Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

KevynKnox Blog

  • SUMMER HOURS a film review

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

    Summer Hours  (2009)

    (this review was first published at www.thecinematheque.com on 07/22/09)

    There is a moment in Olivier Assayas' Summer Hours when a father is showing his teenage son a pair of paintings hanging in his mother's country home. To the father's chagrin, the boy reacts by saying they are from another time. This too can be said of Assayas' new film. It is of another time. Away from the maddening present, Summer Hours is of another age, and it could be argued that the film is also of another director than Assayas. At least of what we know of Assayas.

    Starring the intense triumvirate of Juliette Binoche, Charles Berling and Jérémie Renier, Summer Hours is an almost complete departure of sorts for the director. Usually delving deep in the quite claustrophobic industrial urban techno-thriller of the modern Parisian underground, both of its outcasts and of its artists, he hands us instead a beautifully and elegantly shot, lushly panoramic vista of a family, already disheveled by modern society who must witness the disappearance of their childhood memories, and thus, of their childhood.

    But what Assayas leaves behind in wanton flush and youthful verve, he gains in a masterly stroke of impressionistic austerity. Not to knock his earlier films - both demonlover and Boarding Gate are intensely erotic films that border on some sort of metaphorical cyberporn wavelength and Irma Vep, the auteur's greatest work, is a luscious ode to cinema in the vein of Truffaut or Rivette - but here Assayas has changed gears from expressionism to impressionism. In this wake he may seem a bit out of place at times, wandering along lazily, without a care in the world, but it works for the most part with a film such as this. His lazy wandering in a film like Boarding Gate for example, ends up much more noticeable and thus much more disastrous. Summer Hours, despite this out of place strangeness, is a gorgeous pictorial on the breakdown of familial connections that borrows heavily from the visual legacy of Monet. In cinematic terms, it is like Rohmer without the burden of a morality lesson.

    In another cinematic take, Summer Hours can be seen as an updating of Ozu and his gloriously moribund Tokyo Story. Lyrical yet purposefully claustrophobic in many ways (perhaps Assayas hasn't gone that far astray after all) Summer Hours can work as dual tragedy. Both the tragedy of losing the family matriarch, both mother and grandmother, and the tragedy of not being able, or willing, to deal with said death. Just like Ozu, Assayas uses his idea of modern society to show the devaluation of family ties. A time and place where we have no time to live and deal with life. We are too busy avoiding it altogether. If anything, Assayas has created the very antithesis of the family tale - the breakdown of the family done as elegant tragedy.

    Whatever Summer Hours is - loving tribute, complacent homage, auteuristic off-topic treatise, autobiographical sketch, misplaced wandering - one thing is for sure - it is Olivier Assayas at both his most tender and, despite his past sardonic nature, his most subtly biting. Whatever it is, it is worth whatever time you can put into it.


  • DIED YOUNG, STAYED PRETTY a film review

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

    (this review was first published at www.thecinematheque.com on 07/21/09)

    Eileen Yaghoobian's doc about the underground art movement that surrounds a group of unknown graphic artists who create rock posters for unknown (or at least once unknown) bands is scattershot, disorderly and a wholly erratic clusterfuck of a movie. And that is exactly what it should be.

    The interestingly titled Died Young, Stayed Pretty is the story of a very loose band of underground rock poster artists throughout the continent - in places like Seattle, Austin, Chicago, North Carolina, Minneapolis, Canada - and their ideas on not just the rock world (or the death of it as some will rant on about) but also society, politics and the theory that Elvis was a raging queen who wanted to be Captain Marvel. The film is an array of misfit talking heads telling their stories to Yaghoobian - and anyone else who will listen. The lines of communication work like a stream-of-consciousness rave and Yaghoobian uses this disarray to her best and slickest advantage.

    Yaghoobian shows these artists in their own light. In the very style they themselves use to ply their own art, and for the most part it works to highlight such a lifestyle. Other times though it seems to just give a platform for these post-punk societal rejects to espouse on whatever socio-political rant they deem fit for the day. Some interactions are fun - and seemingly heartfelt (one person takes the anti-fogie approach and laments how kids today do not rebel against anything!) - while some verge on the dangerously inappropriate. One poster proclaims that Eddie Vedder is merely a poser until he "pulls the trigger" while another openly mocks the events of September 11 complete with explosion sounds. At one point 9/11 is called "punk rock". These incidents are what make Yaghoobian's doc work.

    Much of the naive waxing political gets tiresome after awhile, but when Yaghoobian focuses on the posters themselves and the design and desire behind them her film works. When she doesn't, it doesn't. The film plays out as anthropological peepshow and punk rock in its own way, but drags too often when the subject veers away from the titularly-edged subject matter and heads into the realm of rant.


  • THE HURT LOCKER a film review

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

    The Hurt Locker  (2009)

    (this review was first published at www.thecinematheque.com on 07/19/09)

    There has been a veritable onslaught of Iraq war movies over the past few years. Both of the dramatic variety (Jarhead, The Kingdom, Redacted, Stop-Loss) and the documentary (Fahrenheit 9/11, Voices of Iraq, No End in Sight). Some have been pro-America. Most have been anti-war. Some gung-ho chest-thumping, some thought-inducing and philosophical. The one thing they all have in common is their attempt to document, from a non-fiction or fictionalized viewpoint, an event so fresh in moviegoers minds that it is still actually going on to this very day.

    What Kathryn Bigelow's new film, The Hurt Locker does, is take a completely different stand on the subject. Without seeming to be pro or anti anything, The Hurt Locker acts as a completely apolitical war film. What Bigelow shows is a group of three men, a bomb disposal crew, going through their daily routine in the craggled streets and bombed-out countryside of Baghdad. Three men who could at any moment, via an explosion, be sent to the "hurt locker". More than war, this film is about the psyche of human nature. We barely even get to see either a US or an Iraqi flag. If not for our pre-conceived knowledge, these men could be from anywhere. This movie could be from anywhere. It could be about anywhere. But this is Iraq and it is real. At least in the sense that it is something going on right this very moment. After all this, The Hurt Locker may well be the most personal war film I have ever seen.

    As far as the story itself goes, The Hurt Locker stars Jeremy Renner (a relatively unknown actor who is hopefully going to finally get the recognition he deserves with the release of this film) as Staff Sergeant William James, a wild cowboy soldier who dismantles bombs as if not having a care in the world. One general praises him for the 878 bombs he's defused so far as if he were a sports hero of some sort. The Babe Ruth of Baghdad. He is a gung ho redneck who thrives on the adrenaline that pumps through his veins as he is dismantling bombs. Refusing to wear the protective suit (it's not going to do anything up close and personal anyway) or heed any warnings from his anxious teammates, Sgt. James is a renegade out to prove something to someone, if only to himself.

    But James' loose cannon does not play well with his two teammates played by Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty. To these two, their brazen team leader seems the most dangerous man out there. There is even a conversation about killing their superior. It is a strange mix of anger and hate, with a sort of obligatory adoration, that serves these two soldiers only thirty-eight days from going home when they are assigned together. The love/hate tension comes to a boil in the relationship between the racist redneck James and Mackie's African American comrade. Eventually coming to a head the only way it can with men such as these. Mano y mano in a punching contest that, thanks to James' insistence on going too far, ends up with a knife at someones throat.

    I could, as many critics have, gone the route of highlighting the (quite obvious) fact that Kathryn Bigelow is a woman. A woman who has made a career out of playing with the boys in the usually male-dominated world of action cinema. With such testosterone-laden films as Point Break, Strange Days, Near Dark and K-19: The Widowmaker, not to mention her 1978 student film The Set-Up, which was a thesis on why violence is so seductive (plus she directed a few episodes of the gritty TV drama, Homicide: Life on the Streets) it is almost obligatory to question how a woman filmmaker can make such films. The question is unnecessary though. Male or female, one can have an eye for action. An eye for bravado. An eye for the bonding of men (or women). Bigelow seems to take us to the very edge of cliche but then turns us on our heads instead.

    Bigelow may be a pioneer of sorts, paving the way for future female action directors (if they ever show up), but to delve too deeply into such a theme only sells the filmmaker short. First and foremost, Bigelow is a director. A director who knows how to show action without it seeming comical. Something her male brethren like Michael Bay and his ilk cannot seem to do. Yet it is not this boys club her film seems in simpatico with. The filmic connections to John Ford's The Searchers is rampant throughout The Hurt Locker. So much so that Renner's Sgt. James could be seen as the evolutionary eventuality of John Wayne's iconic Ethan Edwards. Even Bigelow's final shot has Sgt. James, just like Ethan, turning his back on hearth and home and walking into the sunset with his demons.

    It is this bravado of character, this seeming death wish attitude that is the focal point of the film. As Renner's Sgt. James goes about his business, done in the most methodical manner and therefore spiking the tension level up to about 11, he is like a machine that can do no wrong – or more appropriately, a machine that, just like Ethan Edwards again, doesn’t care if he does wrong, as long as he gets the job done. It is this very adrenaline rush that he needs to keep on surviving doing what he is doing. There is a scene in a supermarket (while James is back home for a while) which shows this misplaced soldier in an unknown world, his eyes dead to the sterile environment around him. His eyes only alive when he is surrounded by war and getting his fix of action. Just watching this highly intense film is enough action for this critic. I'll leave the high risk jobs to the likes of Sgt. James and his real-life heroic ilk.


  • CHERI a film review

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

    Cheri  (2009)

    (this review was first published at www.thecinematheque.com on 07/18/09)

    There is a shot at the very end of Stephen Frears' Chéri, where Michelle Pfeiffer stares into the camera, not a discernible speck of make-up on the 50 year old actress's face. This final shot, before the credits roll, sums up all that this film could have been, if only Frears' wasn't afraid to take his characters to the brink and back - just as Colette had done almost 90 years ago. The film's poster tagline asks us to engage in a wicked game of seduction. If only Frears had the nerve to allow us to do so.

    Based on the Colette novels, Chéri & The Last of Chéri and set in pre-World War I Paris, Frears has the great opportunity to delve into the biting, acerbic mannerisms of said Parisian society just as he and screenwriter Christopher Hampton had done so shrewdly with their eighteenth century-set Oscar-winning Dangerous Liaisons some 20 years ago. Unfortunately for us and for the actors (and for Colette who most likely is spinning around in her grave at Père Lachaise right now!) Frears chickens out and hands in instead, the blandest of period pieces. The giddy, subtle mastication that is Colette's novel(s) - where everyone has a hidden agenda and no one says what they really mean except in snide undercurrents - is barely visible here. Frears' assumption that Chéri is a romance and not a tragedy leads him into creating the most typical of typicalities. Enough to make even the most ultra-staid Merchant/Ivory seem wicked in comparison.

    Sure, many filmmakers have altered a novel when transferring it to screen (it would be next to impossible to leave an entire book intact and still have a film that could be played in one sitting) but to miss the very essence of a story is nearly inexcusable. Yet that is exactly what Frears and Hampton do here. Where Colette wrote of an aging Parisian courtesan who hands over her young boy toy for the proper marriage that has been pre-arranged for him, Frears and Hampton twists their film into something akin to two long-lost lovers running at each other on the beach with a swell of cloying music behind them. Change the aforementioned beach to a lushly draped Parisian boudoir and that is what this latest version of Chéri ends up being.

    In fact missed opportunities abound in Frears' movie. Well acted by both Rupert Friend as the titular Chéri and Pfeiffer as his aging paramour (though Kathy Bates is a shrill cartoon in her portrayal) it is Frears' lack of courage that is the real downfall of the film. Not only does he lose his nerve when it comes to the droll, yet scathing dialogue of Colette's characters (the writer said of her book, "For the first time in my life, I felt morally certain of having written a novel for which I need neither blush nor doubt.") but Frears stumbles at the perfect opportunity for showing how women in today's society - and especially those in Hollywood - are treated after a certain demarcation line of age. Though looking as gorgeous as ever (even maybe more lovely than ever) Pfeiffer would be the perfect subject to breach such a thesis, but instead Frears lumbers along oblivious to the whole theme of what Colette was writing.

    Frears' most memorable films, Dangerous Liaisons, My Beautiful Launderette, Prick Up Your Ears, The Grifters and The Queen do all bear the weight of a certain amount of depth and quite a bit of underlying danger, but here the filmmaker falls flat flat flat. An admittedly pretty film (some scenes elicit memories of Monet and the impressionists) and with two strong, if quite cliche'd performances, but still a film that never goes anywhere and while not going anywhere tends to fall out of fashion even with itself. Add to all this the strangest "international" melange of accents (even among mother and son) and a completely unnecessary, and quite annoying series of haphazard narration, and you have Stephen Frears' Chéri. Even on its own, when not compared to the original novel(s), Frears' film fails on most levels.

    Perhaps a French version (there were four other versions made previously, two French, one Brit and one Italian - none of which are available today) starring Isabelle Huppert and Louis Garrel, and directed by Catherine Breillat would have better suited Colette's story. Instead all we are left with is that haunting final image of Pfeiffer, aged or not, that only makes us wish Frears had allowed her to give us so much more.

     


  • TEETH a film review

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

    Teeth  (2007)

    (this review was first published at Plume-Noire on 03/02/09)

    Teeth is a mish-mash of genre monikers, from female empowerment movie to coming-of-age saga to black comedy-horror to rape & revenge drama to Lynchian suburban melodrama. Pop artist fil Mitchell Lichtenstein gives us the story of Dawn, a white picket fence pretty young girl coping with growing up "pure and virginal" in a world obsessed with sexual innuendo around each and every corner. This includes her own house as her lecherous big bad wolf epitome'd stepbrother sniffs after her with tongue a-flicking. After a date gone horribly, horribly awry, Dawn finds out that she is cursed with the mythical mutation known as "vaginal dentata" - aka she's got razor sharp teeth in her pussy, yo! The result is that Teeth ends up being a quirky (how could it not be?), sunnily macabre work of neo-candy pop horror that can in no way whatsoever be watched by anyone of the male gender without constant squirming and shuffling about in what are suddenly very uncomfortable seats.

    Opening in the suburban shadow of a nuclear power plant with towers billowing grey choke from their gritty Teeth as if a nod-and-a-wink absurdist homage to The Simpsons. Teeth struts out with a creeping small town menace overlying everything and proceeds down a road of desperate reciprocatory acts of the most bizarre nature. With the perils of male violence festooned within every darting-eyed nook and cranny moment, Teeth takes place in a world completely ensconced within one of those old sex ed filmstrips made to keep junior high school girls legs clamped shut until their wedding night.

    Dawn, played with a scared forest animal comic frenzy by Jess Weixler, looking every bit the girl next door on the verge of bad girl in the basement is spokesperson for a promise ring wearing teenage purity movement - a movement lampooned on Family Guy but given real "teeth" here. Dawn is seen as the ultimate sexual goal-****-prize by just about every male classmate in her school, as if every teenage boy is some sort of licentious lycanthrope ready to pounce and deflower every pretty girl they come across at the drop of a hat - or any article of clothing. Dawn sees herself as such too and fights even her own naturally budding urges (a scene showing our intrepid heroine in bed "thinking" about a boy she longs for attests to such) to keep her vow of chastity upright. That is until one fateful swimmin' hole romp that ends with the lake being dredged for the body of Dawn's unfortunate date sans one pretty important body part.

    Once the newly deflowered Dawn throws away the moniker of curse and looks upon her mutation as a rightful empowerment to avenge her becoming the victim of the seemingly rampant male violence of this strange new world the film goes from anti-sexual to proto-sexual. With Dawn going from Little Red Riding Hood to the Big Bad Wold herself, the film here turns from strangely charming fantasy to something straight out of a seedy dogeared pulp fiction paperback. It is at this point that Teeth philosophically joins in with such rape & revenge films as Abel Ferrara's Ms. 45 and its more recent counterpart The Brave One from Neil Jordan. Teeth though is a much less mature, more light-hearted film that the aforementioned. After all, horror-edged or not, Lichtenstein is going for laughs here. Leaving a hilarious slew of severed penii (as well as four fingers of a rather over-amorous gynecologist) in her wake, Dawn strews her victims "better halves" across the landscape like discarded cigarette butts in the early dusky morning after a concert in the park.

    One scene, inevitably choreographed, involves Dawn's salacious step-brother (played with a grim concupiscence by snarky Nip/Tuck regular John Hensley), his pet rottweiler and his freshly decapitated member half eaten with its pierced tip discarded like so much gristle. Though obvious in its outcome, this scene is certainly the pièce de résistance of this giddily twisted fairy tale of female empowerment overtaking a male dominated society of sexual despotism. On a whole, Teeth is funny, though a little bit crotch-writhing for those of us so engendered. Lichtenstein's film is a delight of, albeit stereotyped caricatures, fumbling their way through a darkish suburban nightmarescape that combines the punchy humor of a youthful Almadovar with the clean efficiently disturbed Middle America of a budding David Lynch. This critic for one, looks forward to what will come next.


  • REVANCHE a film review

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

    Revanche  (2008)

    (this review was first published at www.thecinematheque.com on 06/21/09)

    With its moody temperament and (almost) Eastern European roots, Austrian filmmaker Gotz Spielmann's Revanche plays out as high tragedy worthy of Chekhov or Turgenev, or perhaps Tarkovsky or Bresson (or Cassavetes in an American turn) but always with a seeming oblivious wink toward its audience. This wink (intentional or not) works both in the film's favor for a while and as the ultimate let down when all is said and done.

    Though the story of two low rent lovers (played superbly by Johannas Krisch and Irina Potapenko) trying to escape the mundane humiliations of their urban lives by robbing a bank and heading for the proverbial hills, Revanche, as its title suggests, is essentially a tale of inevitable revenge after the aforementioned robbery goes tragically awry. This revenge theme works throughout most of the film, and through the glassy eyes of its antagonist, in perpetual foreshadowing motion, we see the ugly taste of that same said revenge piercing the flesh of all those around him. The film works on such a level, sort of a blend of Assayas and Ceylon, and the pacing and photography just add to the intensity exponentially building throughout.

    Once the finale comes, though well played, it is the farthest thing thing from a surprise as one can possibly get. This isn't necessarily a large flaw, for so many movies, both good and bad and everything in between, have quite predictable endings, but it still puts such a damper on an otherwise though provoking film as this. Perhaps it is not revenge, but forgiveness that humanity needs and therefore it is a moral tale of sorts - and I suppose it is - but nonetheless, Spielmann's precalculated coda falls a bit short of the rest of his coldly calculating tragi-drama. Perhaps this is mere nitpicking and not actual criticism, especially since I liked and recommend the film overall, but there you have it anyway. I suppose forgiveness is not my foray.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<July 2009>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
2829301234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930311
2345678


Categories
 


Advertisement