Four Eyed Monsters
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Tour Spout | Sign up

JScott Blog

  • Summer Palace

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Summer Palace  (2006)

    Summer Palace, which was first shown in competition at the Cannes Film Festival in 2006, is remarkable for its candor about sex and politics.  Predictably its honesty has not been appreciated by Chinese authorities who banned Mr. Lou from making movies for five years after he brought it to Cannes without their permission.  The film’s fervent, unsentimental embrace of youthful idealism is likely to strike a chord with anyone who can recall — or imagine — such feelings overtaking his or her own life.

    Yu Hong (Lei Hao), a young woman, recently arrived at Beijing University from a provincial town.  She displays a romantic, sometimes reckless appetite for experience, confiding in her diary a longing to live with maximum intensity.  She satisfies this desire, in the movie’s heady, headlong first half, through a series of friendships and flirtations, most of all her fierce, jealous on-and-off relationship with Zhou Wei (Xiaodong Guo) - a skinny, brooding intellectual and the love of her life.

    But Yu Hong and Zhou Wei and the various other friends, rivals and hookups are hardly ordinary university students.  Or if they are, their matriculation comes at an extraordinary moment.  Yu Hong arrives in Beijing in 1988, and her first year at the university, already full of emotional and sexual upheaval, ends with the pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square and their violent suppression by the Chinese government.

    Toward the end of Lou Ye’s Summer Palace, Yu Hong reflects that her college years were the “most confused” time in her life.  A lot of us might feel similarly, but the beautiful and passionate heroine of this beautiful and passionate film, is something of a special case. Skip to next paragraph

    Mr. Lou, however, is not interested only in reconstructing a vanished moment of high, intoxicating promise in his heroine’s (and his generation’s) youth. He is equally concerned with what comes after, with the drift, disappointment and compromise that seem, for his characters, to constitute both the legacy of Tiananmen and the mundane facts of postgraduate life.  He follows Yu Hong and Zhou Wei as they make their way across the splintered landscape of adulthood, and takes note, via television clips, of the changing world around them.

    Zhou Wei joins some of their university friends who have become expatriates in Berlin, while Yu Hong finds an office job in a provincial Chinese city. Fashions change.  Rickety bicycles and battered envelopes give way to S.U.V.’s and e-mail.  There are love affairs, a suicide, an abortion, and in the midst of it all Yu Hong clings to a belief in her own future that is all the more poignant for being somewhat vague.

    Neither the later disaffection nor the earlier ardor feels in the least bit melodramatic or overstated.  And in spite of its 2-hour-20-minute length, Summer Palace moves with the swiftness and syncopation of a pop song.  Like Jean-Luc Godard in the 1960s, Mr. Lou favors breathless tracking shots and snappy jump cuts, and like Francois Truffaut, his camera is magnetized by female beauty.  

    Ms. Lei, a tough and uninhibited actress, is not simply the object of the film’s gaze; Yu Hong’s resilience and vulnerability are the film’s emotional core, and its feverish rhythms follow the chaotic pattern of her desires.

    The delirious scenes of dorm-room sex and nightclub dancing in Summer Palace convey more sensation than narrative or psychological meaning.  And this is clearly the point.  In the end Mr. Lou is not trying to reflect on the recent Chinese past so much as he is trying to communicate its texture. Perhaps inevitably, this effort leaves some loose ends and blurred impressions.

    Every day in China students were concerned about the future of their country, even while worried about their personal safety and their own possible punishment for taking part in the demonstrations.  They were being awakened to political consciousness, and they knew the risk they were taking by expressing their views.  The characters in this film were barely conscious of politics or anything else but their personal relationships.  They were basically hormone driven and self-involved whilst living amid political change but too absorbed in their personal misery to notice.  

    The story of a hysterical young woman who liked sex with cute guys and the poor saps who fell for her, along with her mixed up girl friend and other various young students could have been set in any university anywhere in the world.

    But in Summer Palace he nonetheless succeeds in finding a cinematic language that does more than summarize the important events of a confusing decade. He distills the inner confusion — the swirl of moods, whims and needs — that is the lived and living essence of history.


  • Mother of Mine

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Walkabout  (1971)

    Nobody Knows  (2004)

    Mother of Mine  (2005)

    Mother of Mine is a film that focuses on the unseen impacts of war.  Eero [Topi Majaniemi] is a Swedish child sent to live in Denmark after his father dies in the war and his mother gives up on life.  He is taken in by a mother who isn't excited to have him and a father who wants nothing more than for Eero to be able to adapt and thrive.  He takes Eero to school where they call him the "war child" which is all he knows about his identity anymore.  It takes over his life.  All he imagines are air raids.

    Every actor in this film is much more than capable.  Personally I think the acting is the biggest strength of the entire film.  Klaus Haro mixes the strength of the acting with the natural beauty and depth of the Finnish landscape.

    I am in the camp of people who believe the flash forwards take away from the film more than they add.  I think the story would flow better and perhaps have more impact if it weren't for the disjointed feeling the flash forwards evoke.

    I think this film would make an interesting double feature with Koreeda's Nobody Knows about a mother who gives up on her children and leaves them to raise themselves without taking their lives into consideration.  There are many great films about troubling childhoods.  Anything from Francois Truffaut or the country of Iran would be a nice start.  I will also always recommend seeing Nicolas Roeg's Walkabout as it might be my absolute favorite coming of age tale.  I also am drawn to its colonizing undertones.

    I think Mother of Mine fits well into the childhood genre and lives up to the high expectations I have for such films and for this film because I had heard so much positive reaction going into it.


  • Movies 101: Leading Ladies

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    NYU Professor Richard Brown interviews Jennifer Anniston, Jennifer Connelly, Julianne Moore and Sigorney Weaver as part of an on-going series dedicated to sharing their experiences with his class.  Each interview is about an hour long and focuses on their pre-cinema/television careers as well as previews their upcoming work (most of which was dated by the time I watched it.)

    The first interview in the set is Jennifer Anniston.  I went in without a lot of "respect" for her body of work.  No offense to her - I enjoy Friends and I think she is great as Rachel Green.  I just never put a lot of faith in her talent.  I learned however that at age 11 she had a painting hanging in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC.  I am obviously not the most well versed person when it comes to her life but I also learned that her dad (John Anniston) is an actor on a Soap Opera and has been for years.  I am sure many out there are aware of that nugget of information but I wasn't.  I originally felt like Jennifer would be the odd-duck in this line-up of fairly well established film stars who experiment with different roles.  I think after watching the interview and because of Brown's in-depth questioning I found myself most pleased with the Anniston segment.  The conversation between the two was very eye opening and I think even dug deeper than I think she was expecting. 

    The second interview was Jennifer Connelly who I felt was kind of boring.  Even with top notch questioning she fell a little flat.  She talks about her desire to work in film and how she was discovered but overall nothing all that interesting to note.  I have long felt that she has been on a downward spiral since her days of singing with Bowie and dancing with muppets - I think this just about clinches it for me.  If you ever get a chance to watch these interviews you can just pass this one up.

    I am a huge fan of Julianne Moore.  She may be one of my top five living actresses.  She came out about how her parents supported her through her wishes to become an actor but also strongly cautioned that she prepare herself for failure by getting a degree that could lead to a graduate program down the future.  While it doesn't look like she will ever need to take her parents up on that advice it was well taken and could be useful for hundred of people out there struggling to do what they dream.  Her interview is completely uninhibited and she talks frankly about her set affair with her now husband and how she will feel when her children stumble upon the fact that she had done some nudity in her films.  Overall I would say she was the interview I was most hyped up for and it delivers unquestionable.

    Lastly we see Sigorney Weaver who obviously has a spectrum of work from Sci-Fi to Comedy to Drama.  She is just about everywhere.  She was a lot less intimidating and commanding as I thought.  Perhaps I bought into the Ridley Scott persona a bit too much but she seemed to be just surprised and pleased with her career.  She doesn't take it for granted or too seriously while at the same time seeming dedicated and well educated about it.  Along with Anniston this interview changed my mind about the person involved because it opened up a human side of them and showed the struggles and hardships they went through to get where they are.

    For those of you interested in acting or the art of acting this would be an inciteful viewing for you.  Well researched by Professor Brown and well recieved by the audience this is a winner that easily compares to Lipton's Inside the Actor's Studio which gets far more noteriety.  I can't wait to watch the rest of the series.


  • How much do you believe in yourself?

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Craig Zobel writes and directs this film produced by independent film maker David Gordon Green about a small record production company also called "The Great World of Sound" or GSW if you want to make a check out to them. 

    Martin (Pat Healy) joins the new company in hopes to make a difference and get some pointers in the world of business to help promote his wife/girlfriend Pam's (Rebecca Mader) arts and crafts that she makes.  Clarence (Kene Holliday of Matlock fame) is Martin's partner as they both learn the ropes of the industry together.  For the record, Clarence is by far the most entertaining character in the film.  The most true and talented artist of the entire film is Gloria a waitress at a bar in Indianapolis played very convincingly by Robert Longstreet.

    The film is about the choices made when faced with adversity.  It shows the proverbial "slippery slope" when dealing with morals and success.  From the small lie of using a cell phone as a camera phone to straight up taking people's hard earned money for a bogus venture the pair of Martin and Clarence run the entire gamut. 

    Many of the potential artists are so willing to believe that they are something special that they blindly hand over checks of up to $3,000 in hopes of getting their music out there.Great World of Sound may turn people off with its ending which initially might leave some feeling unsatisfied.  Zobel does a great job showing how a man even of the highest scruples can succumb to the lows of necessity, want and embarrassment of failure.

    I think this is one of the more real films in recent memory.  There are con artists out there who are trying to play on the desire for people to become overnight sensations by making a quick buck without much work.  It effectively shows the ways people are willing to compromise to believe in their dream.  Smooth talking business men can accomplish a lot with just a few metaphors and words that strike the right chord with the right person.

    There are a lot of pitfalls to big business out there.  Corporations set their own laws in a lot of cases but at least with them you know what you are getting even if getting them to hear your voice might be impossible.  In this case it was the shady small businessman who had no remorse for his actions and left others to hold the bag both financially and morally.

    It is certainly not a positive film to watch in a lot of ways but it is enjoying and worth checking out.


  • No Country for Old Men

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Get rich quick schemes used to be reserved for late night television preaching riches if you mailed a nominal sum for the packet containing instructions on how to master said system. Currently at all hours of the day can you find someone promoting a "system" or insider knowledge that has as much to do with chance as anything else.

    Surprisingly this is a main theme of the Coen Brothers' latest film No Country for Old Men. Llewelyn Moss (James Brolin), arguably the main character, stumbles on a drug deal gone the way most movie drug deals go - poorly. A number of poor moral decisions lead him to finding a large sum of money that belongs to another man Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) who is probably the most terrifying villain since Robert Mitchum in both the 1962 Cape Fear and Night of the Hunter. Llewelyn's desire to hold on to the $2 million leads him running down a path for his own life and the life of others.

    As always with a film by the Coens the dialogue is the strongest point of the film and technically this is probably their best work. The big gripe about the film is the ending. It doesn't really have one but at the same time it does. Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) opens and closes the picture with a monologue. By paying attention to his scenes additional themes begin to develop and emerge from the story. The film isn't so much plot driven - although it is for 80% of it - but revolves around the characters and their traits.

    If you go in expecting everything to be tied up in a nice package like National Treasure then you will be disappointed. No Country for Old Men is closer to John Steinbeck's East of Eden where the aforementioned Nicholas Cage project is closer to Where's Waldo. The man in the striped red and white costume is there on the page, you just need to keep your eyes open. Steinbeck requires you to dig a bit deeper and examine the story and not just on the superficial Cain and Abel that they make reference to multiple times.

    No Country for Old Men has layers of depth and meaning to it but it will require some work on the viewer's part to dissect it. It is definitely worth seeing and might be one of the big winners come Oscar Night.

    **** (4/4)


  • Witnesses

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Witnesses  (2003)

    Vinko Bresan has made a few films that have landed him international acclaim as a talented filmmaker and as a director who chooses to break down Croatian stereotypes.  Perhaps the most controversial part of Brešan's opus to date is the 2003 war drama Svjedoci ("Witnesses"), based on the novel Ovce od gipsa ("Alabaster Sheep") by Jurica Pavičić. 

    Reminiscent of Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon, it explores the human complexities and moral murkiness of war through multiple perspectives and flashbacks surrounding the unintended murder of an alleged Serbian smuggler by three Croatian soldiers returning from the front in Karlovac.  The "Rashomon" style of multiple stories is already so imbedded in our society that even the popular 70s TV sitcom Mama's Family used it for an episode called (not surprisingly) "Rashomon."

    Witnesses was nominated for the Golden Bear at the 2004 Berlinale and received the Peace Film Award as well as a Special Mention from the Ecumenical Jury.  It also won the Philip Morris Award at Karlovy Vary in the same year.  Notably, Serbian actress Mirjana Karanović was cast in the role of a Croatian war widow—a decision Brešan had to defend as the film drew protests from the Croatian Party of Rights and right-wing sections of the Croatian public.

    Personally the war film is not my genre.  I just came off of seeing Emir Kusturica's Underground which takes a similiar set of events and ideals but handles them in a completely different tone.  That film is light hearted, funny, yet poignant.  I get tired of the "real life" aspect of some film genres and seek out films that handle them uniquely.  Also Kusturica is obviously a huge fan of Fellini which can't hurt anyone's case.

    Back to Witnesses, I liked a number of things about it including, but not limited to, the lighting, the ambiance, the acting but none of it was able to grab my attention and make me want to continue to watch the film. 

    This film is gritty and real, but that also lends to it being depressing and I guess I am just not in the mood for that.  Maybe watching it down the road would change my opinion but I don't think it will end up in my DVD player again anytime soon.


  • The Darjeeling Limited

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Director Wes Anderson's (Bottle Rocket, The Royal Tenenbaums) new film The Darjeeling Limited features Owen Wilson, Adrian Brody and Jason Schwartzman as three bothers who haven't spoken in a year after their father's (Bill Murray) death.  Each brother has a distinctive way of dealing with the depression left after the funeral.

    The brothers engage on a spiritual journey across India in a train per the request of the eldest brother Francis (Wilson) in order to re-establish trust and a family connection.  He goes so far as the plan their entire trip with the help of his assistant Brendan (Wally Wolodarsky) who maps it out with laminated itineraries.  The bandaged wounds on Francis' face obviously mirror his open inner-wounds.

    Absolutely certain his marriage is going to end in divorce the middle child, Peter (Brody), is possibly the most enigmatic and fatalistic of all of the bothers. He is the one who has a family back home but he disappears within himself as his way of dealing with the tension and stress of the last year of his life.

    The youngest, Jack (Schwartzman), runs away from his girlfriend (Natalie Portman) and hides out at the Hotel Chevalier (more on that later) in France. His inability to have a sustainable and positive relationship with any woman is well developed throughout the film.

    As always, the quirky aesthetics employed by Wes are there but the film isn't as comical as previous Anderson attempts. It is a deeper more mature look into his personal universe.  The brothers' constant use of over the counter Indian pain killers and cough syrup is funny but they go back to that well a few times too often.  The film feels like it has a certain sentimental value to it that you have a hard time putting your finger on.  Anderson's previous films have left me feeling cold and unmoved but this film has certain genuine heartfelt warmth about it that is very different from anything he has done before.

    It feels more like a companion to The Royal Tenenbaums more than a new direction for Wes Anderson. It is a film about the characters that are trapped within themselves and a film about, literally, shedding the baggage of their family's patriarch.

    If you are a fan of Wes Anderson I don't need to convince you to see this. You will and you'll probably enjoy it due to familiar motifs and themes found in his films. If you haven't seen many of his films this one stands well on its own and is much deeper and satisfying than it is on the surface. This might be the type of film that grows on you after a few viewings and to make sense of it all you might want to watch it more than once.

    Hotel Chevalier is the name of the short film that preceded The Darjeeling Limited at the Venice and the New York Film Festivals. The 13-minute short is rumored to be cut from the nationwide release of the film but can be downloaded for free on iTunes. If you plan on seeing the movie, you should watch the short or parts of the film might not make sense.


  • Ten Canoes

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Ten Canoes  (2007)

    Back in 2006 I was in Telluride, Colorado for the 33rd Annual Telluride Film Festival which gave their silver medals (for lifetime achievment essentially) to both Penelope Cruz and Rolf de Heer.  Penelope's tribute had lines around the theatre and had people turned away.  The one for Rolf was in a tiny venue (known as the Sheraton Opera House) that sat maybe 100 people. 

    The show wasn't sold out and we were led into the event by watching clips from Rolf's other films Bad Boy Bubby and a few others.  While they seemed very gritty and true, they also kind of turned me off of this man's work.  I appreciate that he wanted to take a look at the love life of the developmentally challenged, but it was very sexualized and there is kind of a fine line for me with regards to that.  Either way, long story short, Ten Canoes was my favorite film of the fesitval, even going head-to-head with Pedro Almodovar's (my favorite living director) Volver.

    The film is a fable about life, death and the constant desire to be older than you are ready to be.  The story is told by a narrator (David Gulpilil Ridjimiraril Dalaithngu, the aboriginal boy from Nicolas Roeg's Walkabout) and spans two seperate life cycles.  Not only is the tale inciteful but the real life canoe making is interesting to watch.

    This is the first film ever made to only be made in an aboriginal language which celebrates their heritage and culture, both which are dying due to development and colonization.

    The film is warm, funny and at times shocking.  These "uncivilized" people aren't much different from you, me or anyone else in your city.  They all want to love and be loved, they all have vices and they think farting is funny.  And in this film, it very much is.

    The subtleties in the camera work (including, but limited to, the exact picture drawn on the chest of Minygululu [Peter Minygululu] the elder matches the area where his soul is deposited, waiting to be reincarnated).  The use of the same actor (Jamie Dayindi Gulpilil Dalaithngu) in two story lines infact shows that cyclical nature of their beliefs and other the film.  Also not to mention that he is the younger brother of the narrator who is telling the story of "his ancestors."

    This film is an incredible oppertunity to see into a culture that most of us will never have a chance to witness.  This film would make an incredible double-feature with the previously mentioned Walkabout (or The Tracker) if anyone is interested in a wholely Australian experience.

    This film may not have the complexity and depth of Walkabout but it shines in other ways and is very much worth a viewing.

    I have absolutely no reservations about giving this film 5 stars.


  • All about my Mother

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Pedro Almodovar’s All About My Mother finds many of its characteristics steeped in classic melodramatic themes.  The effects of love and death are felt throughout the film. 

    The entire beginning is a reflection of the entire beginning, if that makes any sense.  We see Manuela (Cecilia Roth) through the eyes of Esteban II (Eloy Azorin).  His perception of her is one that is very high, and his only real regret in life is that he does not know his father.  That’s an all together different heartbreaking moment.  We also get hints as to Manuela’s acting career, and her career as a nurse.  Almodovar almost mocks us by having her act in a scene that she will later experience in her own life. 

    The theatre and Streetcar specifically are very important to the story.  The theatre seems to represent a past life.  Manuela met Esteban-Lola in Streetcar, who brings life to two of the most important people in her life, but also brings death in at least one person whom Manuela cares very much for, Sister Rosa.  Streetcar represents two important melodramatic motifs.  Compassion, or a bond of solidarity, is best echoed when Blanche’s character says, “I have always relied on the kindness of strangers.”  The forceful illustration of sexual exploration are closely related to desire, the other important motif conveyed to us through the movie.

    Sister Rosa (Penélope Cruz), a nun, was impregnated by Esteban-Lola (Toni Cantó).  This child of theirs because Esteban III and became Manuela’s second chance at being a mother, although she has been a mother figure to everyone in the film.  Esteban III is known as “the miracle child” because of the impractically of the couple and because he looks to have beaten AIDS.  That starkly contrasts how Manuela views Esteban III’s father.  She says to him, “You are not a human being Lola, you are an epidemic.” 

    Esteban-Lola only comes into the our view because he wants to witness the death he has caused by spreading AIDS.  At Rosa’s funeral is where the above quote happened and is the first time Manuela and Lola have seen each other since she left him before she had his son, 17 years earlier.  It is only now that he finds out that he had a son that he never knew, it got worse because he found out he was already dead. 

    This film sticks with Almodovar's views of strong women characters and of the discarded, marginal people and the non-traditional family.  The strongest advocate for all of these motifs would be the character of Agrado (Antonia San Juan) a transexual.  At one point she goes through all of the surgeries she has had to become "authentic" which is a throw back to an actual event that happened in South America. 

    The film is full of strong messages and deep meaning.  There is a good chance that if you haven't seen the film the above statements and assessments make no sense to you.  Either way, if you love cinema you need to familarize yourself with his work.  All about my Mother was my first exposure to him and it is a stand alone film that makes a lot of sense and gives you a reason to go back and celebrate the rest of his contributions to film.

    Definately one of my favorite films of all time.


  • 3:10 to Yuma

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    3:10 to Yuma  (2007)

    3:10 to Yuma

    Unforgiven and Open Range have found success recently but in comparison to the rate at which they were pumped out during the days of John Wayne the western genre is on the down swing of its popularity.  The morals behind the tales are still relevant the same way the Aesop's fables are but I believe that people are more interested in comedies or the more futuristic gadget based movies such as Bond where technology is the star more so than the story.

    3:10 to Yuma is a strong story about redemption, validation and respect.  Dan Evans (Christian Bale) plays a struggling rancher who is experiencing tough times from his land and his family.  His son idolizes bandit Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) who is captured by the determined local sheriff.  Capturing Wade brings on its own set of problems that lead to Evans being signed up to help deliver him to the 3:10 train to Yuma in the next city.  Of course Wade's gang, led by Charlie Prince (Ben Foster), will at nothing to free him.

    Where the film succeeds is in its storyline, the acting and the unique set design which emphasizes the ticking clock of having to get Wade to the train at the designated time.  The half-built city set design is one-of-a-kind and lends itself well to a well orchestrated chase leading to the finale.

    Both Russell Crowe and Christian Bale do superb jobs in their roles but they are far from the only big name actors involved in this project.  Peter Fonda, Gretchen Mol and Luke Wilson also have important parts but in the end it is Bale who outshines the rest of the cast.  His confidence and vulnerability play well off each other leading to a startling reveal that makes him need to deliver Wade for more than just the money alone.  Foster's arrogant approach to playing Charlie Prince provides comic relief and helps the pacing of the film.  Charlie Price is a guy you want to watch even though you despise him.

    This film should do well come Oscar nomination time.  Bale should be nominated, Crowe could be (although there are probably stronger performances elsewhere) but also the Soundtrack (when it is there) is good and the set design is fantastic.

    I would recommend most people see this film, even if you aren't a huge western buff.  I wouldn't say I even enjoy most westerns but this is just a good story.


  • Clean

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Clean  (2004)

    Maggie Cheung, best known for her roles in multiple Wong Kar Wai films, stars as Emily Wang a drug addict in her ex-husband, Olivier Assayas' film Clean.  Emily is the mother of burnt out rocker Lee Hauser's (James Johnston) child Jay and bad influence on Lee's life.  All of his aquaintences tell him to drop her and focus on getting his music and his life back together.  He overdoses and she is put in the middle of the investigation.  She denies supplying him with the lethal drugs and pleads guilty to possession.  After serving 6 months in jail she tries to get clean and get her child back, who is being looked after by Lee's parents Abbie and Albrecht (Nick Nolte) that have custody of Jay.

    The film is very much about the title, getting clean, and strong hold drugs can have on people even if they very much want to get off of it.  Ultimately it is Emily's desire to reconnect with her son, who doesn't want to be apart of her life, that makes her "come clean."  She uses a moment of confession by explaining to her 4 year old son what drugs can do to people and how they aren't as simple as people think.  She also confides in him that she did supply the drugs (something we never officially see, but are led to believe anyway throughout the film.)

    The best part of this film was Maggie Cheung's performance for which she was awarded at Cannes.  She is very convincing as a down and out former celebrity who is just trying to reestablish her life.  She hates her "jobs" and wants to get back into the limelight through television or through music.  Her real addiction in life is fame and while she never quite beats that I don't know that I felt she needed to.  She was also addicted to her son, but that could be a very positive influence on a woman who has been pegged as negative for her entire life.

    Nick Nolte's portrayal as a concerned father having to face the death of the two most important people in his life is very powerful.  He doesn't want to see Emily Yang throw her life or her son's (his grandson) life away.  This film would only be a shell of what it is without Nolte's compassion and realistic take on Albrecht.

    Overall the film is solid.  Made for nothing this film looks big budget and very authentic.  I give a lot of credit to the director and crew for making quality.  Usually small budget films try to come away with a unique potent message or a shocking twist but this film comes up short.  While the message is there, it feels more like a Public Service Announcement, or an after-school special.  I am waiting the entire time for Emily to turn to the camera and say, "Family, My Anti-Drug."

    Again, solid film, but not a great film and certainly nothing that everyone should see.  If you like Maggie Cheung then her performance is very convincing and the fact that this was the first film made with her ex-husband after divorce makes this one of those films that "cinephiles" should see.


  • 13 Tzameti

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    13 Tzameti  (2005)

    13 Tzameti is a French language film written by Géla Babluani, a Georgian.  The film focuses on a poor 22-year old roofer who stumbles on a secretive underground world of russian roulette after finding a letter sent to his boss who overdoses.  He takes a train ticket and is led into a gritty and disturbing world of gambling.  

    The camerawork and the choice of black and white (rather than color) lends itself to the gritty look and the noir look and feel of so much death. 

    My main issue with this film is that I am unsure what it is about.  There seems to be no subversively underlying message other than money seems to dictate these characters' lives.  Many characters are doing this to support their families in some way.  Ultimately all of them are willing to give their lives to help their kin in tough times.  The motif of the bored rich versus the needy poor is a fairly obvious one and reminds me of Pier Paolo Pasolini's Pigsty but more about his other (more infamous) film Salo but minus the crazy sexual influences.

    Sébastien (George Babluani, the director's brother) reacts to events rather that causes them to happen.  Reacting is the first thing a screenwriter will tell you to make a character feel passive and remove him from the audience.  It feels like he is just along for the ride, which in this case is probably appropriate.  Thoughout the film I felt like I was more interested in the game happening than what was going to happen to any of the characters.

    The idea of the movie could be a good one, and talks of there being an American remake give me some hope that a few things can be improved, but I have yet to see a remake (let along a Hollywood one) that is better than the original.  Even if the original writer/director is making it.  The new one looks to be in color which I am not sure is the best decision for a film noir film.

    I think the film is worth seeing and maybe is the type of movie you need to watch multiple times to fully understand but I am not so sure of that.  There didn't seem to be much lurking under the surface but it is an interesting and unique 90 minutes that I am okay with giving up.  It is certainly watchable, but I expected more from a film with so much praise from festival plastered all over its cover.


  • See Once, Twice

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Once  (2007)

    This summer’s box-office has been dominated by the high adrenaline action films and junior high level comedies yet the best film I have seen all year goes completely unnoticed.  Once, written and directed by John Carney, is a brilliant Irish film (no worries, no subtitles, they speak English there) about two struggling folk singers who find inspiration, truth, and strength from their relationship.  

    Shot with very little money for a film ($160,000) and largely without permits the film takes a slice of life and radiates hope.  The crossing of these two characters changes both of their lives do a degree that is virtually immeasurable.  They each have past relationships that have their claws firmly entrenched in their lives.  Both characters also have family that they live with who require different amount of need from them.  Their time together is their escape and their time to find themselves and create music.

    All the music in the film is diagetic which means it happens on the screen rather than having a John Williams score being piped in and recorded elsewhere.  By that definition the film is considered a musical but it is very different than recently released Hollywood movies such as Dreamgirls or Chicago.  None of the musical “sequences” involve large productions or dance numbers as seen in Astaire-Rodgers films or the famous Busby-Berkley pan back kaleidoscope shots. 

     

    The music simply happens on a street corner as the lead male character (credited as “Guy” played by Glen Hansgard) sings with his acoustic guitar trying to make a living, or in a music store while the lead female character (credit as “Girl” played by Markéta Irglová) plays a piano during her lunch break.  The singing is infused with passion.  This film has the best soundtrack I have heard since the Coen brothers’ O Brother!  Where Art Thou?  The song “Falling Slowly” performed by the pair in the music store is a lock for an Academy Award nomination for best song.

    I would strongly recommend that everyone go and see this film.  It won’t be in theatres long but after its strong showing at Cannes and positive reviews it is in many local megaplexes and should be supported as one of the most inspirational films to come along in a while.


  • Who's Camus Anyway?

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Touch of Evil  (1958)

    Day for Night  (1973)

    Directed by Mitsuo Yanagimachi.
    Director Mitsuo Yanagimachi creates a gripping atmosphere in an ensamble character study about filmmaking.  This film rotates around life experiences that the cast and the characters each engulf themselves in.  The basis of the film the students are making, The Bored Murderer, is about a Junior High student who kills to see how it feels.  The storyline of that film echoes a number of plotlines used throughout the actual film.  Students are stalked by girlfriends and professors, while others commit borderline adultry and later feel guilty about it.

    The best aspects of this film are the acting, which is great, and the cinematography which is even better.  The opening shot not only draws comparrison to Orson Welles' Touch of Evil via the dialogue but also through the long strolling shot that takes us all across the campus and even through the traditional and modern Japanese culture.

    The cross-cutting between the student's film and the actual film creates a very tense ending.  It grabs the viewer and makes us unsure what we are watching.  For those who have never been on a set it is an unique chance to see how a film is made and what the outcome looks like. 

    The depth of the characters and their continuing evolution through the script mirrors the chance in young adults and in actors.  Like the ending, the film blurs the line the entire time between acting for The Bored Murderer and acting in Who's Camus Anyway?  We learn what this kids are about through the difficulties they endure during the shooting of their student project.  It's very much like Truffaut's Day for Night which was the first mockumentary that Rob Reiner and Christopher Guest later popularized with their brand of tongue in cheek humor.

    I enjoyed the references to La Nouvelle Vague directors (Godard, Truffaut, etc.) and other important films.  There are also mentions of crucial authors and literature.  This film really hits on many levels and I think it is one of the best mocku-drama's I have ever seen.  It blurs the edges so it blends together properly. 

    Definately a winning film.

  • Bourne Again

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Paul Greengrass (director of Bloody Sunday, United 93, etc.) is back for his second shot at the Bourne franchise.  Greengrass is largely known for his cinema vérité shooting style that involves shaky documentary style hand-cams that help provide realism.  By bringing this style that into The Bourne Ultimatum he keeps the action fresh and up-tempo, even if it makes it difficult to follow at times. 

    As usual, the fight and chase scenes are the best parts of the Bourne franchise.  I haven’t seen this much adrenaline on the screen since the opening foot chase sequence in Casino Royale, except this movie keeps that pace up for most of it.  While the action is exaggerated it makes for a top-notch thrill ride. 

    Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) is a former government assassin who has a case of amnesia.  He searches for answers to his past and to find the people who have made him into this killing machine.  Ultimatum fills in many of the holes that Identity and Supremacy left open.  The plot smoothly connects Bourne’s previous memories and the action sequences.  You are never looking at your watch (or gasp, cell phone, turn them off!) during the 111 minutes. 

    Bourne Ultimatum capitalizes on the summer movie action genre and appeals to our sense of curiosity about what Uncle Sam is doing.  In these times of lack of trust in our own government and belief that security and surveillance are become the hot buzz words that allow our elected and non-elected officials to make decisions beyond recourse, the Bourne story hits on a nerve of corruption and compassion for America.  Any form of art is a mirror of the times, movies may be one of the best examples of this.    

    The acting, save Joan Allen, is pretty good for a film that doesn’t require much.  The camera work and fast editing puts you right into the shoes of the Jason Bourne and keeps your heart racing.   

    A must-see for fans of the series.  If you aren’t up to date, no fret, cable stations are running the first two, or else they are available at your local video store.  You really should watch the first two before going into the third one or much of the storyline will go over your head. 


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<September 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
31123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
2829301234
567891011


Categories
 


Advertisement