Four Eyed Monsters
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Tour Spout | Sign up
Find movies you'll love

Risselada Blog

  • Spout Mavens review - Wondrous Oblivion

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

    I'd never heard about Wondrous Oblivion before getting my screener in the mail.

    Sometimes you end up making a lot of assumptions about a movie based on it's cover art and it's title.  That was true in this case.  Assumptions were made, and for better or worse, after finishing the movie they had all turned out to be correct.

    It looks like there is a small graphic of the cover art on Spout.  You may be able to see what I mean.  It's one of those "feel good" movies that are supposed to be life affirming.  Oh yes, there will be lessons to learn about bigotry and what it means to be human.  There will be drama, but things will be happy.  You know one of those movies.

    But too often, such as in this case, those movies don't stand out in anyway.  If you really want to make me feel affected by or care for any of the characters, give them some real quirks like real people.  All the characters were pretty bland here.  And as far as plot developments, there were absolutely NO surprises.  Every character ended up doing exactly what you'd expect them to, I mean in the low expectations of a movie type of way.

    Let me also say that it is hard to find fault with this movie because it's really not pretentious.  It obviously wants to explore some social issues, and it's method isn't particularly inventive or inspired, but it doesn't slap you in the face with anything too hard or make you feel terribly manipulated.  Even though all of the elements are places very deliberately and it is obvious, none of them stick out in a way that is too annoying.

    I wonder if I would have enjoyed this movie a bit more if I had known anything about cricket.  The movie never really explains what the goal of the game is or how to play.  I guess they are assuming most people who would see this movie would already know since it was made in the UK where it takes place.  But there were some times when I was confused about the emotion of the scene because of being so uninformed about the game.  For instance there is a sequence where the main character David Wiseman (played by Sam Smith) continues to hit the ball successfully over and over and has to keep running back and forth.  However all of his teammates look extremely bored or pissed off.  I thought hitting the ball would be good, but now I wasn't sure.  I figure it must have meant one of several things.  Either hitting the ball so much like that is a bad way to play the game.  Or he was doing well and the rest of his team for some reason was pissed that he was doing well or bored and didn't care about the game and just wanted it to end.  Or another and also very likely possibility is that all of his teammates were just so British and proper that they couldn't expend that much emotion reacting.

    Another thing that makes the movie kind of bland is that all of the conflicts seem to get resolved so easily and unbelievably in the end.  All of the bigoted characters who seem to have been that way for their whole lives suddenly embrace those that they had previously looked down on for the whole movie at the end.  The adulterous situation between Ruth (played by Emily Woof) and Dennis (Delroy Lindo) disappears.  People deeply slighted accept apologies quickly.  The maladjusted kid who sucks beyond belief at cricket learns to be one of the best within a matter of weeks.  People change and grow up so quick.  Hey, I'm not saying that these things don't happen.  They do, and when they do it's what life is all about.  But it was all too easy.  And there wasn't enough depth and drama to give them any real impact.

    If you want a pleasant movie about different types of pleasant people in a neighborhood coming together and learning to accept each other, and you know how the hell to play cricket, then you may get a little kick out of this movie.  However if I had to watch to watch another movie like this any time soon, I would be getting bored real quick.

    Rating: 5/10


  • Spout Mavens review - 13 Tzameti

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

    Fight Club  (1999)

    13 Tzameti  (2005)

    I received the screener for 13 Tzameti in the mail early last week and was able to watch it a few days ago.  Here's my review of sorts:

    I'd seen the trailer for this back at the beginning of the year and found it intriguing enough to remember it when it was mentioned on this Spout Maven's group.  I knew the main point of interest, basically a group game of Russian roulette with the contestants forming a ring with each person pointing their gun at the head of the person to their right like a lethal circle jerk.  All of the spectators at this obviously illegal event have put high stakes bets on their contestant.  Sorry if I gave it away, but it's all in the trailer and knowing this would probably only make you want to see it more.

    I watched the movie in two parts.  Coincidentally I had to leave my apartment after about a half hour, pretty much right before we really get thrown into this contest that I have described.  However I didn't realize this at the time, and even though I knew what was coming, I was starting to wonder how little of the actual movie was actually devoted to what was pretty much the entire content of the trailer.  Once I got back to the movie, it pretty much jumped right into it, but the first third of the movie was actually pretty boring.  And I'm one who can appreciate a good black and white rural type drama, but this just didn't work.  Nothing special about the dialogue or the photography.  And it seemed like the use of non-diagetic music was often excessive or inappropriate.

    Once the lead character finally starts to get involved in this disturbing contest it get a bit more interesting.  The premise was morbidly curious enough to keep my attention, but there were hardly any surprises or anything really original done with it.  Other than the tension of the moment, there isn't really much insight I have into the film now that it's over.

    Except...  a quote on the packaging from The Village Voice calls the movie "a brutal metaphor for the global economy".  I'm not sure if I would have thought about it that way without reading it, because if there is a metaphor it's a pretty obvious one.  In fact, I wouldn't even call it a metaphor.  The poor need money desperately enough to get it by any means and the rich are bored with their money to exploit the poor to the most extreme lengths for their entertainment.  I suppose this is why Sébastien (played by George Babluani and who I would assume is related to the director since they share the same surname) was so willing to enter this menacing scenario and continued to play the game.  He was obviously deeply disturbed by the fact that he would be killing people but he needed the money that bad.  I guess you could also say once he was there he didn't have much choice but play or probably be killed himself, but it wasn't easy to relate to him. It seems more like a straightforward example of this rather than a metaphor.  I guess I just see this as such a matter of fact situation of the way the world works that again there wasn't much insight here.

    I suppose I could go more in debt about the other characters and what they obviously represented in this “metaphor”, but if you’ve watched it there’s no reason to explain.  The screenwriting techniques are so obvious I didn’t even consider that it would be necessary to explain them.  I’m trying to write a long enough review to be worthy of my receipt of the screener, but really this is one of the simplest movies I’ve seen.  There’s very little to dissect or explain.  It just is what it is in my eyes.

    But for a thriller that will play out some darkly curious scenarios, 13 Tzameti both succeeds and suffers from its simplicity.

    It also looks like this movie is being remade in Hollywood with the same director.  So *fart* whatever.  I guess this is a situation where I thought they could have actually done more with the premise, so I suppose I might actually be curious as to what happens with it.  I read in a message board Brad Pitt may be involved.  Ooooh.  It may turn out to be the next Fight Club!  Wouldn’t that be exciting!  Or extremely annoying!

    rating: 7/10


  • movie year countdown #10 - 1997 - In the Company of Men

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

    Surviving Desire  (1991)

    The Dark Knight  (2008)

    This blog entry is part of my “movie year countdown”.  To read more about that check out my first Spout filmblog entry.

    In the Company of Men

    The trailer of the movie says this: The most talked about film this year has no graphic sex, no physical violence, no natural disasters, nothing but harmless conversation.

    I'm not really sure if it was the most talked about movie that year, but as I had heard before seeing the movie, it does manage to give you that uncomfortable cringe factor.  And there is no sex actually shown, virtually no physical violence, and obviously no natural disasters unless you consider Fort Wayne, Indiana worthy of that description.

    Neil LaBute was previous to making this film, and still is I believe, a playwright and involved in the theatre.  This movie could have very well been a play but considering the style and technique made a worthy film too.  The locations are simple but effective.  There's a wonderful kind of focus and atmosphere.

    I read another review on Spout saying that the dialogue is not realistic.  Well while watching this movie I was immediately reminded of some of my other favorite directors like Hal Hatley and Whit Stillman.  The dialogue in these movies is not always realistic in that it is what most people would actually say.  But that is because people in real life often censor themselves or are not able to put their feeling and ideas succinctly.  I think LaBute and these other directors are able to take the truth of what a character is really feeling and put into their mouths what they would say if they could say it.  And to me that feels more realistic than real life if you get what I mean.

    Matt Malloy who plays one of the leads has actually been in many Hal Hartley movies, and I guess I just had not happened to see any of the ones he was in previous to this.  But LaBute mentions in the commentary he watched many of Hartley's movies to see Malloy's performance.  I saw Suriving Desire subsequent to this and realized how perfect he was for this.

    Aaron Eckhart is fantastic here.  You will see many comments on this movie that he may be the most evil character ever in a movie.  It's amazing to me that he can elicit that kind of response.  I find him evil yet strangely compelling.  Even likeable at times?  You can see how he got the role for Thank You for Smoking which I don't consider as good of a movie.  And after seeing this movie you will be able to tell exactly why he was cast as Two-Face in the upcoming Batman movie.  He's already proven that he can play two-faced.  Actually he a lot more than two faces.  He has quite a few faces in this film.

    Something about the ending to me and that wild jazz music was just about perfect too.

    Rating: 9/10


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<July 2007>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
24252627282930
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930311234


Categories
 


Advertisement