mconrad3 Blog

Under discussion:

Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War  (2004)

I'd be the first to admit that I haven't been up on foreign films as much as I probably should. One of my favorite films from last year (Let the Right One In) was made in Sweden. Today I had the opportunity to sample South Korean cinema in the form of Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War. I have never seen a war film that didn't deal with Amerian centered conflicts. Letters from Iwo Jima, while impressive, was still a primarily American film. Tae Guk Gi, on the other hand, is a product of Korea in which the American involvement is only mentioned in passing.

The story is of two brothers living in South Korea who are drafted into service following the outbreak of hostilities that would last for three years and serve as a proxy war during the Cold War. The view from the trenches ain't pretty, but that's what makes this film important. Not unlike Saving Private Ryan, this film places a more human face on soldiers in the war. They aren't the brave war heroes marching off to victory. They're sons, brothers, fathers, and people with real motivations and problems. Throughout the story we are presented with gritty examples of the horrors the Korean War had to offer.

What impressed me most about this film was its production value. On only a twelve million dollar budget, these filmmakers managed to create something on par with the greatest American war films. The Korean War was an ordeal that members of my generation have only seen from black and white file footage. In Tae Guk Gi, as it should be, it is treated as one of the most major conflicts their nation faced. Non native audience members can experience it as if it were "their" war and it adds that much impact to it.

Emotionally moving, you are hard pressed not to feel affected by Tae Guk Gi by the time the credits roll. It illustrates a conflict I don't think Americans have been made aware enough of. Unfortunately, it has been dismissed by mainstream audiences, likely because it comes with subtitles. I have no doubts in my mind that if it was an American war film, people would be talking about it like they did for Saving Private Ryan.

Under discussion:

Singin' in the Rain  (1952)

I was never a big fan of musicals. I had to participate in them throughout my elementary school career and even landed a few lead roles, but something about randomly breaking out into song didn't really jive with me. It's probably because it had been parodied so many times in my childhood shows and films that I couldn't take it seriously. Overall even the modern musicals haven't really appealed to me. Of all the musicals I've seen though, the ones from the forties, fifties, and sixties are the ones I can sit through. Singin' in the Rain is no exception.

Taking place just at the beginning of the talkie era of filmmaking, I was quite intrigued by the plot and story of the film. In all honesty, I wasn't expecting that much of an interesting story, being that I was of the assumption the entire movie was about singing in the rain. I admit now that I was wrong, and that I actually enjoyed the tale constructed before me. It may be only because it is one of the few original movies I've seen in the last three years, but it is actually pretty well crafted.

The music, which the film is defined by, was pretty good. Yes, several of the songs were catchy, but I still found somewhat annoyed by the breaking out into song. I think at this point in my life it can't be helped for me to feel that way. That being said, the amount of production that went into the bigger musical numbers is still astonishing to this day. In a world where green screen is the quick fix for every little thing, set design is something of an art unto itself.

I was pleasantly surprised by Singin' in the Rain. It's a more happy and cheery than I'm used to, but it is a well executed feel good film.

Under discussion:

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind  (2004)

Eternal Sunshine is a film that I seem to enjoy the more I watch it. The first time I saw it, it struck a chord with me. At the time there was this girl in my life that reminded me very much of Clementine and I think that's what first drew me into the film. The thing is, though, as I watched it a second time, I realized there was much more to it than the quirky love interest. There were a few themes going on that also rang true when I discovered them within the storyline. It's not a mainstream movie, but I'm counting that on the side of the pros. That being said, it no doubt does not appeal to people who aren't interested in thinking about what their watching.

Aside from dissecting a relationship from the end backwards, I found this particularly intriguing kearnel commentary that may not have been intentional, but nevertheless spoke to me. It was the idea seen in many Greek and Shakespearian tragedies: fate cannot be escaped, and some things are meant to be. I'm not saying that there's a grand design to the universe, but I think there's a general procession to how it is going to unfold, and the story of Joel and Clem illustrates this theory. They erased each other from their memory, and yet something is left that goads them on to meet a second time. Even after they hear themselves talk about what they hated about their relationship, they decide to go for it anyway.

I read that the director intended the last shot of the film to convey the repeating cycle that Clem and Joel would get sick of each other, wipe their memories, and start over again ad nauseum until their deaths. While that's not necessarily the interpretation I take away from this film, it also speaks volumes of this existential concept of rhyming events and repeating cycles. All of these little themes and ideas that get voiced throughout the film make me think about life, the universe, and everything. That's what I like about it. But because of this, it won't appeal to the crowd expecting another "zany" hollywood romantic comedy. It's more than that, which is probably why it doesn't gain wide appeal.

Enough ramblings from my cynical mind. If you're into the arthouse scene, you'll like Eternal Sunshine. It's a dark film, a heartfelt film, and a funny film. It isn't the kind of film my dad is going to watch because he enjoys films like Epic Movie. I think all the people involved in the project did a wonderful job in telling a unique story (gasp! I know) that gives you and your friends something to talk about when the credits roll.

Under discussion:

Idiocracy  (2006)

It's a shame I didn't get around to seeing Idiocracy until I did. Mike Judge is one of my favorite comedic creators, but I wasn't aware he had done anything live action since Office Space, another cult classic. The issues with release certainly hampered its chances at a wider following, but I think considering the material and time of its completion wouldn't have helped it. Luke WIlson and Maya Rudolph play two people from the present accidentally frozen only to be woken up in a future where the culture revolves around all things stupid and/or redneck. The film pokes fun at just about every thing corporate and conservative America has to offer, but it doesn't have much depth to back it up.

The raw, dark humor was enough to get more than a few laughs out of me throughout the course of the story. In the back of my head, I was thinking how absurdly plausible the dystopian future depected here is. The overall stupidity of the society and the punches thrown at Fox and NASCAR Dad culture were humorous, but had no depth to them. The plot was pretty thin and all the characters (even the ones we're supposed to sympathize with) are cardboard cut-outs. The good thing is there's enough satire flying around to distract you, but it was disappointing coming from the guy who brough us King of the Hill.

Idiocracy isn't going to be a movie for everybody. People with vulgar senses of humor and cynics will both flock to this film despite its shortcomings. It does leave something to be desired when the credits start rolling. It is true that under all the absurdity there is a message to be heard, but if you think about it enough you might start to get depressed about the future of humanity.

Under discussion:

Night of the Comet  (1984)

Night of the Comet is by no means a "good" film by normal standards. It is rife with plotholes, clunky dialogue, and B-movie acting. HOWEVER, I can't help but enjoy it. It is 80s in every sense of the word and I am irrevocably drawn to it despite all of its flaws. Set in LA during a fictional comet strike, the plot revolves around sisters Samantha and Regina who must survive on their own after the comet's...well, I don't know what, but people either turned into orange dust or flesh-eating zombies. (I know you're already wondering what's not to like aout this flick). I'm sure in other hands it could be fleshed out and turned into some sort of Omega Man knock-off, but it's the corniness that makes this movie.

As I've said, the acting and story are what you'd expect from a Sci Fi Channel weekend movie. The lead actors don't put on terrible performances, but some of the lines they have to run through are hilarious in their own right. ("We can say ****, but let's substitute 'have sex' with 'get with' at every opportunity") There also isn't a whole lot of character development, and there's an entire sequence that seems utterly superfluous outside of watching Star Trek vet Robbie Beltran fight off a zombie child for ten minutes.

But I'm not watching this film for some deep artistic statement. I'm watching this film because it's simple 80s goodness in every sense of the phrase. Someone was hard at work on the synthesizer to score just about every second of the movie and I enjoyed all of it. I'm a sucker for 8-bit sound. The dress, hairstyles, arcade games, and random shopping mall montages all scream the decade they shot this thing in, and that's why I enjoy it. You won't be able to sit me down for those Sci Fi Channel weekend flicks, but tell me it's got a synthesizer soundtrack and was shot in 1984 and I'm there with a bag of popcorn.

At its heart, Night of the Comet is pure 80s flash. It may not sit well with anyone who was born at the wrong time, but for a product of the 80s and 90s, it's a nostalgia trip in the cheap seats with the bubble gum that sticks to your feet and the (you hope it's a) soda stain on tthe upholstery. I make no excuses for the cinematic quality or artistic merit of this fillm. I will say that I enjoyed every bit of it.

Under discussion:

Zack & Miri Make a Porno  (2008)

I should probably start by saying that I am a rabid Kevin Smith fan. This is not to say I think he can do no wrong, but one day I would be more than happy to be as successful as he is today. On small budgets and short, indie style shoots, Smith has acquired a fanbase most directors at his level don't possess. He's turned into that aloof musician that releases an album every few years and you hope it'll be just as good, if not better, than the last. Zack and Miri Make a Porno, while not my all time favorite of his films, delivers on most parts and despite its faults remains a genuinely funny movie.

The film stars Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks as high school friends and roomates who are forced to film a porno in order to make payment on their month's behind bills. The cast is much more high profile than any of Smith's other films, and some might even be mislead to believe it is a Judd Apatow production. That being said, the acting is also of a higher calibur than most of his films. Seth Rogen isn't breaking any ground playing the deadpan, chunky lead, but he fills the shoes well.

As a fellow writer I always look forward to hearing what dialogue will be coming out of Smith's characters next. The outrageous one-liners and vulgar ten minute conversations on God knows what always makes me laugh. He appeals to my baser instincts but also my wit; and I am rewarded for catching his inside geek/dork references (ie. Monroeville Zombies) strewn throughout the movie. I expect no less from Smith, and if nothing else he makes me laugh for an hour and a half.

The weakness of this film seems to lie deep in its plot between the second and third acts. Up until this point the pacing of the movie feels comfortable. Instead of taking another twenty or so minutes to keep the pace going, Smith jumps the timeline ahead three months and resolves most of the conflicts too easily. I have no problem with fairly happy endings in Kevin Smith's films, but this just didn't feel natural and felt more like he took a shortcut to get us to the end of the movie. While this hurts the film, it doesn't mean it makes it unwatchable.

Kevin Smith is the everyman's filmmaker. None of his films have won Oscars (these days I'd take that as a point of pride) and they aren't always deep. They do all manage to make me laugh, and you can still put them above all the poorly made remakes, reboots, sequels, prequels, adaptations, and [insert genre here] movie parodies. He's vulgar, dark, witty, and laughably funny. And although Zack and Miri has some mechanical flaws in its bones, it still fits the bill for an entertaining Smith flick.

Under discussion:

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three  (1974)

I'm not really sure why they're remaking this film. I like most of Tony Scott's stuff, but I don't know what else can be brought to the table after watching this version of The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. Filled with dark humor and New York cynicism, it definitely speaks of the urban climate in the seventies, but also of the attitude most New Yorkers have on a daily basis to this day. I'm also a bit of a trainspotter, so anything dealing with trains/subways I always have a vested interest in.

The flick has a brilliant cast from Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw to even Jerry Stiller. More than anything its fun to see these guys as they were more than thirty years ago before Jaws even came out. The choice of giving some of these roles to comedians definitely helped in adding the grim humor to the entire situation. Couple that with the soundtrack and it's a film that screams the seventies. It matches the kind of style everybody was used to during the first half of that decade and paints an interesting picture to future generations (moi) looking back.

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is a pretty simple heist film with the twist of it being on the subway. The good guys win, the bad guys get killed, and a few hostages get popped along the way. But what is interesting is that "along the way" part. Seeing how people react to this insane situation and how they get from A to B to C. Its what makes the story worth watching, and if you're as deranged as me you'll even get a few laughs out of it.

Under discussion:

Pan's Labyrinth  (2006)

Guillermo del Toro is a very visual director. I was introduced to him through his earlier flick, The Devil's Backbone, and was enticed by his melding gritty realism with the supernatural. In Pan's Labyrinth he return's to Franco's Spain to tell another tale of a child stuck in a bad situation. I think I still enjoy the Devil's Backbone more, but Pan's Labyrinth definitely holds its own and was crucial in establishing del Toro's presence on the American filmmaking scene.

The film begins in 1944 in Spain after the end of the Spanish Civil War. Ofelia is unfortunately thrown into the middle of the woods at a fascist camp because her mother has remarried and is having the child of one Captain Vidal. Shortly after arriving, she discovers a magical prophecy that may prove her to be some form of underworld royalty. With the help of a faun, she goes about the tasks of allowing herself into this fantastical world. Compelling and original stories are hard to come by these days, and I have to give props to del Toro for managing to pull another one off.

Although things start slow, Pan's Labyrinth doesn't hold back on the shocking and disturbing moments once the plot starts moving. A fan of conventional effects over CGI, del Toro's penchan shows well in his rather sparse use of visual effects in a film that would probably warrant twice his budget of $19 million alone. His art direction, as usual, is his biggest strength. He can convince you of the mystical creatures residing in this forest, but also that they can reside right next to a historical conflict. Instead of worrying how fascists and fairies fit in the same film, we actually focus on the story.

I've heard that some of the roles in this flick were cast against their usual genre. Comedians playing sadists, sex kittens playing plain janes, etc. Although I am not fluent in Spanish, their visual performance was spot on and I sensed no awkwardness or clunky line deliveries. It may have been a gamble, but I think it paid off. Ivana Baquero, who plays Ofelia, conveys the curiosity and naivety required for the part and does well with it. Considering the film's success it should be interesting to see where she goes from here.

It was a little too slowly paced in the first act, and certain characterizations like the true motives of the faun aren't explored to the extent I think they could be. Like I've said, I prefer The Devil's Backbone, but Pan's Labyrinth is still a good film. I'll always be willing to sit down for a good yarn from del Toro, and if nothing else they're fun to look at.