mconrad3 Blog

Tae Guk Gi

mconrad3 — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:53:44 GMT

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.

Waking Life

mconrad3 — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 03:30:08 GMT

Despite my reverence for this film, there isn't much I can say about it. It is one of those films that I find difficult to describe to people who haven't seen it before. I recommend it, but I don't know if I can say anything else about it other than I think it is ineffable to a degree. It's a film about philosophy, but it's not a documentary. It's a film about a journey, but it's not exactly a cohesive story. It's animated, but it's rotoscoped so there's life action under the sketches and inking.

It is a film that truly feels like a dream. You enter into it completely lost in what, if anything, is going on. It jumps around, but not so much that you lose the little footing you have. The main character sort of floats through different scenes and we, as an audience, go along with it. There's not necessarily a rhyme or reason to the plot movement, but it doesn't have to be...because it's a dream. Stuff will occur and things will be said that you'll barely remember (not unlike a real dream), but the more you watch it the more you pick up. My advice? Watch it a few times before you pass final judgement on it.

Singin' in the Rain

mconrad3 — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:28:51 GMT

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.

Requiem for a Dream

mconrad3 — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:00:28 GMT

It's not often that someone manages to successfully create the genre of Greek tragedy in a modern setting. If I were to pin any director's name to such a project, it would be Darren Aronofsky. That being said, he's already managed to create said-tragedy in Requiem for a Dream. The story about a group of druggies attempting to break out of their sorry states but ultimately failing and ending up worse off then they they started is something that, had it not revolved around drugs, could have come from Sophocles. It is a story that is well constructed and well executed, but a story I can only watch a handful of times over a period of years.

I can only liken watching Requiem of a Dream to watching a train wreck happen. On some primal, horribly morbid and vulgar level, it is entertaining and interesting to watch. It isn't until you realize you're watching people being hurt that you start to feel bad. In most cases, this transition last only seconds, but in Requiem for a Dream, the audience is constantly presented with new "train wreck" scenarios. Each one becoming more painful to watch then the next. It is as if the film is stuck in its second act, plummeting to Earth without the hope of there being any sort of salvation before the end.

That being said, it is a well executed train wreck. Aronofsky and the actors make you feel for these characters. Yes, they are locked in their fateful course of self-destruction, but there is sympathy and pity for them. Not unlike infamous Greek tragedies, we watch these characters orchestrating their own doom in an effort to understand human flaws. One of my friends said this movie was a two hour long anti-drug commercial and I am inclined to agree with him under one condition: it is an anti-addiction story. Not just to drugs, but other habits that can be just as destructful.

I know Requiem for a Dream is considered a hallmark of film, but it is a difficult one to watch without promise of resolution.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

mconrad3 — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:36:46 GMT

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.

Rachel Getting Married

mconrad3 — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 05:30:28 GMT

Rachel Getting Married is one of the few Oscar nominated flicks I was at all interested in seeing. If there's anything that floats my boat as much as dark comedy, its dysfunctional families. Anne Hathaway plays recovering addict and sister to the bride as she reaquaints herself with her family in the closing days before the wedding. It's definitely an unmitigated view of a family during get togethers. The handheld camera and the choice of there being only music within the narrative makes you feel like it's a documentary. There are moments that make you cringe, make you laugh, and make you pause to take a breath. All of it works.

I wasn't truly aware of Anne Hathaway's acting range outside of romantic/tween dramedies until this film. Turning a 180 from the roles she's usually known for, she doesn't waste any time getting into character. The same can be said for the rest of the cast, as the whole thing feels again like a documentary. Some of the moments I found so akin to moments at family gatherings of my own that I felt a little queezy reliving them. You can watch these people and tell that there is a history with all of them. They look and act like a genuine family.

This is also the latest of several films I've seen now opting for the handheld look. It seems to have become something like compositional risk to use it on projects these days. Not everyone does it well, but I think considering the look they were going for it works in this film. I will have to say that it's gonna get harder and harder for me to like it as more and more films use this "technique."

The part about this movie that strikes me closest to home is how close they come to the day to day operations of a family during big events. Everyone I know has a relative for the ones you see in this film and the interactions between all of them is so flawless you can feel like it's about your own family. This all being said, I may have an extremely screwed up family and friends so it may not strike many people the way it does me. For someone that does come from this sort of background, this flick serves as an erie reflection of our lives with our families.

The Los Angeles Times reported 63 percent of American households were dysfunctional. I'm not surprised by the figure. I'm also very glad that they're becoming much more represented in today's cinema. It can get overdone at the risk of ruining the genre. Not all of the projects covering the subject do well with it. Rachel Getting Married does it well. It brings all the skeletons out of the closet but can still maintain that even the more screwed up families can come together when the shit hits the fan. They won't do it perfectly, and there's always casualties, but sunshine rainbow endings are overrated anyway.

Idiocracy

mconrad3 — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:37:53 GMT

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.

Body of Lies

mconrad3 — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 01:33:09 GMT

Ridley Scott is always going to be one of my favorite directors. His work on movies like Blade Runner, Alien, Black Hawk Down, and Kingdom of Heaven always stick in my mind after I watch them. I wasn't expecting much from him for this film, however, so I suppose it is best that way. The trailer didn't interest me very much and it's my personal opinion that Ridley needs to do more sci fi if he wants to socially commentate properly.The film is an adaptation of a novel of the same name about a CIA agent who has to gets a ground's eye view of the things going on in the Middle East. The message it's trying to send is good, but I think it gets lost in its own setting.

Going into the film, people are focused more on the overall good vs. bad conflict and they lose some of the nice subtleties Scott throws in the background. And subtletly is one of the things I always thought he does well in his films. For the most part, we're getting hung up on trying to catch the terrorist and put less emphasis on how that happens, which is a major problem when you want that to be the focus of your film. Otherwise, the overlying plot itself is unremarkable.

I like all of the people involved in this project (yes, I can sit through two hours of Leonardo DiCaprio). I even think there are moments in this film that show you the clout of the man working behind the camera. The issue is that it gets muddled up in the fact that it's a "catch a terrorist" flick with undertones of "how do we best go about that?". That second part intrigues me a great deal, but if I had a nickel for every "catch the terrorist" movie that's come out since 9/11, I'd be able to make a movie of my own. I still think Ridley Scott is a good director, but I think he needs to take us out of our present conflicts so he can best make his point.

Night of the Comet

mconrad3 — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 06:31:07 GMT

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.

Touch of Evil

mconrad3 — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:45:54 GMT

I suppose it should be noted that, before I continue, I am commenting on the so-called "director's cut" that is supposedly as much the director's cut as that of Blade Runner. From what I have been told, the studio threw in as much footage as possible whether it perhaps belonged or not. It is clear that you can see Orson Welle's style behind the shots and composition, but it is clear there are elements of this film that belonged on the editing room floor. The story is clearly B-movie material, but it still doesn't meet up to my expectations of what to expect from a B-movie by Orson Welles.

The biggest issue I noticed is the pacing. Throughout the entire ordeal, it is very difficult to figure out how this plot moves along. Characters show up that appear all of three times and have histories that are never really explored, while two dimensional characters show up all throughout the film and stick around solely to annoy and build tension. I can understand having fun with things like trying to play Charleton Heston off as a Mexican native, but when the film feels twice as long as it should, all the good moments get lost in the clunkers.

I am not refuting the directing prowess of Orson Welles. Clearly there are moments in this flick I found enjoyable. The problem is they are too few and far between scenes that make little to no sense. I think seeing a different, more condensed version would have benefited my ability to enjoy it greaty. When I get the chance to watch a different version, I'll offer another judgement. However, this cut was clearly not the definitive version.