I don't know what to say. I love Sam Mendes, I love the actors involved, I'm sure it's an alright book, but this, what a lifeless bore of a film. It establishes its point within the first five minutes and spends the next two hours following this psychotic couple as they whine about everything wrong with their pathetic lives. It's just... empty, it leaves me absolutely nothing at all to ponder with, a totally opposite reaction from Mendes' previous work, all which contain 10 times the charm, beauty, humor, and depth of this film. If only its script was quite as compelling as the performances and ravishing cinematography, then we might've had something worthwhile. A professional travesty.
Reviews
27 Reviews
Chapter 27
(2007)
To each his own
7 February 2009
I've read just about every possible comment anyone can make about this film, from stupid, insipid, tasteless trash to slow, minimalist masterpiece of modern cinema. I should come out and say I've loved every performance Jared Leto has ever given, and this appears to be his biggest, boldest effort yet, gaining well over 50 pounds to play the character. Was it a fruitless waste of time and danger of health, or a triumphant success? Only time will tell. Right now the film has been poorly received by critics and masses as a boring and simplified look at a loner WITH a cause. But for me, that lead performance was a celebratory success which transcends all the banal pondering and mundane isolation and delivers a glimpse to the man behind the murder of arguably the most acclaimed musical artist of the 20th century. Any other actor would've portrayed the man as insane and raucous but sympathetic. Leto turns him into something more -- a yearning, indulgent, substandard, pathetic, arrogant, misunderstood, underestimated, and yes, insane man.
Throughout the film we follow Leto as he lives and breathes every minute of New York City before he slowly begins to drown beneath the pressures of his own social awkwardness and the surrounding annoyance of the people trying to behinder his one dream... receive an autograph from John Lennon. The film develops an atmosphere where his optimism resonates an aura of pessimism because his determination is such a futile endeavor and the inevitable aftermath is dragged along with every step he takes. Eventually, this building of tension collapses on itself when he begins to develop a predictably doomed relationship with a New Yorker girl, played well by Lindsay Lohan. It would've felt like a parable of romance were I not already aware of the proceeding outcome. So rather than being heartbreaking, it feels conventional because we know all along that she will leave him to trigger the murder. That's not what I define as ambiguity.
The film also falters with its numerous long-running narrative soliloquies which turn surreal and sometimes descend into obvious lyricism. He spends much of the film discussing his social isolation, his desperation, complaining about the banalities of his life, and his feelings of homesick. Instead of feeling insightful, they feel dreary, Like I'm reading an old man's diary rather than entering the mind of a psychopath. But what maintains the key intrigue behind all the mundane babble is the manner of Jay Leto's narration, which always compels me to see beyond the dialogue and take a long hard glimpse at a man who has something to say but doesn't how to say it sanely, who wants to express himself but can never sum up the right words to explain why he seems so obsessive-compulsive and antisocial without coming across as one or the other. I almost (*almost*) feel like I could relate to him because Leto's vigorous and dynamic performance was just such a human touch.
And now, the climax of the film. The whole shebang of wandering, outbursts, and epiphanies all lead to the killing of John Lennon itself. We witness the events leading up to Leto's convincing final transformation through flashy editing and blaring music as he pulls out his gun and shoots the man down whilst he walks drunkenly to the entrance of his hotel. The film ends as he's arrested and forced into a police car.
There's little exploitation in this film, except maybe during its final scenes. It tries to be slow and intelligent and begins to feel obnoxiously pretentious. That fabulous performance really deserved some sort of Oscar recognition, it's a rare and pure and beautiful depiction of obsessive admiration. His performance pretty much exceeds his own characterization, a stunning achievement because he's in pretty much every shot of the film.
But what did we all learn from this movie? We didn't learn much at all, actually, we were merely given a different perspective to challenge our prevailing thoughts of the event. While sometimes it feels overtly sympathetic and sometimes just simply pondering, I do believe its outstanding performance conquers my applaud, while little else redeems it as but a sad and slightly sensationalized depiction of the tragedy.
Throughout the film we follow Leto as he lives and breathes every minute of New York City before he slowly begins to drown beneath the pressures of his own social awkwardness and the surrounding annoyance of the people trying to behinder his one dream... receive an autograph from John Lennon. The film develops an atmosphere where his optimism resonates an aura of pessimism because his determination is such a futile endeavor and the inevitable aftermath is dragged along with every step he takes. Eventually, this building of tension collapses on itself when he begins to develop a predictably doomed relationship with a New Yorker girl, played well by Lindsay Lohan. It would've felt like a parable of romance were I not already aware of the proceeding outcome. So rather than being heartbreaking, it feels conventional because we know all along that she will leave him to trigger the murder. That's not what I define as ambiguity.
The film also falters with its numerous long-running narrative soliloquies which turn surreal and sometimes descend into obvious lyricism. He spends much of the film discussing his social isolation, his desperation, complaining about the banalities of his life, and his feelings of homesick. Instead of feeling insightful, they feel dreary, Like I'm reading an old man's diary rather than entering the mind of a psychopath. But what maintains the key intrigue behind all the mundane babble is the manner of Jay Leto's narration, which always compels me to see beyond the dialogue and take a long hard glimpse at a man who has something to say but doesn't how to say it sanely, who wants to express himself but can never sum up the right words to explain why he seems so obsessive-compulsive and antisocial without coming across as one or the other. I almost (*almost*) feel like I could relate to him because Leto's vigorous and dynamic performance was just such a human touch.
And now, the climax of the film. The whole shebang of wandering, outbursts, and epiphanies all lead to the killing of John Lennon itself. We witness the events leading up to Leto's convincing final transformation through flashy editing and blaring music as he pulls out his gun and shoots the man down whilst he walks drunkenly to the entrance of his hotel. The film ends as he's arrested and forced into a police car.
There's little exploitation in this film, except maybe during its final scenes. It tries to be slow and intelligent and begins to feel obnoxiously pretentious. That fabulous performance really deserved some sort of Oscar recognition, it's a rare and pure and beautiful depiction of obsessive admiration. His performance pretty much exceeds his own characterization, a stunning achievement because he's in pretty much every shot of the film.
But what did we all learn from this movie? We didn't learn much at all, actually, we were merely given a different perspective to challenge our prevailing thoughts of the event. While sometimes it feels overtly sympathetic and sometimes just simply pondering, I do believe its outstanding performance conquers my applaud, while little else redeems it as but a sad and slightly sensationalized depiction of the tragedy.
All That Jazz
(1979)
The very essence of cinema, a masterpiece of the 70s
7 February 2009
All That Jazz may be the most colorful film I've ever seen. And it may also be the most thematically rich film I've seen in a long time, one that portrays a man's obsession with his art, his refutation and eventual embracement of death, his unlinear block between reality and fantasy, and his failure as a father and a husband, the only driving force of his life being his passion for art which he visualizes through his frustrating career as a theater director. It's a multilayered piece of neurotic fiction disguised as a musical about life and death, held together by a wonderful ensemble cast and some beautifully abstract dance numbers. Such a brilliant film.
American Splendor
(2003)
Mini-analysis to a charming biopic
7 February 2009
I tend to get caught up in textual aesthetics when writing any sort of reviews, so bear with me here. I've never heard of Harvey Pekar, but then again I've never read a comic-book in my life (I was put off by the ordinary superhero crap not even my friends ever collected). Here I came in expecting a rise-and-fall tale of a socially awkward but brilliant comic-book artist with the charming appeal of your typical Sundance indie-comedy.
But first of all, the guy doesn't even draw his own comics, he only writes the dialogue over a template of poorly-drawn stickfigures. He's not an artist in the sense of "brilliant visionary", he's just an observant guy. Thus, I can't find myself admirable of him. He's a funny and sometimes charming dude, but he's really just a file-clerk who happened to make it big-time with his sharp eye and understanding of social awkwardness.
But that's what makes it so inspirational. Beneath all of us there has to be some sort of higher calling, only we have to strive for it. Maybe you know a little more about life, maybe you have a unique vision for sound and music, maybe you can hold a camera steadily, or maybe you can draw stickfigures with clever dialogue. We're not all destined to demonstrate our hidden talents, but those who strive for more can leave a behind a mark of victory after death.
And thus, going back to my standard expectations, I was thrown aback. Despite the film's (sort of) heavy themes, This film remains totally endearing and delightful and hilarious, yet bleak in its portrayal of a man yearning for prosperity even when risen to fame. If you lead a breadline lifestyle, fame and popularity doesn't make it any better, only more hopeful and craving. But those are just the small first-steps of the massive game of life, and eventually you'll be rewarded for your efforts.
And how the hell didn't Hope Davis or Paul Giamatti receive Oscar-nods for their role? They so perfectly embodied their characters that by the end I understood everything that drove the couple past their gawky and flawed relationship and allowed them to thrive beneath each other's imperfections. They didn't feel like a destined couple from a higher calling of God, just two people who managed to work everything out and lead a happy life. They felt much like old friends by the end I'd love to revisit.
So yeah, overall, for a film that maintains a charming atmosphere (thanks to its humorous backdrop narration and stylish comic-book effects) whilst allowing for a bit of thoughtful insight to the inner workings of the American Dream, I'd say this is uncertainly Harvey Pekar's best work to date.
But first of all, the guy doesn't even draw his own comics, he only writes the dialogue over a template of poorly-drawn stickfigures. He's not an artist in the sense of "brilliant visionary", he's just an observant guy. Thus, I can't find myself admirable of him. He's a funny and sometimes charming dude, but he's really just a file-clerk who happened to make it big-time with his sharp eye and understanding of social awkwardness.
But that's what makes it so inspirational. Beneath all of us there has to be some sort of higher calling, only we have to strive for it. Maybe you know a little more about life, maybe you have a unique vision for sound and music, maybe you can hold a camera steadily, or maybe you can draw stickfigures with clever dialogue. We're not all destined to demonstrate our hidden talents, but those who strive for more can leave a behind a mark of victory after death.
And thus, going back to my standard expectations, I was thrown aback. Despite the film's (sort of) heavy themes, This film remains totally endearing and delightful and hilarious, yet bleak in its portrayal of a man yearning for prosperity even when risen to fame. If you lead a breadline lifestyle, fame and popularity doesn't make it any better, only more hopeful and craving. But those are just the small first-steps of the massive game of life, and eventually you'll be rewarded for your efforts.
And how the hell didn't Hope Davis or Paul Giamatti receive Oscar-nods for their role? They so perfectly embodied their characters that by the end I understood everything that drove the couple past their gawky and flawed relationship and allowed them to thrive beneath each other's imperfections. They didn't feel like a destined couple from a higher calling of God, just two people who managed to work everything out and lead a happy life. They felt much like old friends by the end I'd love to revisit.
So yeah, overall, for a film that maintains a charming atmosphere (thanks to its humorous backdrop narration and stylish comic-book effects) whilst allowing for a bit of thoughtful insight to the inner workings of the American Dream, I'd say this is uncertainly Harvey Pekar's best work to date.
Some Things Last
26 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
After having developed pretty much the most successful directorial career of the decade, Fincher just refuses to hold back his enormous talent, always picking the risky projects and churning out an exhilarating piece of work. He's come a long way as it is, and then comes along the curious "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button". The title speaks for itself. The result can be anything between a predictable romantic drama, or a stirring, magical, unforgettable, heartbreaking, intelligent, challenging experience. I'm sure you can tell which direction I'm headed.
Oh, what a curious case indeed. The film begins as a child, born on the day of the end of the Great War (symbol of the beginning of life?), is abandoned by his father outside a boardinghouse dedicated for seniors. It is quickly revealed that he was born ugly and wrinkled (not quite the appearance of a child, but "still a child of God"). We don't find out immediately that he will lead his life physically aging backwards, but it is gradually revealed as he grows older, when his back begins to take shape and his wheelchair is rendered useless.
What ensues after developing his bizarre nature, however, is the true core of this absolutely spellbinding masterpiece. There is always a lingering dread that his relationships will never work beyond their limited time frame, but its characters are driven by soul, not any shallow desires. The heart of the film is the relationship between Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett. Will their love survive their difficult circumstances? Mortality is the key theme of this picture, the adamant difference between young and old age. Transience is man's greatest weakness.
Although it's a pretty glum and straightforward thing to say that nothing lasts, the film does not depict itself through false optimism, but rather through hope. Hope that beneath these torn souls, there is the chance of wisdom and love overcoming mortality, and it culminates a damned poignant realization. There is also a playful theme to summarize the entire film -- no matter which way you age, life will always f-ck you. Tell that to the millions of women undergoing their midlife crisis, I guarantee the results will not be pretty. I'm getting off- track now, so let me just say this is possibly the best film of the year, and many years to come.
Oh, what a curious case indeed. The film begins as a child, born on the day of the end of the Great War (symbol of the beginning of life?), is abandoned by his father outside a boardinghouse dedicated for seniors. It is quickly revealed that he was born ugly and wrinkled (not quite the appearance of a child, but "still a child of God"). We don't find out immediately that he will lead his life physically aging backwards, but it is gradually revealed as he grows older, when his back begins to take shape and his wheelchair is rendered useless.
What ensues after developing his bizarre nature, however, is the true core of this absolutely spellbinding masterpiece. There is always a lingering dread that his relationships will never work beyond their limited time frame, but its characters are driven by soul, not any shallow desires. The heart of the film is the relationship between Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett. Will their love survive their difficult circumstances? Mortality is the key theme of this picture, the adamant difference between young and old age. Transience is man's greatest weakness.
Although it's a pretty glum and straightforward thing to say that nothing lasts, the film does not depict itself through false optimism, but rather through hope. Hope that beneath these torn souls, there is the chance of wisdom and love overcoming mortality, and it culminates a damned poignant realization. There is also a playful theme to summarize the entire film -- no matter which way you age, life will always f-ck you. Tell that to the millions of women undergoing their midlife crisis, I guarantee the results will not be pretty. I'm getting off- track now, so let me just say this is possibly the best film of the year, and many years to come.
Slumdog Millionaire
(2008)
Best Film of the Year
22 December 2008
When it comes to a film like Slumdog Millionaire, we're not watching for an end result, because we already know how it'll end. It's almost comforting, in a way, knowing the best will become of our characters. The film isn't about waiting for some sappy ending, but about building up and culminating a story to enthrall us till the end. And the journey found here is exhilarating. It tells a story that requires us to become a child once more to relate. We don't just sit back and watch, the tale evokes our own memories of grief, hope, and love in a way of contrast. You undergo a truly personal experience with this movie. None other this year has come close to the stirring magic this incites. It doesn't tell a love story, but rather a story of love, friendship, and destiny, tangled up in a web of poverty, greed, and deception. Simply beautiful, sad, inspirational, and brilliant film. Danny Boyle has outdone himself.
The Method
(2005)
Cynical Fun
9 November 2008
The Method Before I begin my review, I think I should clear up that the "Gronholm Method" is an obscure method of interviewing someone for a job. It involves gathering up a number of candidates eligible for a position, but rather than openly interviewing them as a process of discovering their usefulness and weaknesses, there technically is no "interviewer". In the film, the candidates are placed in a room with six laptops (one for each contender to receive notes) and they are forced to psychologically analyze each other to discover a "winner". They are issued a series of challenges and hypothetical situations in which they are forced to pick out the weakest of their group. There is always the lingering plausibility that any one of these contestants can be the true interviewer, or perhaps there could be multiple interviewers? Maybe there is only one true contestant, or maybe they are all role-playing in a method to promote a staff member in the company? Any of these explanations are reasonable, because when we're discussing a method as cynical as the film's depiction, it's almost superficial to narrow it down to one solution.
I'm not entirely sure about the historical authenticity of the Gronholm Method, or if it even exists (a Google search sent me to the film's IMDb + Wikipedia page), but I can almost assure if the film were a multinational box-office success, small businesses would begin to experiment and possibly adapt the assumed fictional method. I personally wouldn't mind being an interviewee of such a system, for it allows me to challenge my intellectual abilities in an intense competition. As for the film itself, when its narrative followed the characters as they explored each other's limitations and the film analyzed their credulity and startling enthusiasm to such a sport, it was an intensely riveting experience. The characters were developed with careful and relentlessly strengthening three-dimensional traits, and the methods of interviewing grew more severe and brooding to reveal the true nature of man. The first 50 minutes of this film were pure exhilaration, a haunting psychological depiction of cat & mouse. To me it was almost a nostalgic resemblance of the superfluous anxiety found in 12 ANGRY MEN, as I'd never felt so absorbed by long-running dialogue since.
After several characters are eliminated from the process (I'm not about to explain who, why, or how), the film takes a break from its intense onslaught of psychosomatic progression. This veers the film off-course and unfortunately causes it to wane off a bit. Greed is replaced by hormones as one character randomly feels like having sex with one of the remaining interviewees. Although a bit absurd, it also fits the animalistic desperation the contestants must be feeling by this point. They've been stripped bare from social courtesy, and are now physically fighting one another, no longer caring for outer appearance. I'm not sure if it justifies going as far as it does, but it would've been totally implausible to remain as a restrained and gracious drama.
A romantic subplot also develops between two interviewees. They had once been lovers, but one betrayed the other, and neither had ever forgotten. They still longed to be together, but the hostile circumstances made it impossible for them. The subplot does reach startling poignancy at one point, but does the film ever get back on track? Does it ever re-enter its initial excitement? Unfortunately, the writer didn't trust his sardonic examination would make for a fully satisfying viewing. His decision to switch gears was more detrimental than refreshing, and that may be the only aspect of the film that inhibited greatness. It still makes for a relentlessly entertaining viewing, one that not only provokes thought, but questions human morality in a time of conflict. Cynical, but excellent.
I'm not entirely sure about the historical authenticity of the Gronholm Method, or if it even exists (a Google search sent me to the film's IMDb + Wikipedia page), but I can almost assure if the film were a multinational box-office success, small businesses would begin to experiment and possibly adapt the assumed fictional method. I personally wouldn't mind being an interviewee of such a system, for it allows me to challenge my intellectual abilities in an intense competition. As for the film itself, when its narrative followed the characters as they explored each other's limitations and the film analyzed their credulity and startling enthusiasm to such a sport, it was an intensely riveting experience. The characters were developed with careful and relentlessly strengthening three-dimensional traits, and the methods of interviewing grew more severe and brooding to reveal the true nature of man. The first 50 minutes of this film were pure exhilaration, a haunting psychological depiction of cat & mouse. To me it was almost a nostalgic resemblance of the superfluous anxiety found in 12 ANGRY MEN, as I'd never felt so absorbed by long-running dialogue since.
After several characters are eliminated from the process (I'm not about to explain who, why, or how), the film takes a break from its intense onslaught of psychosomatic progression. This veers the film off-course and unfortunately causes it to wane off a bit. Greed is replaced by hormones as one character randomly feels like having sex with one of the remaining interviewees. Although a bit absurd, it also fits the animalistic desperation the contestants must be feeling by this point. They've been stripped bare from social courtesy, and are now physically fighting one another, no longer caring for outer appearance. I'm not sure if it justifies going as far as it does, but it would've been totally implausible to remain as a restrained and gracious drama.
A romantic subplot also develops between two interviewees. They had once been lovers, but one betrayed the other, and neither had ever forgotten. They still longed to be together, but the hostile circumstances made it impossible for them. The subplot does reach startling poignancy at one point, but does the film ever get back on track? Does it ever re-enter its initial excitement? Unfortunately, the writer didn't trust his sardonic examination would make for a fully satisfying viewing. His decision to switch gears was more detrimental than refreshing, and that may be the only aspect of the film that inhibited greatness. It still makes for a relentlessly entertaining viewing, one that not only provokes thought, but questions human morality in a time of conflict. Cynical, but excellent.
Happy-Go-Lucky
(2008)
Among Mike Leigh's finest
8 November 2008
Just about every year this decade has had its hyped failures and J-horror extravaganza, but there's always that one glimmer of hope that makes the otherwise useless pondering worthwhile. 2008 hasn't been very well-endowed in that sense at all. Sure, it brought us the exhilarating DARK KNIGHT, the hilarious PINEAPPLE EXPRESS, the dementedly awesome BURN AFTER READING, and the realist, semi-tragedic, loosely brooding VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA, but when Oscar season comes around (which should be right around now), it doesn't look like we'll have much to justify the year's failure.
HAPPY-GO-LUCKY, Mike Leigh's new pessimistically optimistic film transcends the bickering good vs. evil, pseudo-charismatic rom-com, and "virgin survives" plot structure dished out this year. It's a film that explores a wide range of emotions and characters, themes, and even genres. It stars Sally Hawkins as Poppy, a character who, without the film's sardonic examination, would've appeared as though conceived through acid. She's the personification of "high on life" as we know it. She has the uncanny ability of finding a punch-line in even the most dark and brooding situations. Were it not for her sanguine personality and the film's atmosphere of cheery semblance, I would've been shaken by the film as a dark and gloomy experience.
When Poppy's beloved bike is stolen, rather than lamenting in sorrow, she brushes it off and instead of buying a new bike, she uses her lack of transportation as an incentive to sign up for driving lessons. Unfortunately, she's partnered up with a repressive and systematically irritated driving instructor. It's not revealed why he is how he is, but it's a good choice on the director's part to avoid an inevitable sappy revelation conclusion. The film doesn't center around their encounters, it centers around Poppy's life as she fights through a brigade of unstable losers and lives not for yesterday or tomorrow, but today.
But Poppy isn't just a "happy machine". Although I've labeled her as a blissful caricature at one point, she's totally capable of lashing out when provoked to an extent. She's just as human as you or me, only more altruistic in nature, not as demanding of society, and doesn't allow failures to bring her down. The troubled people she encounters are unable to keep up with the challenging development of civilization as we know it. They are all the subqualities of the subdued monster veiled inside us all. Many have called her annoying and unrealistic, I call her Strong.
Along with being an enjoyable and deeply affecting picture, it's a film that subtly reveals its knowledge of human nature without openly analyzing it in your face. Or mine. Powerful stuff.
HAPPY-GO-LUCKY, Mike Leigh's new pessimistically optimistic film transcends the bickering good vs. evil, pseudo-charismatic rom-com, and "virgin survives" plot structure dished out this year. It's a film that explores a wide range of emotions and characters, themes, and even genres. It stars Sally Hawkins as Poppy, a character who, without the film's sardonic examination, would've appeared as though conceived through acid. She's the personification of "high on life" as we know it. She has the uncanny ability of finding a punch-line in even the most dark and brooding situations. Were it not for her sanguine personality and the film's atmosphere of cheery semblance, I would've been shaken by the film as a dark and gloomy experience.
When Poppy's beloved bike is stolen, rather than lamenting in sorrow, she brushes it off and instead of buying a new bike, she uses her lack of transportation as an incentive to sign up for driving lessons. Unfortunately, she's partnered up with a repressive and systematically irritated driving instructor. It's not revealed why he is how he is, but it's a good choice on the director's part to avoid an inevitable sappy revelation conclusion. The film doesn't center around their encounters, it centers around Poppy's life as she fights through a brigade of unstable losers and lives not for yesterday or tomorrow, but today.
But Poppy isn't just a "happy machine". Although I've labeled her as a blissful caricature at one point, she's totally capable of lashing out when provoked to an extent. She's just as human as you or me, only more altruistic in nature, not as demanding of society, and doesn't allow failures to bring her down. The troubled people she encounters are unable to keep up with the challenging development of civilization as we know it. They are all the subqualities of the subdued monster veiled inside us all. Many have called her annoying and unrealistic, I call her Strong.
Along with being an enjoyable and deeply affecting picture, it's a film that subtly reveals its knowledge of human nature without openly analyzing it in your face. Or mine. Powerful stuff.
Vicky Cristina Barcelona
(2008)
Classic Woody
25 August 2008
Who knows what to expect from Woody Allen? Most of the films he's made this decade have been pretty unpredictable, and suspiciously Allen has agreed with the public reaction regarding most of them. I thought Melinda and Melinda was a fine, worthwhile effort, Scoop was just mostly mediocre, Match Point was the best film of Allen's career, and Cassandra's Dream was easily the worst he's made. So considering his recent schizophrenic attitude, I wasn't sure where I'd go with this film, but I was still looking forward to it, mostly for Cruz's supposed Oscar-worthy performance and, well, you gotta give the guy credit after so many years of brilliant comedies, and even his failures being interesting failures.
The film centers around two best friends (Vicky and Cristina) who decide to spend the Summer in Barcelona, and while there they are both faced with romantic conflicts with an artist, Juan Antonio, who has invited them to his home for the weekend to get to know each other and have sex. But it's not a love/hate, conventional jealous-romance-plot, it's situations are entirely human and almost brooding in a sort of loosely ardent manner. A lot goes on between their relationships, especially with Cristina, who develops among the strangest love circles ever put on film which I'd rather not give away. Vicky, who is about to get married, forms a sudden attraction towards Juan, but I never really saw it as sexual attraction, but rather as an escape from the knowledge of the desolate reality of commitment. Oh, and did I mention Juan's psychotic manic-depressive ex-wife eventually comes into the picture? Despite the absurdity of the entire situation, the whole thing is executed with definitive authenticity. Part of that may be because of the natural dialogue, which was right off the bat the obvious work of Woody Allen. The perfect dialogue combined with the absurdity of the situation created several absolutely perfect moments of comedic timing. It's characters are smart and human, not just self-aware variations of cliché'd romantic comedy characters. It's situations are not tired and consistently replicated "boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl" plots, but an episodic stream of events packed with energy and originality just about every other romantic comedy this year seemed to lack.
But alas, not all was perfect. The film's narrator spoke with an irritatingly robotic tone, along with narration being entirely pointless from the start, and I also thought the film spent too long expressing Vicky's passionless relationship with her husband (which in a way, may have been intentional)... but it's an otherwise tiny flaw which hardly detracted from the overall joyful experience Woody has provided. And yes, give Cruz that Oscar.
8.75/10
The film centers around two best friends (Vicky and Cristina) who decide to spend the Summer in Barcelona, and while there they are both faced with romantic conflicts with an artist, Juan Antonio, who has invited them to his home for the weekend to get to know each other and have sex. But it's not a love/hate, conventional jealous-romance-plot, it's situations are entirely human and almost brooding in a sort of loosely ardent manner. A lot goes on between their relationships, especially with Cristina, who develops among the strangest love circles ever put on film which I'd rather not give away. Vicky, who is about to get married, forms a sudden attraction towards Juan, but I never really saw it as sexual attraction, but rather as an escape from the knowledge of the desolate reality of commitment. Oh, and did I mention Juan's psychotic manic-depressive ex-wife eventually comes into the picture? Despite the absurdity of the entire situation, the whole thing is executed with definitive authenticity. Part of that may be because of the natural dialogue, which was right off the bat the obvious work of Woody Allen. The perfect dialogue combined with the absurdity of the situation created several absolutely perfect moments of comedic timing. It's characters are smart and human, not just self-aware variations of cliché'd romantic comedy characters. It's situations are not tired and consistently replicated "boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl" plots, but an episodic stream of events packed with energy and originality just about every other romantic comedy this year seemed to lack.
But alas, not all was perfect. The film's narrator spoke with an irritatingly robotic tone, along with narration being entirely pointless from the start, and I also thought the film spent too long expressing Vicky's passionless relationship with her husband (which in a way, may have been intentional)... but it's an otherwise tiny flaw which hardly detracted from the overall joyful experience Woody has provided. And yes, give Cruz that Oscar.
8.75/10
A Heart in Winter
(1992)
Good romance
14 August 2008
Judging from only it's poster and some comments I've read, I expected a pessimistic portrayal of love and loss, with a lot of sex and poetic intricacies. However, the film played out mostly straightforward, with absolutely ravishing violin pieces, and an intriguing romantic triangle. It was pretty quick-paced, at least quicker than I expected, and it never felt rushed, but ordinary. Plenty of romances I watch I doubt the chemistry between a couple, but here I felt comfortable and aware of these character's emotions and problems.
The film is about a violinist who falls entrancedly in love with her boyfriend's seemingly empty partner in terms of emotion and love. She is determined to break through his void exterior, meanwhile expressing her desperation and true love for him through her music. It's a fascinating design, but while I was always engaged, I couldn't find myself relating to the characters (or the situation), nor could I see the entire ordeal as anything more than an interesting romance plot.
I was always intrigued, and while I was relentlessly kept wondering what would happen between the couple and wishing for the best, I could never get past that and become emotionally enthralled with their situation, couldn't cheer for the characters' losses or gains. I also felt it's final 10 minutes were unnecessary, as I thought it packed things up a bit too roughly.
I have a bad habit of judging films based on prior expectations, I thought this film achieved plenty more than I can say about other romances. It kept me on my feet, contained several beautiful violin pieces, and kept me wondering where it would all lead up. Maybe it was just me, but in terms of excitement and becoming absorbed with the romantic beauty of it all, it lacked.
The film is about a violinist who falls entrancedly in love with her boyfriend's seemingly empty partner in terms of emotion and love. She is determined to break through his void exterior, meanwhile expressing her desperation and true love for him through her music. It's a fascinating design, but while I was always engaged, I couldn't find myself relating to the characters (or the situation), nor could I see the entire ordeal as anything more than an interesting romance plot.
I was always intrigued, and while I was relentlessly kept wondering what would happen between the couple and wishing for the best, I could never get past that and become emotionally enthralled with their situation, couldn't cheer for the characters' losses or gains. I also felt it's final 10 minutes were unnecessary, as I thought it packed things up a bit too roughly.
I have a bad habit of judging films based on prior expectations, I thought this film achieved plenty more than I can say about other romances. It kept me on my feet, contained several beautiful violin pieces, and kept me wondering where it would all lead up. Maybe it was just me, but in terms of excitement and becoming absorbed with the romantic beauty of it all, it lacked.
Pierrot the Fool
(1965)
Possibly Godard's best
8 August 2008
Pierrot le fou is one of the reasons I love cinema. In fact, it's a disambiguation of all the moods, of all the emotions evoked from all sorts of genres that derive from film. The film pays tribute to the brilliant realm, along with holding an intriguing premise of its own, playing out relishly and unpredictably, shifting consistently between a musical, to a poetic life examination, to an exhilarating crime/thriller, and to an energetic romantic tale.
The entire ordeal centers around a man who, after a boring party, decides to abandon his bourgeoisiesque life and run off with a young babysitter, who is also his ex-girlfriend. Eventually, we come to realize that the young babysitter is on the run from gangsters, and they must both live on the run, stealing cars, disguising their identities, secluding themselves from society, and faking their deaths. During all this, Godard reveals what an expert he is at creating a mood, by developing an atmosphere that relates to his characters, whom aren't naive or simply rebellious, but human and desiring and vulnerable.
The entire ordeal centers around a man who, after a boring party, decides to abandon his bourgeoisiesque life and run off with a young babysitter, who is also his ex-girlfriend. Eventually, we come to realize that the young babysitter is on the run from gangsters, and they must both live on the run, stealing cars, disguising their identities, secluding themselves from society, and faking their deaths. During all this, Godard reveals what an expert he is at creating a mood, by developing an atmosphere that relates to his characters, whom aren't naive or simply rebellious, but human and desiring and vulnerable.
Syndromes and a Century
(2006)
I saw it coming, but I didn't expect it to be so detrimental...
28 July 2008
Syndromes and a Century begins as a fascinating, engaging experience. It maintains that for about half an hour, but then something happens, and it descends into a dull unpleasantry. It never loses its brooding atmosphere, but it just becomes... indulgent, pedantic, bloated, and most of all, boring. The director becomes the audience, he takes long shots of trees and buildings so as to recreate the setting of his childhood, maybe for nostalgic purposes. But I, personally, wasn't raised in a hospital environment, so I, personally, didn't personally make a PERSONAL connection. I understood beforehand that there was a lack of narrative in the story, but I honestly didn't expect it to descend into such uninvolving emptiness.
Bonnie and Clyde
(1967)
So here it is, the supposed landmark of the 60s...
28 July 2008
... and deservedly so. This is a relentlessly entertaining, exhilarating crime/romance, which centers around two engaged criminals who run around in stolen cars robbing banks. Simple enough, but it takes intricate, even nowadays, unconventional turns in terms of emotional advancement. Sure, the film romanticizes and at times glorifies the true events it's based on, but whoever said exploitation is essentially a bad thing if done with plausible execution? In terms of acting and craftsmanship, the film's an extravagant success. Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty hold uncanny chemistry, the films actual directing and cinematography is remarkable, its soundtrack very well fits the film's setting, essential characters are never eliminated with ignorant lack of remorse, everyone is given three-dimensional figure and personality... honestly, if I were forced to pick out a flaw, I'd have to rewatch the film for even the slightest continuity error.
Satantango
(1994)
Best film I've seen
28 July 2008
Who knew emptiness could be so beautiful? Bela Tarr's 7-hour Hungarian epic revolves around the lives of villagers in a small-town, as they face with greed, deception, betrayal, and loss. Tarr's cinematography here exceeds anything else ever captured on celluloid. I could list 1,000 reasons why this is the best film ever made: from its fascinating, anomalous structure, to its sensible, brooding, and dark portrayal of human nature, to its lyrical, ravishing portrait of forlorn desolation, to its false, but beautifully authentic sense of hope. As a visceral experience alone, this is the greatest film ever made, but add a touch of arguably sardonic symbolism, and it's beyond that. Bela Tarr has touched on a realm of cinema I never thought possible.
The Orphanage
(2007)
Among the finest horror films of the decade
15 July 2008
The Orphanage is a film that should've been released years ago, because its plot and ghostly themes are so heavy-handed and overdone now, that not many of its genuine scares or innovative structure techniques come off as achieving. It certainly is the best film about creepy kids and haunted houses that I've seen, but after so many failures and low-brow ghost stories, the film comes across as a more polished version of those stories, than its own unique, intelligent movie, which is certainly would've felt like otherwise.
The film centers around Laura (played wonderfully by Belen Rueda), who has just moved into an old orphanage she grew up in with her adopted, ill son Simon, and faithful husband Carlos. Yes, Simon sees dead people. And plays with them. His concerned parents put up with his consistent ramblings about imaginary friends and treasure hunts. Laura and her husband privately discuss his physical and possibly mental illness, and their hopes for the future. After the ghosts reveal to Simon his illness (or did he overhear one of his parents conversations?), he disappears, and the couple descends into grief, but not without hope of finding him one day.
Laura then begins to see ghosts, but is she really seeing ghosts, or has she gone batsh-t insane? Are they trying to tell her something? Are they trying to frighten, confuse, relieve, or dispose of her? Did her son ever really exist? Does she exist? Does her husband exist? Really, the film doesn't resolve every one of its parallax or contradictory themes, it allows its viewer to interpret Laura's state of mind, to distinguish reality from insanity, and even to decide if some essential characters exist or not. I'd call it a fault if a film left absolutely everything up to the audience, but this film shows us both the paranoic/realistic and fantasy elements, and doesn't adopt either as its main viewpoint, but allows us to decide it all.
Technically, the film is masterwork. It's cinematography, pacing, structure, atmosphere, performances, all belong in tier 1 of film-making. There's one specific scene (One, Two, Three, Knock on the Wall) that is so perfectly shot and executed, it actually boosts up my entire rating by a point. Despite a mostly straightforward plot outline, it dives into more intricate plot elements, with simultaneously Peter-Pan-and-Thirteen-Ghosts-esquire themes, without diffusing or muddling either of them.
Overall, Del Toro has expertly made a very satisfying, chilling, and progressive horror story. Maybe not an inventive masterpiece, but a perfectly-executed version of what's recently become the same old cheap scares: creepy kids. And ghosts.
The film centers around Laura (played wonderfully by Belen Rueda), who has just moved into an old orphanage she grew up in with her adopted, ill son Simon, and faithful husband Carlos. Yes, Simon sees dead people. And plays with them. His concerned parents put up with his consistent ramblings about imaginary friends and treasure hunts. Laura and her husband privately discuss his physical and possibly mental illness, and their hopes for the future. After the ghosts reveal to Simon his illness (or did he overhear one of his parents conversations?), he disappears, and the couple descends into grief, but not without hope of finding him one day.
Laura then begins to see ghosts, but is she really seeing ghosts, or has she gone batsh-t insane? Are they trying to tell her something? Are they trying to frighten, confuse, relieve, or dispose of her? Did her son ever really exist? Does she exist? Does her husband exist? Really, the film doesn't resolve every one of its parallax or contradictory themes, it allows its viewer to interpret Laura's state of mind, to distinguish reality from insanity, and even to decide if some essential characters exist or not. I'd call it a fault if a film left absolutely everything up to the audience, but this film shows us both the paranoic/realistic and fantasy elements, and doesn't adopt either as its main viewpoint, but allows us to decide it all.
Technically, the film is masterwork. It's cinematography, pacing, structure, atmosphere, performances, all belong in tier 1 of film-making. There's one specific scene (One, Two, Three, Knock on the Wall) that is so perfectly shot and executed, it actually boosts up my entire rating by a point. Despite a mostly straightforward plot outline, it dives into more intricate plot elements, with simultaneously Peter-Pan-and-Thirteen-Ghosts-esquire themes, without diffusing or muddling either of them.
Overall, Del Toro has expertly made a very satisfying, chilling, and progressive horror story. Maybe not an inventive masterpiece, but a perfectly-executed version of what's recently become the same old cheap scares: creepy kids. And ghosts.
Get Smart
(2008)
Steve Carrell saves the film from mediocrity
4 July 2008
What is it about Steve Carrell that makes him one of the finest comedic actors of the decade? Be it his minimal expressionism (something Jim Carrey couldn't do to save his life), or his uncanny ability to make any character likable, and almost charismatic? Whatever it is, he displays it brilliantly here, and it's one of the few achieving factors of this entertaining, but mostly ordinary comedy/thriller.
When an evil corporation reveals the identity of all the agents of a secret anti-terrorist organization, an analyst (Carrell) and an agent who recently got plastic surgery (Hathaway)embark on a pseudo-quest to discover what the terrorists have in mind, and why they were so quick to find out the identity of all the agents. Of course, they want the president dead, and it's up to Carrell and Hathaway to stop them.
Many of its gags were forced and predictable, but plenty were also hilarious. The chemistry between the two leads worked well, but not without its doubts, or bits of manufactured romance. After the first dozen twists or so, they began to drag to the point of predictability. However, while its extremely over-the-top climax was a bit obvious, it was also surprisingly involving. You could see miles away what would become of its characters, and that almost detracted from the experience, but Carrell's charm alone kept me engaged, and almost captivated.
So overall, the film fails at offering any innovative ideas, considering its plot holds the same intricacies, same twists, and same structure as many other crime-thrillers, but Carrell himself saves it from mediocrity.
6.5/10
When an evil corporation reveals the identity of all the agents of a secret anti-terrorist organization, an analyst (Carrell) and an agent who recently got plastic surgery (Hathaway)embark on a pseudo-quest to discover what the terrorists have in mind, and why they were so quick to find out the identity of all the agents. Of course, they want the president dead, and it's up to Carrell and Hathaway to stop them.
Many of its gags were forced and predictable, but plenty were also hilarious. The chemistry between the two leads worked well, but not without its doubts, or bits of manufactured romance. After the first dozen twists or so, they began to drag to the point of predictability. However, while its extremely over-the-top climax was a bit obvious, it was also surprisingly involving. You could see miles away what would become of its characters, and that almost detracted from the experience, but Carrell's charm alone kept me engaged, and almost captivated.
So overall, the film fails at offering any innovative ideas, considering its plot holds the same intricacies, same twists, and same structure as many other crime-thrillers, but Carrell himself saves it from mediocrity.
6.5/10
Blood Simple
(1984)
A surprisingly hard-boiled thriller
1 July 2008
This is one of the Coen Brother's darkest films, and we all know their films are usually laced with humor. Characters here exchange several awkward jokes, but its actual atmosphere is brooding and merciless. Its themes revolve around paranoia and guilt to an almost surreal extent, stirring up a setting of tragedic exposure.
The film begins with poignant, but hopeful undertonic deceivement. Howver, all glimmer of hope is erased when a man, whose wife has been cheating on him, hires a hit-man to kill her and her lover. That's when I realized that this wasn't the light, humorous Coen film mixed with thriller elements, but the truly dark and restrained side of Coen's three-dimensional talent. Of course, in the film, the seemingly simple plan goes horribly wrong, and all parties are interweaved with tragic aftermath. Giving away any more plot would just ruin this experience, so I'll keep you hanging.
It all results in an intense, suspenseful climax. None of the characters are shown mercy, nor do the Coens' kill them off with ignorant lack of remorse, but they show us how revenge and satisfaction never coincide, nor does betrayal without atonement. Performance, editing, and script-wise, the film never lets up in being an engaging, absolutely captivating study of human nature.
****
The film begins with poignant, but hopeful undertonic deceivement. Howver, all glimmer of hope is erased when a man, whose wife has been cheating on him, hires a hit-man to kill her and her lover. That's when I realized that this wasn't the light, humorous Coen film mixed with thriller elements, but the truly dark and restrained side of Coen's three-dimensional talent. Of course, in the film, the seemingly simple plan goes horribly wrong, and all parties are interweaved with tragic aftermath. Giving away any more plot would just ruin this experience, so I'll keep you hanging.
It all results in an intense, suspenseful climax. None of the characters are shown mercy, nor do the Coens' kill them off with ignorant lack of remorse, but they show us how revenge and satisfaction never coincide, nor does betrayal without atonement. Performance, editing, and script-wise, the film never lets up in being an engaging, absolutely captivating study of human nature.
****
Wes Anderson's Best...
30 June 2008
And considering his outstanding filmography, this is more than a mere praise. The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou is an eccentric, bizarre piece, it holds an optimistic atmosphere with cheerful underwater creatures and joyously colorful sets, but its substance is more pessimistic, at times perverse. The film holds subtextual themes such as lust, kidnapping, murder, revenge, but despite all the films inner negative cynicism, its unique atmosphere gives it the feeling of an uplifting road movie. Because of this intriguingly contradictory bafflement, the film is an achievement of unpredictable allurement. Are the consistently cold themes but light mannerisms going to lead to a tragic aftermath, or an uplifting conclusion?
While its sullen quality does mostly take over the film's atmosphere, I can't deny it also holds a fair share of light, brooding humor. Before I continue confusing you with a painful attempt at explaining the directors true objective, let me tell you what the film is about on the outside. A failure of a documentary filmmaker, Steve, and his long-lost son, Ned, embark on a quest to search for a man-eating shark who killed Steve's best friend. Accompanying them are Steve's intelligent, but hardly humble wife, his film crew, a pregnant reporter, and a group of college students. Both Steve and Ned fall in love with the young reporter, and this enforces the two with endeavors of loyalty and betrayal. Eventually, when a group of thieves kidnap a member of the group and hold him hostage, they make a change of plans and embark to rescue him.
It's this kind of quirkily absurd plot Wes Anderson practically trademarks, he's known for his mostly episodic structure, for the usually pseudo-comedic entities his films hold, driven by the essential dark character study he puts into all his films. His characters tend to give in to personal desire's with sexual or cynical behavior, betraying those around him, with guilt and without pride. Anderson reveals the imperfections of humanity, but he also realizes that a "flawed human being" is an nonsensical phrase, because all human beings have felt lust, or have told a lie at one point, or have hurt another person's feelings, or conceal some negative emotion or connotation about a certain person or entire community, no one can be deemed innocent or pure.
The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou works in the fact that while it's an enticing visual accomplishment, it's also an achievement in creating three-dimensional, relatable characters, with intriguing situations that reveal the dark side of human nature. But despite all the sullen, at times tragic subtext, the film is an absolutely hilarious, bizarre, almost surreal excitement. This only further proves what a distinctive and legendary director Wes Anderson is, and I very much anticipate his next film.
While its sullen quality does mostly take over the film's atmosphere, I can't deny it also holds a fair share of light, brooding humor. Before I continue confusing you with a painful attempt at explaining the directors true objective, let me tell you what the film is about on the outside. A failure of a documentary filmmaker, Steve, and his long-lost son, Ned, embark on a quest to search for a man-eating shark who killed Steve's best friend. Accompanying them are Steve's intelligent, but hardly humble wife, his film crew, a pregnant reporter, and a group of college students. Both Steve and Ned fall in love with the young reporter, and this enforces the two with endeavors of loyalty and betrayal. Eventually, when a group of thieves kidnap a member of the group and hold him hostage, they make a change of plans and embark to rescue him.
It's this kind of quirkily absurd plot Wes Anderson practically trademarks, he's known for his mostly episodic structure, for the usually pseudo-comedic entities his films hold, driven by the essential dark character study he puts into all his films. His characters tend to give in to personal desire's with sexual or cynical behavior, betraying those around him, with guilt and without pride. Anderson reveals the imperfections of humanity, but he also realizes that a "flawed human being" is an nonsensical phrase, because all human beings have felt lust, or have told a lie at one point, or have hurt another person's feelings, or conceal some negative emotion or connotation about a certain person or entire community, no one can be deemed innocent or pure.
The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou works in the fact that while it's an enticing visual accomplishment, it's also an achievement in creating three-dimensional, relatable characters, with intriguing situations that reveal the dark side of human nature. But despite all the sullen, at times tragic subtext, the film is an absolutely hilarious, bizarre, almost surreal excitement. This only further proves what a distinctive and legendary director Wes Anderson is, and I very much anticipate his next film.
Do the Right Thing
(1989)
Spike Lee's best film.
29 June 2008
Here is a film, Spike Lee's best, that takes on a controversial subject such as racism, and doesn't indulge in emotional manipulation, prejudiced intolerance, or exaggerated endeavors. The film centers around a neighborhood of different races and colors that long for demographic equality, but must unfortunately tolerate one another and withhold their true bigot nature to avoid violent opposition.
However, through an absolutely plausible stream of events, an intense onslaught occurs, all the tension between the Hispanics, Blacks, Whites, and Asians explodes, just as they all envisioned it would. We watch with dread as all the setup finally unfolds, without restraint, with tragic aftermath.
The main characters and the dialogue shared between them rings true, almost relateable in the sense that we share the same weaknesses, and we all have our lot of negative criticism to our surroundings. Spike Lee understands his characters, and creates three-dimensional personalities through his obvious experience with racial intolerance.
Lee's perfect structure and visual enticement is one trademark he uncannily includes in all of his films. His structure never descends into an episodic, forced stream of events, he never adds random, implausible plot elements to boost interest. His films usually hold a wide range of ideas and satirical merit, but with restrained, authentic execution. Only during his climaxes does he take his films to another dimension of realism, but even those usually hold sardonic entity.
Overall, Do The Right Thing is a visceral, unique experience, one that doesn't preach that racism is bad, but shows you how cultural and ethical differences can tear apart an entire community.
However, through an absolutely plausible stream of events, an intense onslaught occurs, all the tension between the Hispanics, Blacks, Whites, and Asians explodes, just as they all envisioned it would. We watch with dread as all the setup finally unfolds, without restraint, with tragic aftermath.
The main characters and the dialogue shared between them rings true, almost relateable in the sense that we share the same weaknesses, and we all have our lot of negative criticism to our surroundings. Spike Lee understands his characters, and creates three-dimensional personalities through his obvious experience with racial intolerance.
Lee's perfect structure and visual enticement is one trademark he uncannily includes in all of his films. His structure never descends into an episodic, forced stream of events, he never adds random, implausible plot elements to boost interest. His films usually hold a wide range of ideas and satirical merit, but with restrained, authentic execution. Only during his climaxes does he take his films to another dimension of realism, but even those usually hold sardonic entity.
Overall, Do The Right Thing is a visceral, unique experience, one that doesn't preach that racism is bad, but shows you how cultural and ethical differences can tear apart an entire community.
Brazil
(1985)
A disappointment in a stream of greats.
29 June 2008
You know why 'Brazil' didn't work for me? I thought its intentions were too obvious, its extremely over-the-top satirical pose grew tedious after the first very enjoyable 20 minutes, its numerous surreal extensions were pointless and dull, merely displaying its protagonists desires as if the audience didn't already realize his wanting out of his homely bigoted society. Its comedy was absurd, and at times fun, but unfortunately not sullen enough. Its appointed subtextual themes were perplexing and unclear, and made messier by its uneven, but intriguingly stylized structure. Now, I didn't hate it, because I did have a bit of fun with it, and every scene with the girl was simply hilarious, but it is probably my least favorite Gilliam.
** 1/2
** 1/2
The Happening
(2008)
Possibly the best film ever made.
21 June 2008
OK, no, not really, but I hope I grabbed your attention there.
As the cloudy beginning credits rolled, my friends were already scowling at me out of boredom and frustration for having dragged them along with me to watch the film. But that glare turned to immediate fascination as the first suicide took place, satisfying their philistinian mindset. The first 5 minutes are as violent as the film gets, with about 50 on-screen suicides taking place at the same time. Already the media are blaming terrorists, or an occult revelation, or maybe this is a message aimed for the gas company to lower their uncompromising prices? Whatever it is, Mark Wahlberg does not want to partake in it, thus he, his wife, his friend, and his friend's daughter all seek refuge from the city.
Unfortunately, the evil predator catches up with them while they're on a train, and decides kill them all. Their endeavor to survive overcomes them, however, and they *literally* run from the invisible threat. When one of them is separated from the cluster (fatality +1), they depend on merely their wits and endurance to survive the predicament. They attempt to seek refuge in abandoned homes, under evil trees, and in the middle of nowhere, but the compulsive predator continues to try and kill them.
That's really all there is to it. And for the first hour or so, it's actually quite chilling revel. But alas, the film descends into forced elemented situations, as it eliminates characters for the sake of abolishing their unwanted existence, and characters abruptly make bizarre, inanely futile decisions, which all lead up to its overtly melodramatic climax which doesn't even hold a twist, possibly its biggest flaw.
But hey, the film eventually turns to brainless drama, but for the most part it withholds a taut atmosphere, and didn't bore me to tears, and that's more than I could ask for with its horrible reputation.
As the cloudy beginning credits rolled, my friends were already scowling at me out of boredom and frustration for having dragged them along with me to watch the film. But that glare turned to immediate fascination as the first suicide took place, satisfying their philistinian mindset. The first 5 minutes are as violent as the film gets, with about 50 on-screen suicides taking place at the same time. Already the media are blaming terrorists, or an occult revelation, or maybe this is a message aimed for the gas company to lower their uncompromising prices? Whatever it is, Mark Wahlberg does not want to partake in it, thus he, his wife, his friend, and his friend's daughter all seek refuge from the city.
Unfortunately, the evil predator catches up with them while they're on a train, and decides kill them all. Their endeavor to survive overcomes them, however, and they *literally* run from the invisible threat. When one of them is separated from the cluster (fatality +1), they depend on merely their wits and endurance to survive the predicament. They attempt to seek refuge in abandoned homes, under evil trees, and in the middle of nowhere, but the compulsive predator continues to try and kill them.
That's really all there is to it. And for the first hour or so, it's actually quite chilling revel. But alas, the film descends into forced elemented situations, as it eliminates characters for the sake of abolishing their unwanted existence, and characters abruptly make bizarre, inanely futile decisions, which all lead up to its overtly melodramatic climax which doesn't even hold a twist, possibly its biggest flaw.
But hey, the film eventually turns to brainless drama, but for the most part it withholds a taut atmosphere, and didn't bore me to tears, and that's more than I could ask for with its horrible reputation.
Persepolis
(2007)
One of the best films of 2007
14 June 2008
"Persepolis" is one of the saddest films of the year. It's not a tragedy because of the brutal, shameful loss of a young girl's brave, radical family members, or because of her nation's appalling depravity, but because of how the nation's wickedness has taken a young, frivolous girl, (Marjane) and forced her to abide to a hostile social environment, and because we know that any prospect or hope for a better future will amount to nothing but bearing lives in dread and fear of the malevolent corruption that surrounds them. It's a tragedy because the young girl's realization of all the evil in the world is mercilessly relatable, how she was snatched from her childhood and immediately forced to lead a mellow life, it's something many of us have experienced, but not without comfort from our family or society as a whole. Marjane receives no comfort, she is forced to tolerate this new life she's unprepared for, forced to seclude her pain and ache to be a child once more.
Who was once a young girl, fascinated by daydreams of one day becoming a prophet, becomes a desolate mere statistic after she realizes the bitter truth that the flawed, bigoted society around her will never grant her a chance to live a normal life. She tries to find reliance and hope through relationships, but none has yet to ever work for her, she is rejected by her lover, like millions of other people every year. Eventually, she leaves her country to make a better life for herself in France.
I predict that Marjane will finally find the man for her, and bear children so that maybe one of her descendants will experience freedom at last, and rejoice her family name. The film was such a moving, poignant, at times hilarious, honest experience, certainly among the year's best, and certainly robbed of its Oscar.
Who was once a young girl, fascinated by daydreams of one day becoming a prophet, becomes a desolate mere statistic after she realizes the bitter truth that the flawed, bigoted society around her will never grant her a chance to live a normal life. She tries to find reliance and hope through relationships, but none has yet to ever work for her, she is rejected by her lover, like millions of other people every year. Eventually, she leaves her country to make a better life for herself in France.
I predict that Marjane will finally find the man for her, and bear children so that maybe one of her descendants will experience freedom at last, and rejoice her family name. The film was such a moving, poignant, at times hilarious, honest experience, certainly among the year's best, and certainly robbed of its Oscar.
Bamboozled
(2000)
The opposite of Malcolm X
10 June 2008
My official countdown of the "TSPDT Top 250 of the 21st Century" list has begun, and #250, Bamboozled, was up, which is easily Spike Lee's most daring and innovative film. It begins with a black TV writer (Pierre Delacroix) whose new ideas for productions are too restrained and casual, no one can relate to them, so no one cares. After an almost heated argument with his boss, Pierre decides to create the most appallingly offensive, disgustingly racist idea for a TV show, so as to show his boss that the "blacker" does not mean the better. However, his idea is accepted with great applause, and he decides to exploit his show as to gain attention from the media and let the world understand is artistic intentions.
And as the show becomes a hit, Pierre is confronted with many different views and opinions, and threats from the gangsta community, regarding their intentions pop a 9 in 'is azz, along with his relationship beginning to fall downhill, and his friends and family turning against him, the poor writer has only got his money and blackface statues.
Eventually, the film takes a halt and begins to drag in its own satire, it creates conflicts only to surmount its already playful exaggerations, and in a technical aspect, its pacing and editing become a bit of a mess. But the film always remains intriguing, thought-provoking, and sadly realistic at times (except towards the end). If only it had focused more on the main characters personal depth, and attempt to create less a substantial satire, I would've given the film higher pros, but gladly it took risks far and proud, with authentic execution, and that in itself is an achievement.
*** (out of 4)
And as the show becomes a hit, Pierre is confronted with many different views and opinions, and threats from the gangsta community, regarding their intentions pop a 9 in 'is azz, along with his relationship beginning to fall downhill, and his friends and family turning against him, the poor writer has only got his money and blackface statues.
Eventually, the film takes a halt and begins to drag in its own satire, it creates conflicts only to surmount its already playful exaggerations, and in a technical aspect, its pacing and editing become a bit of a mess. But the film always remains intriguing, thought-provoking, and sadly realistic at times (except towards the end). If only it had focused more on the main characters personal depth, and attempt to create less a substantial satire, I would've given the film higher pros, but gladly it took risks far and proud, with authentic execution, and that in itself is an achievement.
*** (out of 4)
In the Bedroom
(2001)
A film that rings true
9 June 2008
Similar to "Ordinary People", "In the Bedroom" follows the lives of parents after the loss of their son. While the former takes more risks and contains as many flaws in its study and judgment, this film is true to life itself. Not a single scene or moment in this powerful, bleak film rings untrue or cinematic. Its characters are three-dimensional, unanomalous people, dealing with real problems with credible solutions.
The film at first centers around a young couple, an older woman (Natalie) with two children and a clutching, angry ex-husband, (Richard) and a boy, (Frank) still in school, still a teenager, questioning his current path and developing authentic, restrained ideas for his future. They try to live their lives normally, and meanwhile try to solve their dilemma with the man who perpetually tries to destroy their relationship. Eventually, Richard's jealousy and wanted dominance takes over him, and he kills Frank during an argument, and this begins a film with subtle themes and hidden, subdued grief.
The boys parents (Ruth & Matt Fowler) handle the situations differently. Ruth wants someone to talk to, someone to hold and grieve with her and embrace her, but Matt wants to put this all behind him, and for his wife to talk to him again without her son's ghost haunting her every movement and thought. Their marriage is put on risk when they admit these feelings, but harrowingly and realistically, we follow them in their daily lives through effective, picaresque storytelling, dealing with grief, admitting secrets, and piecing together everything about themselves they always denied, but eventually became clear as water.
The film at first centers around a young couple, an older woman (Natalie) with two children and a clutching, angry ex-husband, (Richard) and a boy, (Frank) still in school, still a teenager, questioning his current path and developing authentic, restrained ideas for his future. They try to live their lives normally, and meanwhile try to solve their dilemma with the man who perpetually tries to destroy their relationship. Eventually, Richard's jealousy and wanted dominance takes over him, and he kills Frank during an argument, and this begins a film with subtle themes and hidden, subdued grief.
The boys parents (Ruth & Matt Fowler) handle the situations differently. Ruth wants someone to talk to, someone to hold and grieve with her and embrace her, but Matt wants to put this all behind him, and for his wife to talk to him again without her son's ghost haunting her every movement and thought. Their marriage is put on risk when they admit these feelings, but harrowingly and realistically, we follow them in their daily lives through effective, picaresque storytelling, dealing with grief, admitting secrets, and piecing together everything about themselves they always denied, but eventually became clear as water.
Heart of America
(2002)
Uwe Boll tries to recreate the Columbine shooting.
9 June 2008
As everyone realizes by now, this is probably Boll's best work, but that's hardly a compliment considering his abhorrent filmography. This one detracts from his usual game-to-movie adaptation, and it's basically a remake of Columbine. It tries to create insight regarding the shooting, but it's mostly just banal sentimentality with copycat flair, one-dimensional, predictable characters with conventional, exaggerated teenage problems, and slow-paced, pointless black-and-white sequences to show us the 'troubled' past of these kids.
It offers nothing new to the subject. It creates a mundane, melodramatic explanation, it annoys you with slow-paced, trite, uninteresting drama, and it takes no risks. It doesn't try to offer an innovative, thought-provoking look at these kids motives, and considering that Boll wrote and directed the film, a risk would've probably been a disaster. Well, at least it wouldn't have been an already established, pointless, boring recreation.
It offers nothing new to the subject. It creates a mundane, melodramatic explanation, it annoys you with slow-paced, trite, uninteresting drama, and it takes no risks. It doesn't try to offer an innovative, thought-provoking look at these kids motives, and considering that Boll wrote and directed the film, a risk would've probably been a disaster. Well, at least it wouldn't have been an already established, pointless, boring recreation.
Tell Your Friends