtle about this film.. The main character faults herself for presuming she's more intelligent than others, and so does the entire production. The title would give you the idea of a French film about an interesting and layered relationship between two complex characters, but the film sadly ends up feeling simply contrived. As much as I like Rashida Jones, she wasn't enough to carry the weight of what may have been likable about it through it's entirety.. Emma Roberts, however, was wonderful. She added a certain ethereal quality to an unimpressive feature.
The Cabin in the Woods (2011)
A Hollywoodized Watered Down Funny Games
If you're going to be this smug about pulling off what Haneke did in Funny Games, tearing down the "fourth" cinematic wall at an attempt to make your film this self-aware, at least use a different style the title than the film you took from. Appalling! Shameless! Uninspired! Those are three words that come to mind. The eraser board, the glass elevators full of other possible monsters, the Scream humor... all of that's been done before, and the sad part about the film is that they actually believe they may be doing something different. Ask Piradello. Perhaps, the film serves as a Hollywood version of Funny Games and best works that way. I've read that it's a "hateful love letter to the horror genre" but most of that is bullshit when you're engaging the fantasy of a pothead director. How Sigourney Weaver ever agreed to do the film must have something to do with her dedication to taking roles that don't demonize marijuana. Didn't she play a character who smokes marijuana in Unstrung Heroes? Anyway, the film fails to subverse. It's typically self-gratifying, sympathizing with two most likable characters, which happens to be a burn-out. Surprise surprise. The film was praised as "smart" and "funny" but I found it to be stupid, full of holes, not addressing enough of anything interesting to be an existential metaphor, in the way of Badlands. The characters are not trying to escape the genre they were written into. They just become aware of a force which controls their lives, which may be enough to save the film. But, the director loves to identify with Hadley. It's obvious. The control issues are blaring you in the face, and that's what is most annoying about the film. The puppeteer prides himself on his manipulation, which is all the film has to offer. That's not suspense. It's cheap. Cue the scary music, wait for something to pop out. Oh, look at how easy it is to make some money at the box office, but let's just let the audience know we're all smarter than that... include them. I have to give him credit for rewarding what's good, for that should exist in how we identify with characters. The film ends up tied up into everything that it pokes fun of. If I wanted to read inside jokes on a white board, I'd want them thoughtfully fleshed out. Since the filmmaker knows what he lacks, having mainly written crappy TV (the actual Buffy the film was decent), he tries to overcompensate by giving us gore.
The Oregonian (2011)
painfully bad. tries too hard to be lynch. an embarrassment.
reeder's film is dreadful. it tries too hard to be creepy and what's funny about comes off as camp. the lynchian humour comes off as obvious. what i may have liked about it seemed to be reeder's attempt to depart from lynch and leave his own mark, to be imaginative and elliptical, departing f which is sadly only ten percent of the film. the film is so hollow it feels silly. it just goes to show you that no one can do what David lynch does, lacking emotional intensity, the fails to be subversive. what is supposed to be disturbing comes off as contrived. you think you're getting something different when he's playing a hipster making fun of hipsters, but reveals himself as a wannabe director making a b-movie that somehow got way too much attention because everyone leaves it to lynch. what tries to be funny feels more like a gimmick. "oh we're all so much smarter-isn't this cool?" no, it's not. it's annoying. it's not an art film. it's too graphic and dull to be lynch. it's too stupid to be a psychological suspense.
Like Crazy (2011)
Overrated,Unextraordinary, Trite... Like Crazy
I understand the idea of telling a simple nuanced love story in a naturalistic light, the softness seems to draw most people in, exploring the feelings of the changes undergone in an intense relationship. This film, however, couldn't be more unsophisticated or trite. It reminds me of the work of an average talent student filmmaker who mistakes second guessing his audience's perception of love for showing us what would make this love truly believable. It lacks poetic-ism. It shameless steals from BASQUIAT, the bed sequence/jump cuts which is probably the most effective part of the film. There was nothing artistic about this above clichés. There was nothing different about it outside it's ambition. A film this simple should be able to layer it's complexities. It seems to move along at an intelligent place, taking us from point A to point B, as if the filmmakers are just narrating this part of it for sake of teaching us something, but we never fully get there. I don't expect anything remarkable to come out of it in the sense that I'm going to learn about the consequences of violating your student visa, or what happens when laws try to place boundaries on intense love, but I want something a bit more interesting than a wannabe Eames who isn't as interesting as that figure. Natural love would be truly poetic, and it lacks that truth. It gives you the idea of impressionism while lacking the details of what would make the film so much more beautiful. It's false elegance. In fact, the acting is just above average. The American character is boring, so much of a jerk that we can't even begin to be convinced that he's in love with Anna. The ending is decent, the very last shot because it reveals how much of what was "felt" was indeed bull to begin with. It's an unimpressive, manipulative film. Maybe if you're the average TWILIGHT- loving idiot, you may be able to love this film. I'm really disappointed by this one. I don't see how it could have won any award at Sundance.
Le salaire de la peur (1953)
True Suspense
Ah, this is why we love IMDb. A cheap snuff film posing as an art film, somehow manages to rake in some decent ratings from viewers who have the audacity to voice their uninformed opinions, which mostly involve obsessing over how believable something is in every technical way possibly, while a truly suspenseful film like WAGES OF FEAR garners a mere above average B rating score. This is an example of a suspense film done well. One must appreciate Clouzot's knack for drawing his audience into the drama. From the scenes at the cantina to the road scenes, his mise en scene is rich and fully realized. One can easily smell the danger in the air and the texture of the road. The characters are strongly developed to the point where we actually care about what happens to them. This to me is much more compelling than a chase sequence. It's the silent tension created from one who is trying to manage what he may not have the power to control.
The Tree (2010)
Better Than TREE OF LIFE
A strong, layered second film by Julie Bertocelli, one which probably deserves more recognition that it has been given by most critics. I found it difficult to take my eyes off of Charlotte Gainsbourg, who gave a sensitive and complex portrayal of a woman grieving her husband's passing. While the film may have been compared to WALKABOUT, given the cinematic opportunities of the outback, the spiritual nature of the environment paves way for specific beautiful and endearing unexpected visual delights which compliment the narrative in obvious ways, but perhaps not offensively so. The film is quite focused. It is kept simple and unfolds nicely. I found it much more pleasing to sit through than TREE OF LIFE. Bertocelli's film is much more tightly woven and traditional in form, not necessarily any less authentic or profound. Moments were delightful, not excruciatingly painful in the sense of wallowing, allowing the occasional irritation from the daughter to seep into the point where you just want Dawn to slap her across the face. May make more of an interesting comparison the that tree scene in Poltergeist or the horror film about the WOODS. Definitely underrated on here, a film well worth checking out.
Kirschblüten - Hanami (2008)
Far Better than LOST IN TRANSLATION
This is the film Sofia Coppola could only dream of making, a far more sophisticated and sensitive LOST IN TRANSLATION. Dorie's visual cues play out beautifully throughout her film as the narrative unfolds. Her dedication toward representing the Japanese in a much more respectful and flattering light allows her character transcend cultural barriers and lose himself in the beauty of Japan. At first, one would question yet another film where a man goes to an adult bar in Tokyo, but outside all of the "strangeness" he initially perceives, the film ends up taking an intelligent and poetic turn. What at first seems to be more like TOKYO STORY builds into a meditation on mourning and transformation. Cultural differences provide an opportunity for finding understanding, something Coppola completely seemed to be incapable of. The young Japanese dancer in the film is charming. Through her, this encounter becomes more than a fling through the city, but an opportunity to come to terms with life and death.
The Cove (2009)
Absurd distortion of truths.
What an outrage! The fact that this manipulative "documentary" has gotten away with attacking an entire culture for what a small percentage of Japan's population and has done (the filmmakers admitted it themselves) and has proved to be so successful at stirring up audiences using sensationalism is beyond me. Failing to be specific about the consumption in Japan seems more than an oversight. I found this to be of poor taste, especially since the film wouldn't have been possible without the support of the Japanese. It actually makes me sick that they had to resort to demonizing a culture to get their point across and shamelessly made "heroes" out of these people who apparently needed to be angry about something in their own personal lives. Well, look what else is going on the world? So keep showing up clips of Flipper.... you're a far cry from Micheal Moore. I'm really not impressed. Whoever likes this is accustomed to appreciating Mission Impossible style films and bad reality television and most likely feels proud of themselves for sitting through something injected with some sort of message. Newsflash: there are way better options.
Catfish (2010)
An Insensitive Gray Gardens., contrived and a bit too smirky for my taste
Ultimately unimpressive documentary, reminiscent of Maysles brothers direct cinema approach to film. Unlike Grey Gardens, and the Maysles sensitive treatment of the relatives of the Bouviers, the filmmakers failed to sensitively explore the psychological back story, which used photos of the past to humanize the character who'd taken them on the journey. They failed to represent the complexity and sadness of what led their trickster to connect. They simply dove into the other world in order to get a documentary about it. After the Q and A with the filmmakers, I was even more disappointed to see that they were standing behind their own lies, pretending as if they didn't know that they were filming a subversive story. They remained a bit too smirky and self-satisfied with the research they did on clearing up the lies they'd been told, which the audience had already been let in on by the way the documentary was treated. The brothers found it an extraordinary feat, and wre less devoted to the actual story they were telling. It seems to be marketed as a suspense film, and one would only hope the documentarians could be as clever as we'd want them to be in navigating us through a social commentary about the reality of connecting online. Although it seemed to move in a moving direction, it lacked the sweetness and genuine warmth of a Maysles documentary.
My Blueberry Nights (2007)
"i guess it's just how it goes, the stories have all been told"
Chan Marshall and Natalie Portman save this rather linear, impressionistic work of Kar Wai's. Marshall's bit is outstanding. As in 'Happy Together', the character(s) break from the intoxicating, hypnotic urban nightlife into a more drunken, desolate setting. One may be enticed from all we'd expect from his seductive cinematic vision; high heeled shoes scraping the linoleum, neon lights, diffusion, and despair. Perhaps, one isn't to blame Norah Jones for her awkward performance because even the experienced and lovely Rachel Weitz (Sue Lynn or Sue Lin?) seemed to have struggled under Kar Wai's direction. Perhaps, situations were too trite, the writing too literal to be convincing. What is lost in translation or what simply goes undisguised in Kar Wai's softness has disappointingly actually uncovered a lack of poetic treatment of heartbroken individuals drifting in the blue. Has his style become merely a mask for what is too obvious? His simplicity smells cliché this time.
Perhaps we have now caught on to Kar Wai's shameless overuse of the same pop song in a single film. In "My Blueberry Nights", it was Cat Power's "The Greatest". His films actually end up ruining music this way. It's like watching an MTV music video interrupting the course of a film one would like to be believe in. In all he strives for in sophistication, these emotional triggers are quite tacky. In 'Chung King Express' it was the Mamas and the Papas' "California Dreamin'" (followed that cover of the Cranberries' "Linger") and in '2046' it was "The Christmas Song". It's one thing to appreciate a song, and it's another to prove you've the right to use it.
George Washington (2000)
GUMMO without half as much originality.
The film seemed quite unoriginal. I'm afraid I was disappointed. So many who have seen it who find the interesting or different must be easily impressed. The director was obviously more influenced by GUMMO(1997, Harmony Korine) than the work of Malick or Herzog, which seemed to inspire GUMMO's tone. To make it more obvious, this film came out only a couple of years after GUMMO. While GEORGE WASHINGTON has a couple of moments worth acknowledging, the film seems rather weak in its entirety. The characters may be a bit more likable, but I'm afraid there was little significance to the narrative once the film began in its direction. Now why has Criterion released this on DVD? I don't understand it. I'm afraid I'm usually a bit skeptical when such a film gets released soon after such an impressionable one makes it mark. I'd much rather prefer the most original and creative one.
Lost in Translation (2003)
The truth about this ethnocentric BRIEF ENCOUNTER
The truth about this one is that the title makes the film. It has a couple moments thanks to Bill Murray and the architecture of Toyko, both the social architecture and the cultural misunderstandings. Sofia's films have become guilty pleasures for me, where I expect to see lovely, thoughtful women peering in wonder out of moving vehicles, where Kirsten Dunst with fireworks in super 8 somehow becomes cinematic. (Doesn't everything in super 8 look pretty though?)
LOSTR IN TRANSLATION is quite overrated. I'm afraid this is no more than an ethnocentric, weak BRIEF ENCOUNTER (David Lean, 1945). This is yet another unextraordinary film by a mediocre director in a cinematic setting. Sofia's characters depict Americans as ethnocentric, questioning individuals, self-consumed and undeservedly smug, who bond over not understanding a culture instead of exploring what life in it may be about, rather they choose to romp about and play in it. How did she get away with it? What about excellent, sensitive filmmakers like Debra Granik (DOWN TO THE BONE, 2003).
This comedy sadly relies on old stereotypes of the Japanese, and what is cinematic about it should be credited to Tokyo's character, which lends the film a certain style. Scarlet becomes a beautiful anomaly amidst an fascinating culture, wandering about Japanese architecture, photographed as if she were in a fashion spread. She plays the character thoughtfully. Although Sofia admits she was influenced by Wong Kar Wai, her treatment of Tokyo nightlife has been depicted in Naruse's films, such as WHEN A WOMAN ASCENDS THE STAIRCASE (1960). When Sofia stepped up to accept her award, she claimed Godard, Antonioni, and Kar Wai as part of her film education and in an interview, admitted she was inspired by IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE(2000). I'm afraid I don't see any of such influences in her work. Judging by the lack of sensitivity she showed toward the Japanese people, Toho's involvement in MARIE is a wonder.
The comedy is made up of cheap shots, heavily reliant on misunderstandings of cultural differences. The highlight was seeing a clip from one of my favorite scenes in LA DOLCE VITA (1960), which she may have well just thrown in out of context in order to show some good taste. I'm afraid I would give have to give any award to the cinematic setting of the film. How could anyone lose with My Bloody Valentine or the Jesus and Mary Chain? It's nearly impossible. There is little sign of auteur worthy talent. Ao how did she get nominated again? We all thought about the politics. Where there slim picking among those recognized by the board that year? Speak out. There are some Oscar worthy female directors out there who have done outstanding work and not received a nomination. It really made Hollywood look bad.