Under discussion:

Film Name  Production Year

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer  (2006)

The International  (2009)

This is really one of the worst films I've seen this year. I had heard it pretty much universally panned by critics but I really didn't expect it to be that bad. As bad as I had heard this movie was, I still couldn't help my curiosity with director Tom Tykwer. I would have to say I consider myself a fan of his, even after this last effort. I would also say that the shortcomings of this film are primarily the fault of the screenplay and not the direction.

The writer was Eric Singer and this was his first major motion picture. The plot was extremely choppy and many of the key points made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Some of the conspiratorial points of this film were not only left unexplained but the portions of which were explained proved them to be completely unnecessary. The dialogue was even worse than the plot. At one point, Naomi Watt's character is confronting Clive Owen's character about details in his past. He very gruffly (Clive Owenly) responds, "I'm not gonna talk about it. Just read my file." about half an hour later, we are explained the details of his past by Naomi's character who had "made some calls." Unfortunately, the information she finds is not important to the plot and by this time nobody cares anyway.

The cinematography of this film was pretty good. It was shot by Frank Griebe. I am a pretty big fan of his work with Tykwer. I thought 2006's Perfume: The Story of a Murderer is one of the best shot films in the past 10 years. Unfortunatly, even great cinematography could not have saved this film.

Under discussion:

Film Name  Production Year

Two Fisted  (2004)

Come Hell or High Water  (2008)

The Astonished Man  (2008)

Two Fisted (2004)

**** Stars out of 5

Directed by: Todd E. Freeman

Starring: Jason Sabala, Robert Blanche Andrew Harris and Sarah Rosenerg

Running Time: 101 minutes

Rated: NR

Released: 2004

Language: English

Song: This one felt very appropriate.

______________________________________________

______________________________________________

Review:

            I guess I could start this review with a bit of a disclaimer (as if I was being paid for this). Director Todd Freeman is actually someone I grew up with.  His father was the Pastor of my church during much of my very formidable teenage years. And although he probably didn’t realize this at the time, he absolutely had a lot to do with sparking my interest and subsequent obsession with film in general. Objectivity was not much of an option for this one. I really wanted to like it.

            That being said, this film definitely didn’t disappoint. It wasn’t lacking in flaws but most were very forgivable. The story was very well paced and the most of the characters were pretty well developed.

            The main character Ty is played by Jason Sabala. This was a great casting call. Not only did he play his part especially well, his general physique was absolutely perfect for the role. It is one that demands attention whenever onscreen. It was also a bit deceptive. At first glance, standing over six feet tall and covered in tattoos, you could quickly assume plenty of the typical bare-knuckled tough guy tropes usually associated with the look. His character is actually quite reserved and collected throughout most of the film.

            The score of this film was very much hit and miss for me. Certain scenes used a heavy percussion based rhythmic sound that I thought worked well. Some of the other scenes though used more of a grand swelling score that I felt took away from the authenticity of the scene. When it comes to score, I really have no idea what I’m talking about, but I felt I should mention it here because of how contrasted the two different types of music were in this film. And how much better one of them worked than the other.

            I usually make some sort of attempt in my reviews to mention the cinematography of the film. This will be no exception. This film was shot remarkably well. There were plenty of complicated shots that not only gave the audience something cool to look at; they fit within the context of the scenes. I found myself continuously and pleasantly surprised at the simultaneous complication and subtleness of the camerawork. I think the most memorable scene is one that involves a drug deal and a shootout in an industrial yard full of large stacks of pipe. I got the feeling this was a place that Todd (err... umm.. Mr. Freeman) had driven by often, and thought: “Damn, I could make something look really cool with this place.” Unfortunately, the transfer of the DVD I watched was a little sub-par. It wasn’t as bad as it could have been but some of the darker scenes were too dark and you had to strain to make out what was going on.

            My only real critique of the film was that there were a few scenes that I thought should have been cut or replaced. There are several times in the film that notably quirky and comedic things seem to take place. I don’t think I would have cut them all, because overall it gives the film entirely more character. I would have, however cut one or two. I think that at some point, it started to obstruct the tone of the film. The movie was just over an hour and a half long, so I don’t think you would want to cut very much.

I have to end this review with my full recommendation. It was engaging from start to finish and I’m very glad I saw it. It’s quite refreshing to see a piece of art produced at a low budget level with that amount of conviction and talent.

Todd works with his fellow filmmaker brother Jason in Portland, Oregon. They have some other projects that I’m ever so excited to see. Come Hell Or High Water is Todd’s newest film. And The Astonished Man is one directed by Jason. Unfortunately, I don’t know much about these films but I’m keeping them on my radar.

Come Hell or Highwater Trailer. from Todd Freeman on Vimeo

.

Under discussion:

Being John Malkovich  (1999)

Adaptation  (2002)

Where the Wild Things Are  (2009)

This is the part of my blog that I pick a director and take a few minutes to examine his career. This month I will take a look a one of Hollywood's coolest people, Spike Jonze. Why?? Because I said so.

Spike started his career in the skateboarding industry shooting promotional skate vids. Later, he would co-found Girl Skateboard with Rick Howard. He went on to raise the artistic bar when it came to traditional skate videos with one he directed called Mouse. Here is an clip which features pro skater, Eric Koston as Charlie Chaplin in a moment of discovery.

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

His most recent video for Lakai shoes was titled Fully Flared. Here is by far the coolest intro to a skate video ever.

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

He has also had a very accomplished career as a music video director. His work with The Beastie Boys, Bjork and Fatboy Slim has been critically acclaimed. Everyone remembers the Beastie Boys' "Sabatoge" video and who could forget Christopher Walken's dance moves in the hotel lobby in Fatboy Slim's "Weapon of Choice"

His most popular video may still be the amature dance recital for Fatboy Slim's "Praise You" video. My personal favorite is this gem from the mid-90s. Remember that Jack Johnson video a couple of years ago that featured him singing the entire song backwards. Well, it had allready been done. Here's Spike's video for The Pharcyde's "Drop"

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

OK, enough of this. I'm a movie guy, let's get onto his film career. In 1998 he made his first full-lenth feature, Being John Malkovich. This film featured John Cusack, Catherine Keener, Cameron Diaz and of course John Malkovich. More importantly, it featured an incredible screenplay by writer Charlie Kaufman about a secret portal into the mind and soul of a New York actor. This combined with the semi-surrealistic camera style of Jonze created an incredibly memorable film. I recall watching this film and thinking that I had never seen a concept as inventative as this one.

A few years later, Jonze and Kaufman would colaborate again in 2002's Adaptation. I recall reading the synopsis of this movie when it was still in post-production and thinking that it had to be the most original concept for a movie since Being John Malkovich. This is a movie... about a screenwriter, writing a screenplay.... for the movie that you are currently watching, which is supposed to be an adaptation of a popular book. Charlie Kauafman played by Nicolas Cage is the film's main character. In one of it's most brilliant moments, Kaufman reveals to his twin brother (also played by Cage), "I've written myself into the movie." Jonze's direction was spot on in this one. It was much more of a strait shot film than BJM because most of the trickery lied within the script.

Spike is currently working on an adaptation of the super-popular, Where The Wild Things Are. The screenplay was co-written by himself and first-time screenwriter, David Eggers. This is going to be a live action version of a short story. The news I've read about it is very concerning. Apparently, the attempt to animate the character's mouths onto the film is proving very technically difficult. I even read somewhere that Warner Bros. may be asking for a complete reshoot. A move that would more than likely kill the project entirely. Here is a leaked test shoot of the film.

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

I really hope this one gets released. I think it's got great potential to be, if nothing else, a very fun movie.

Under discussion:

Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections  (2007)

*** Stars out of 5

Directed by: David Earnhardt

Running Time: 80 minutes

Rated: NR

Released: 2007

Language: English

Song: Zion I and The Grouch – Digital Dirt

            I try to choose a song that I am reminded of while watching the movie. I had several in mind before this one came to mind. I really wanted to use Guttermouth’s Gold because of the chorus:

they say this is the land of the free
to me that means I have the liberty to sit for
my rights cuz I don't care
to do what everybody else would do I'm fine right
here
I voted once but I didn't win I'll never vote again

            I almost went with Operation Ivy’s Knowledge – “All I know is that I don’t know nothing.” But I settled on some good hip-hop from the Bay Area. Enjoy!!

Review:

            Documentaries always seem to be the hardest for me to review. One reason is simply that I don’t really care to watch many of them in the first place. Add to that the fact that many of the cinematic elements that I like to analyze such as cinematography and acting are not really factors in documentaries. Also, many docs are very politically motivated. It is much harder to review a film as a film if you staunchly agree or disagree with the slant that is being put forward by the director. But enough of my complaining, I only will say that I do my best to inform the reader of the pros and cons of the film they are potentially going to watch. I usually do a good job of keeping any political leaning I have at a safe distance. With all of that being said, I do need to inform you that I see tend to see the world through a pair of skeptical eyes. These are the same eyes that I watched the film through; a film that happens to be based largely on a grand conspiracy theory.

This documentary was much more of an exposé than an exploration. What I mean by that is that I never really felt as though they were trying to get to the bottom of anything. I felt much more that this was made by someone with a problem and a soap-box. This film is completely void of any counter-point whatsoever. I think you lend a lot of credibility to your claim just by inserting a dissenting opinion once and a while. Even if that opinion is weak, the audience should be given a chance to hear it.

            One glaring problem I had with this movie was how easily it should be to find out if the booths were designed to swap or miscount votes. Many times throughout the doc, the electronic booths are referred to as “not auditable.” While at the same time, during the Clint Curtis interview, he repeatedly states that it is impossible to make this source code hidden. This code is precisely what makes the equipment always auditable. The point he is making (correctly) is that the machine can only do what it is programmed to do. This program (code) contains the key as to what it is actually doing. At this point of the film, I am watching it through the eyes of someone that writes code for government contracts. At one point of the film there is a shot of a county warehouse full of these machines. All the county really would need to do is refuse payment to Diebold until the code was inspected and approved by a third party software guru. It wouldn’t take a genius to read this code, test it and make an assessment as to what the booths are actually doing.

            Something else I really don’t care for in documentaries is when someone is being interviewed and the camera cuts way too often. It seemed as though throughout some of these interviews, the shots were only lasting about two or three seconds on average. I know many documentarians will cut out the interviewer’s questions but in this case, it seemed a bit too spliced together. I find that this cuts into the integrity of the film.

I will conclude with my somewhat reluctant recommendation for this film. In spite of its faults, I did take something away from this film. I do agree that there is a serious problem with the electronic machines and we, as the ultimate consumer should either demand a paper ballot backup or go back to paper all together.

Under discussion:

Z  (1969)

The Patriot  (2006)

Thirteen Days  (2000)

Jeepers Creepers  (2001)

Carnivàle [TV Series]  (2003)

Deadwood [TV Series]  (2004)

Munich  (2005)

John Adams  (2008)

John Adams (2008)

*** 1/2 Stars out of 5

Directed by: Tom Hooper

Starring: Paul Giamatti, Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson and Stephen Dillane

Running Time: 201 minutes

Rated: NR

Released: 2008

Language: English

Review:         

Something dawned on me as I was watching this series. At one point we watch the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Another shows the inauguration of the first President of the United States.  We also see the depiction of the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party early in the series. I came to wonder: Why haven’t I seen this before? Aren’t these some of the most pivotal moments in the shaping of our nation? I’ve read about them in books, and I probably seen some of this stuff re-enacted on the History Channel or public broadcast. But, never on the big screen or a major production cable special such as this. I’ve seen some pretty good political thrillers that are based on historic events, such as Thirteen Days, Munich or Z. But none of those events took place in what could be argued as the most important period of the forming of our nation. The Patriot takes place during this period. But that movie was much less about the events taking place than it was about the characters involved. So why is it that some of the most riveting, philosophically provocative and emotionally charged real life stories have been confined almost solely to the pages of a history book or bad re-enactments on PBS?  I have my own speculations but I will quickly remind myself that this is supposed to be a review of the series and not the incessant ravings of a libertarian mind.

            So, let’s start off where I typically like to, with the cinematography. In the first couple of episodes, I was very taken by some of the beautiful scenery and use of color pallets. A lot of the shots I enjoyed the most were filmed in the winter with a thick bed of snow on the ground contrasted with all of the earthy tones of the various structures and fauna springing up from the ground. Much of these gave a very Norman Rockwell-like impression.

There were also plenty of shots that I not only didn’t care for, I was ultimately annoyed with. This series is filled with one technique that was completely overused. What I’m referring to is when the audience is subjected to watching a scene unfold from behind an out of focus obstruction or obstructions. Imagine watching something happen as you are peering through weeds or grass. This makes sense, if you are being laying down in an open field and being chased by Jeepers Creepers. This makes no sense however, when you are watching a heart to heart conversation between a 90 year old John Adams and his beloved son. Why are we hiding in the grass? Are we waiting for a plot twist in which Mr. Adams takes his big walking stick and beats his son to death? (SPOILER ALERT: This does not happen) This series is completely filled with these shots and every one seems very out of place. I removed a half star just for that.

Moving along, the cast was quite good. I was a bit worried simply because of my lack of affection to Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney (Mr. and Mrs. Adams, respectively). I was a bit surprised at how much I enjoyed both of their performances. Giamatti put down what I would call his best performance thus far with passion and fervor. Linney played the more patient and reserved, but still passionate counterpart to the team. Tom Wilkinson was very good as the pragmatic yet somewhat frivolous Benjamin Franklin. And Stephen Dillane was Thomas Jefferson. He was a very integral part of Adam’s story. He established himself as Adam’s closest friend and ally. Later, politics would try their friendship to its very brink. He may have been the best performer of the series. It was certainly one of the more challenging roles. One of my favorite scenes is towards the end when John Adam’s doctor says that while some wrote or spoke or fought for this revolution, it was Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson who thought for us all. Rufus Sewell, I believe clearly established himself as the series’ only true antagonist, the empirical Alexander Hamilton. His character was one of the most interesting to watch because it showed (assuming historical accuracy) how quickly a revolution spawn from ideal, philosophy and principal could be infiltrated and sullied by politics and partisanship.

The only other problem I had with this series was somewhat inherent in the nature of a miniseries. A decent 2 ½ hour long movie may have a lull that lasts 45 minutes or so. A series that spans about 9 hours however is subject to a much longer and less forgivable lull. The first couple of episodes really pulled me in. We are treated to very well put together depictions of both the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party. Unfortunately, we must very quickly shift to a much slower gear and remain there for the rest of the series. I recall thinking to myself, after watching the fourth or fifth episode, that if I had to wait another week for the next installment, I very likely would have given up on it. I’m glad that I didn’t, because once you have gotten used to the slower pace, you can more easily take in and process the deep rooted philosophical banter that is thrown about between the founding fathers………..and still today.

In summary, I will give this series my recommendation. It is more than likely, the most historically accurate telling of the events that took place in New England during the late 18^th century. Although, the story is primarily about its namesake, John Adams, it is just as much about the American Revolution as a whole. This story has been sugarcoated and hand fed to us practically since it was current events and any history buff that’s interested in a more candid look at the founding fathers would do themselves justice to pick this one up.

Recommendations:

            If you have already seen this one and enjoyed it, I would suggest checking out other HBO series. I would say Deadwood and Carnivàle are good choices.

Under discussion:

This Is Spinal Tap  (1984)

This Is Spinal Tap (1984)

I'm not sure how old these are but they're new to me.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Under discussion:

Summer Palace  (2008)

The Year My Parents Went on Vacation  (2008)

***** Stars out of 5

Directed by: Cao Hamburger.

Starring: Michel Joelsas, Germano Haiut and Daniela Piepszyk

Running Time: 104 minutes

Rated: PG

Released: 2007

Language: Portuguese with English subtitles

Synopsis:

The year referred to in the title of this film is 1970. Brazil is being held by a totalitarian regime. The great soccer player, Pele has just scored his thousandth goal and the national team is preparing for the World Cup.

Mauro (Joelsas) is like any 12 year old Brazilian boy at the time. He thinks only of soccer and girls. Unfortunately for him, his political parents have to leave him with his Grandfather while they go “on vacation”.

Review:

I can’t really say anything bad about this film. It seemed interesting from the box and I had pretty high hopes for it. I am very pleased to report: it did not disappoint. The only challenge I had to get past was the fact that I am not particularly familiar with the history of the backdrop of this film and it doesn’t do much to fill you in. I believe I made a similar comment about Summer Palace, but in the case of this film, you don’t really need to know the history behind the struggle. I actually think it may have worked out better knowing less in this movie. Keep in mind, you are trying to empathize with a 12 year old that knows and cares nothing about politics.

            I tend to make a comment about the cinematography of every film I review so why should this one be any different. It was actually shot beautifully. We never see the same camera angle twice throughout this movie. And, I really liked a lot of the angles that this was shot from. Many times we see what’s happening from behind an obstruction of some sorts, giving the viewer almost a mischievous “peeking in” feeling.

            The acting was very well done as well. The lead character, Mauro was played by Michel Joelsas. I wasn’t sure about him at first, but by the end of the movie, he had convinced me. This performance was by far the most critical to the film. On several occasions, he gets his heart broken and the audience really needs to feel that with him for the film to be even remotely successful. I also really enjoyed the performance of Hanna, as played by Daniela Piepszyk. She was the street wise, neighborhood girl that befriends Mauro.

            One of the themes that runs through the veins of this film is that of a community pulling together when someone is in need. This is another reason that it felt unnecessary to get into too much depth in regards to the politics of the conflict. Within that neighborhood, it just didn’t seem to matter which philosophy you subscribed to, everyone was in the same boat and the compassion they showed the new Mauro took precedent over everything. Well, everything except soccer of course. I think the country’s passion towards the sport was the one true common philosophy of Brazil.

            My favorite aspect of this film was that although the underlying plot was heartbreaking, there were plenty of subtle comedic moments designed to break the tension and keep audience light hearted. I laughed out loud at one particular scene in which Mauro is being served breakfast by one of the old women in the building. He has to constantly reposition his plate and cup because she is apparently blind as a bat and is spilling everything onto her kitchen table.

            This is the type of film that grows on you as you watch it. At first, I was only mildly interested but as I got deeper into it, I fell more and more in love with the characters. I would give this one my full recommendation.

Under discussion:

Winter Sleepers  (1997)

Run Lola Run  (1999)

Heaven  (2002)

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer  (2006)

    This was the fourth film I've seen by Tom Tykwer and until watching it, I was still unsure as to whether I could consider myself a fan of his. I thought Run Lola Run was brillian but was worried that he may have been a one-trick pony. Winter Sleepers was the next film I saw by him and was pretty dissapointed. I gave him another chance with Heaven and although I didn't fall in love with it, it still reminded me of his talents and to keep an eye out for his future work.

     Perfume...... sealed the deal for me. I am now squarely on one side of the fence. This was a fantastic movie. The acting, especially by Whishaw was superior every scene. The screenplay was well written, keeping the story moving at a fast enough pace as to not loose my attention while still allowing for an entire life story to unfold.

    What got me more than anything was the use of color palettes. It forces you to use the term: "brilliant" in it's most literal sense.