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

SlipOfTheTongue Blog

  • Slow Movin' Train

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

    THE STATION AGENT is such a quiet little film that it is only now registering on my radar.  That's a shame.  It was actually released 4 years ago, winning Independent Spirit and Sundance awards.  It isn't ground-breakingly original but it is restrained and somewhat poetic without feeling repressed.  In the first half hour, this film introduces characters who seem poised to jump headlong into heavy characature but then, as if going to the edge of suicide bridge and deciding not to jump, they all just stand back and observe the murky waters and ponder things for a while.  

    I wonder if most people really appreciate understated films like this.  The movie, like its main character Fin (Peter Dinklage), keeps its cards close to the chest.  In fact, all three main characters opt for restraint in their struggle against loneliness.  Instead of opening up, they pull back.  They disappear from each other's lives (albeit temporarily).  They protect us from their own inner turmoil, choosing instead to dwell on momentary pleasures like train watching (Fin), or painting (Olivia / Patricia Clarkson).  Even the goofy, open hearted Joe (Bobby Cannavale) is restrained in his own way.  At first, his childlike overatures serve to wear down the psychological defenses of Fin and Olivia until they have no choice but to become his friend.  Later as they open up a little Joe stands back and observes.  It's an interesting juxtaposition.

    One might mistakenly think that the film doesn't care that Fin is a dwarf (little person), but it's relevant to the viewing experience.  One spends much of the film looking at the angular, full-sized proportions of Fin's face, noticing the dignity in his eyes and then contrasting all of that to the size of his body.  You find yourself noticing how well Fin folds into a train-yard landscape or a shot of a country meadow.  Although part of his problem is that he is a dwarf and can't stand people staring at him, we are doing just that.  I doubt we would last the long silences and detached stares that are a signature of this film without having trains and dwarfs to look at.  Just a side note...I think I might like to go live in a train depot myself for a while like Fin.  There is an almost mythical quality to his journey.  

    If THE STATION AGENT were changed even slightly (no train yards, dwarfs, or pudgy little next door neighbor girls) it might throw the whole thing out of whack.  It could have easily become too depressing.  Without the restraint shown in direction, performance and script, it could have been a wallowing mess.  Luckily, it isn't any of that.  Actually, it's sort of a gem. 

     

     

     


  • Tension and Release

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

    Pulse  (2001)

    Pulse  (2006)

    PULSE (2001, a.k.a. Kairo) isn't particularly scary but it does a pretty good job of creating a sense of impending doom.  The film is another in the long string of arguments in favor of evoking tension and mood rather than over explaining or clobbering the audience with exposition.  Things happen slowly in this movie.  That's not necessarily a bad thing but the payoff isn't a big one in terms of scares.  Instead the film aims for creating a sense of doom and gloom that hangs rather substantially over the entire second half.  It's not quite enough but it is interesting and at times chilling to watch.  We know that something is happening in Tokyo, something that involves ghosts crossing over into our world and sucking unsuspecting victims into its own but we are never really told what is literally going on.  It's all speculation on the part of the main characters.  

    I don't suppose one really needs a true explanation though and it does help that many of the scenes are visually stark and creepy in a way that has more to do with color desaturation and tonal restraint than with giving away everything and the kitchen sink.

    The American remake (2006, also called PULSE) has some inventive visual effects but goes too far in the other direction.  Everything is literalized until we just don't care anymore about anything or anyone.

    If the original is a tease and we're just not sure we are getting enough out of the seduction then the remake is someone who sleeps with you on the first date and you're sorry afterward that you did it.  I don't strongly recommend the original but it does have its moments.  The remake deserves a pass.  It's the kind of movie you walk out on even though you wasted 11 bucks.

    http://www.spout.com/films/192610/default.aspx
    http://www.spout.com/films/260502/default.aspx

  • Cube Squared

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

    Cube  (1997)

    The Cube series is quite a lot of fun if you like thoughtful, low budget horror and it has the following going for it...

    1.) Intriguing use of single room location.
    2.) Characters from all walks of life thrown together are forced to rely on (and trust) one another.
    3.) Open ended discussion of what the cube could be lets your mind disengage from reality and imagine the worst.
    4.) Open ended fears allow characters to deviate from their societal facades and become their true horrific (or good) selves.
    5.) Imaginitive deaths keep the body count high and create a sense of anticipation for next victim.

    The original (CUBE) is better than the sequel (CUBE 2: HYPERCUBE).  The third film is not being reviewed here but is a prequel of sorts and is said to go outside the cube and into the control room of those conducting the "experiment".

    The location and basic set up of the Cube series consists of the following.  A group of strangers is deposited into the belly of a giant cube.  There are doors in the floor, ceiling, and on all four sides.  It's a simple set.  Everytime the captives escape into another room the same set is used but is dressed differently.  Over time, it is revealed that the structure is a much larger cube consisting many individual cube-like rooms.  These rooms are moving and there is only one way out.  Of course it takes the better part of the entire movie for the characters to discover all of this and in that time they go from being politely guarded with one another to (in some cases) cut throat, back stabbing murderers.  Along the way there is a fair amount of confusion and speculation about why they are all there.  And there are gruesome deaths.  The cube is a prickly pear and very unforgiving.

    In the first film, the cube is made up of colored rooms providing a simple but visually diverting look.  The cube is a physical structure that exists in three dimensions and can (theoretically) be escaped if you can get to the one room with a doorway that meets the bridge to the outside world at just the right time.  In the sequel, the cube is all white and very sterile.  It is revealed to be a "hypercube" that exists in four dimensions.  This allows for all sorts of interesting possibilities concerning the relativity of time and space.  The first film is rather weak on dialogue but has a serious moral center as the characters speculate about why the Kafkaesque structure was built and who is responsible.  There is a sense of moral futility evident in CUBE as each character must decide the value of his or her own life relative to the lives of the others in the group.

    In some ways CUBE 2 is more accomplished and polished but it is also more emotionally removed.  I'm sure the relativity of time and space could be as scary as rooms that slice and dice you, but the screen writers of the second film haven't explored interesting ways to make the sequel as chilly as it might have been.  The newness of the cube concept has worn off slightly and the characters (though more believable) are no more compelling then those in the first film.

    Though CUBE never lets us know who is really behind the building of the structure, every other detail in the movie is fairly concrete.  They are trapped in a rat's maze but there is a way out if they can find it.  There is an elemental brutality evident in the first film whereas the second is more talky and theoretical though at times fascinating to watch.

    I can't imagine the third film being better than the first two.  Half the fun is not knowing what the hell is going on and discovering it slowly with the characters.

    http://www.spout.com/films/114680/default.aspx
    http://www.spout.com/films/222190/default.aspx

  • Changing of the Guard

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

    The Queen  (2006)

    THE QUEEN brings so many relevant issues to the table.  The growing pains of the British Monarchy can be seen as a metaphor for larger struggles that all governments face to remain relevant in a world increasingly driven by the media and the insurmountable tidal wave of of public opinion that it can create.

    Among the questions raised (or implied) in this movie are...

    What balance can a Monarchy maintain in tandem with the people's government and how do both institutions serve the public good?  What is the importance of tradition in modern society when such tradition may not be in step with sensibilities of the present?  To what degree is compromise a necessity in such modern relationships?  Finally, to what degree does the media control and perhaps create all public perception throughout the world today?  (Does it serve the public or control it by forcing all parties to acknowledge the media rather than follow their own hearts and minds?)

    THE QUEEN is a character drama and rather simple in construct.  Helen Mirren plays Queen Elizabeth II (in a tight and disciplined performance) and the story follows her actions (and reactions) following the death of Princess Diana.  The script paints her as a proud and dignified leader who is out of touch with the present.  Though her actions seem callous, there is an old school logic to the way she responds to Diana's death.  Cleverly, the script paints Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) as a sympathetic character who seems to understand both sides of the issue.  It is through Elizabeth's personal secretary that he begins to understand the Queen's proud belief that the British people wanted a strong leader who would mourn with dignity in private following Diana's death. 

    The story tracks Blair's attempts to balance the needs of the country against those of the Monarchy.  We see how he is the one to finally confront Elizabeth with the notion that her approach is not working.  The story then follows Elizabeth as she begins to accept that to suffer compromise (or "humiliation" as she puts it to Blair) is the only way ultimately to regain the affection of the public.  This would in turn be good for England.  The lovely thing is that when Elizabeth finally capitulates all is well again with her people.  We see that they do truly love her.  Despite their nature to be critical of the British Monarchy it is a long standing relationship filled with positive affection and respect.

    The story is deceptively simple.  The narrative technique (of using video clips of Diana's funeral, and keeping many characters off screen in favor of more screen time for Mirren) is ultimately a smart one.  However, it does feel at times like you are watching something that would work better as a play, the focus falls so squarely on Elizabeth and Blair.  The amazing thing to see is how the Queen finally gives in and how she and Blair both learn from one another.  It seems there is hope for both tradition and human emotion in the relationships between the ruling classes of the future.  

    The irony is that as the debacle of the Iraq war continues the public is giving Blair the same kind of thumping that they gave Elizabeth in this film.  it seems that no one is ever fully beyond reproach in this world.  The public seems to have the need to both destroy and forgive its public figures simultaneously. 

    We all have days and weeks that we must necessarily lose our battles and look the fool.  To paraphrase Blair's statement to Elizabeth concerning her loss of face with the public, this was only one small incident in an otherwise lengthy and grand career.  It seems we all have chance for a reprieve in life if we keep plugging away and wait for the wheel to turn.


  • Spider-Man 3: The Big Picture

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

    Spider-Man 3  (2007)

    So much has already already been written about SPIDER-MAN 3 that it feels almost crass to jump in at this point.  Aw heck, here goes.  Riddle me this...how much energy can one culture possibly put into bashing a movie that actually has something positive to say about friendship, loyalty, and responsibility?  I often wonder what negativity shows about the blogger/reviewer/writer and I end up liking these flawed movies a little more because of the intensity of the attacks upon them.  Why do we get off on ripping things apart?  It's true that entropy is the natural state of the universe.  Things are constantly in a state of decay, molecules flying apart, matter decomposing and reconstituting itself.  One has to try very hard to stay positive these days or even to enjoy a pleasant if somewhat flawed two hour diversion inside an air conditioned movie theater.  Man, you need a shark cage to make a summer movie these days.

    In the grand scheme of things SPIDER-MAN 3 is not a great movie but it's not a bad one either.  The visual effects are impressive (they've improved over the first two films).  The Goblin sub-plot gets wrapped up (thank goodness).  Sandman is pretty cool (his first transformation is quite beautiful).  We also see the further progression in Peter Parker's character.  The movie throws a lot at us and considering the running time (2 hours, 20 minutes) it moves along at a relatively good clip.  Yes it is weepy.  There is a lot of crying.  There are too many "asides" which take us away from the story (Kirsten Dunst performing on stage, Tobey Maguire doing his Bob Fosse imitation, etc.) and Topher Grace looks ridiculous as he morphs in and out of his Venom look but let's try to look at this movie in a larger context for a minute.  

    Sam Raimi quite possibly hit his creative peak (career-wise) with SPIDER-MAN 2 back in '04.  If you followed his career then you know that his early films were fantastically fun (THE EVIL DEAD and EVIL DEAD 2) but also very raw.  They were low budget ventures and almost felt like student films.  In the years that followed, Raimi struggled at times to create balanced, entertaining big budget films.

    SPIDER-MAN and SPIDER-MAN 2 both had the creative dynamism present in his early films (lots of sweeping camera moves and actor physicality) but both films also had strong thematic components woven into their major plot-lines and sub-plots.  The films were polished and both (especially SPIDER-MAN 2) succeeded on many levels (casting, performance, visual effects, music, editing, even writing).  SPIDER-MAN 2 was an incredibly well thought out movie in particular.  

    In some of Raimi's other studio films (I'm thinking DARKMAN) the style was so overwrought and the characters so over the top that one really was hard pressed to go along for the ride.  Raimi has also been a producer on a lot of cheesy t.v. series (Hercules,Young Hercules, Xena, M.A.N.T.I.S.) as well as a bunch of fair to crappy movies (such as BOOGEYMAN and BOOGEYMAN 2).  He's had a few successes as a producer (THE GRUDGE) but my point here is that we are not talking about a prolifically brilliant filmmaker, at least not based on what we have seen so far.  As a director he struggles to balance polish / professionalism against the raw, instinctive impulses he displayed as a kid.

    So I say, let's be grateful for the terrific job that he has done overall with the Spider-Man franchise.  He has stuck to his assignment and with loving care has created an energetically realized, believable, emotional franchise.  He stuck to his guns when everyone and their sister were criticizing him for casting Tobey Maguire (he was right and the world was wrong).  He was able to pull it off while working on a large scale canvass.  The pressure must have been considerable.  The studios always want you to compromise.  Raimi deserves a lot of credit for doing the job he has done when he could have easily screwed it up.

    Finally, let's remember that Spider-Man is actually about something.  It is not just here to entertain but to inform and Raimi knows that.  He stuck to that throughout all three films.  I long for the day when bloggers do not default to cynicism in order to prove how smart they are.  Cynicism and intelligence are not the same thing.  (I need to remember this too at times.)  Nothing can touch us from behind our internet shield.  We are so very smart.  

    Our anonymity doesn't free us from the responsibility of being fair.  Let's remember the movie's message as well as the package it came in.  With great power comes great responsibility.  The platform of the internet is similar to the freedom we enjoy as Americans.  It means nothing unless we are fair when we use it.  


  • Looking for Comedy, Not Finding Any

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

    Poor Albert Brooks - I love him but this film is a mostly sideways venture that offers only a few chuckles and no real insight into the nature of comedy.  From the Penny Marshall scene forward I was just hoping this thing would take off but it never does.  Was this just a paycheck?  I guess we all need to work.

 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<May 2007>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
293012345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
3456789


Categories
 


Advertisement