indieandrew Blog

Funny Games

indieandrew — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:16:45 GMT

I saw funny games without seeing the original, and without hearing anything about it. i went into the theatre expecting a quasi-good thriller, what i got was so much more. The movie is fantastic, because it works on so many levels. As far as a thriller, it goes against everything you would usually see in a clilche thriller movie. They make a concious choice not to show certain things that most thrillers depend on to keep the audience interested, but Funny Games still manages to keep you on the edge of your seat. the movie reminded me of A Clockwork Orange, with the killers being blaise care-free teens. The true nature of the movie however, is a satire, the film tells the story of a family being tortured and murdered, but tha is not the point. the point is why they are being tortured, and why are you (the audience) paying to see it.

The killers often look at the camera and ask the audience questions like "is this enough?" or "you do want plausible plot development don't you?". they do this because the movie is about the bloodlust not of the killers, but of our culture, we want to be entertained with the death of olthers. The title of the film comes from how many people think of violence. nothing but a funny game, this film corrects that perception. the film never directly shows violence, they do this so that no one will say, o that looked cool or wow great special effects, because that isn't the point, instead they spend alot of time watching the pain after the killings,showing that violence isn't cool, it isn't funny, it is horrible.

Most of the negative reviews that i've seen about this movie i think missed the point. People were talking about how this is just another mediocre thriller, i have two problems with this:

1) the thriller genre has never had a film like this. it doesn't try to fit the mold of what most thrillers strive for, cheap scares, you are always legitemately scared, no pseudo-scares here.

2) it is a satire!! don't keep telling me that it would never happen like this or that and that it is so cliche that the family was listening to classical music and that they were so removed from reality, i know!!! thats the point! it is supposed to have the victims be the most absurdly ridicolous rich victims.

another high school drama

indieandrew — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 04:01:39 GMT

It seems strange to me... i am a high school student, yet almost all of my experiences of "high school" have come through hollywood stereotypes in high school films. i almost think that they should be their own seperate genre, somewhere between drama (for you know somewhere in their someones gunna cry about being a loner or peer preasure or something) comedy (cheap laughs are their bread and butter) and science fiction ( the high school in movies is an alien planet from where ive been) i wonder if at my high school reunion if im going to confuse the stories of my actual high school career with those of the silver screen. i sure hope so, the "average kids" up there live such more interesting lives.

With that cynicysm i went into Charlie Bartlett not expecting to hate it, but knowing full well that i wasnt going to get anything spectacular. They story of a rich highschool kid who transfers into public school and searches for his place in the universe of adolescence. the plot is not so much touching (but neither is high school) but a somewhat surreal and sped up take on what it takes to be the "cool kid" in school. he starts selling prescription ritalin then moves on to being a pharmacist for the kids then into counseling them. i liked the idea of the most popular kid in a high school being the one who was handing out phychological advice, but i thought it was a little lacking in convincing me that i should care.

the acting was fine, the only really standout performance was from Robert Downey Jr. (whom i didnt even know was in it when i entered the theatre) who played the only real 3 dimensional character. a troubled father/principal with a dry wit and a taste for the fire water.

the movie wasn't bad by any means, well worth the $9, but i feel that if i go to see a movie about highschool kids , the most overdone plot idea in existence and they get it to be a decent movie that is almost worse than a huge flop. if the movie is great thats awesome! Take for instance the indie flick Brick, a film noir set in a highschool. but if its bad it atleast gives us something to laugh about... Drive me Crazy, shes all that... every other 90's movie. but of what use is a mediocre teen comedy? it is a hit or miss for me,

If you want to see a decent film yes this is for you, but if you dont want to see something great.... yea i wouldnt look here... try Amanda Bynes in What a Girl Wants.... o wait nevermind

What art is supposed to look like

indieandrew — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 03:31:49 GMT

I can not say enough about this movie. to call it amazing would be trite and uninformative, it is one of those films that stays with you and you judge not only other films but also the rest of art with. the story line is one that is as simplistic as can be, man fighting against death. it is from this simple start that darren aronofsky makes what in my opinion is his masterpiece. the cinematography is stunning, some of the best i have ever seen. There were scenes when i was just blown away with the scope of aronofsky's vision. the color scheme which unites the three intertwining stories is beautiful.

the film is not easy to digest at all, it is deep and with a majority of it being metaphor the average viewer will probably find himself dismayed and confused, i know i was the first time i watched it. but with time i saw the beauty in this film.

The Fountain is one of those films that is a joy and also a necessity to talk with people about. after you watch it you should go talk about it, it is such a perfect picture of what art should be, because everyone has their own opinions and interpretations on it. i beleive film should integrate itsefl more to art rather than to the consumer product, and this film is a huge step in that direction. There is no point in the movie where they slow it down and explain it to you, the same way you won't find a painting by Picasso with a key on the back explaining what everything means (and i am not comparing aronofsky to picasso)

this movie, seemingly, is above the consumer, it isn't a film that was made to be sold, it wasn't made to get a huge audience, it was made to push the boundaries of where film is going, in a world where movies are getting stale it is such a breath of fresh air to find a true artist in the medium of film making a film for himself and his artistic desires.