Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

solafekxela Blog

Reviews

Reviews of movies
 
  • Oblivious, I Remain

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

    British filmmaker Paul Morrison hasn’t been working in the industry for long, but his first feature film, Solomon and Gaenor, was well received and earned an Oscar nomination for best foreign film in 2000. Both this and his latest effort, Wondrous Oblivion, deal with the culture clashes faced by Jewish people in post-World War II society. Whereas his debut was a tragic and heartfelt love story, Wondrous Oblivion is a more lighthearted portrayal of a young child desperately seeking his place in the world.

    Eleven-year-old David Wiseman wants nothing more than to be the next great cricket player. His passion, displayed relatively quickly in the film through his adoration for the figures pictured on his many trading cards, is undeniable. However, like many ambitious young athletes, he’s, well, not very good. This, a problem faced by many prepubescent boys, is probably the most relatable aspect of an otherwise distant film.

    1960s London provides the backdrop for the tale of this young lad seeking the approval of his friends and parents. The neighborhood the Wiseman family inhabits is filled with hateful, prejudiced people who condemn any sort of interracial interaction.  When an exuberant Jamaican family moves in next door, David is delighted to find them to be helpful cricket experts. His parents (particularly his father), however, are quite hesitant to allow their son to grow too close to these foreign people.

    Clearly, there are two central dilemmas at the heart of the film. The first is David’s struggle to channel his natural talent and become a respectable cricket player. The second, far less nuanced and interesting, is whether or not the family should break the racial barriers of the neighborhood and try to welcome the Samuels family.

    When, early on, the captain for David’s cricket team is announced, the boy is saddened by the selection of one of his classmates. His father’s reaction, in particular, is notable, asking “why aren’t you the captain?”.  David knows the answer is quite simple - he’s not good enough. This moment feels so truthful to the sort of pressure parents ignorantly force upon their young athletes that I really wanted to appreciate what the entire film had to say. However, it isn’t long before it becomes a predictable, overly polished retelling of clichéd stories that have overstayed their due in the film industry.

    The excitement of David’s growing success at cricket is overshadowed by the racial stereotypes that plague the interactions between the two families. It’s obvious that Morrison is trying to break down these societal, cultural barriers, but he paints both families with such broad strokes that it’s hard to find anything new to learn about these important issues.

    The visual style is another matter that really drags down any potential for nuance.  He keeps almost everything in the frame in focus, uses vibrant colors to accentuate the cultural celebration he aims for, and fills many shots with obvious metaphors of the racial clashes he depicts. Every frame is so polished, so on-the-nose that it is hard to believe there is any subtlety lurking beneath the surface.

    While actors like Delroy Lindo as Dennis Samuels and Emily Woof as Ruth are solid in their roles, they aren’t given much to do by the derivative script. I do admire the way Morrison seems to be quite passionate about the particular issues he explores in his films, but I was disappointed to discover that Wondrous Oblivion had nothing new to offer me about the plight of Jewish people in modern society and the way they clash with other cultures.

  • Movies 101: Leading Men

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

    The Right Stuff  (1983)

    Glory Road  (2006)

    Poseidon  (2006)

    Movies 101 is the NYU Film Course long moderated by Professor Richard Brown.  The “Leading Men” series includes some of the finest working actors, as well as Josh Lucas. Each interview covers nearly every aspect of the actors’ respective careers, from the good, to the bad, to the ugly. This, of course, excludes Lucas, whose interview can only go so far in trying to make the man seem bearably competent.

    George Clooney’s hour-long interview is first on the disc, and it is by far one of the most engaging. Clooney is, redundant as this sounds, naturally charming and charismatic. His great sense of humor is often overlooked, but Brown lets him run free, often chuckling at his subject’s one-liners. With this interview in particular, Brown’s knowledge about film really allows him to discuss in-depth the thought process that went into each film of Clooney’s. Now having directed his own films and having started a production company with good friend Steven Soderbergh, Clooney provides profound insight into the way Hollywood works. However, this does, to some degree, prevent him from really diving into the way he works as an actor. Much more time is spent discussing his work as a director, screenwriter, and producer. Perhaps this interview would fit better on a different disc. Still, the new information about Clooney’s childhood as well as his humility in discussing his work and aspirations make this well worth watching.

    Next is Josh Lucas, who can aptly be described as a poor man’s McConaughey.  Comparing him to Clooney in terms of acting skills and personality is like comparing Martin Scorsese to Michael Bay. One is very personal and involved in his projects; the other is a complete sell-out. Thankfully, the interview is salvaged by Lucas’ own admission that he is by no means one of the greatest working actors.  The discussion of his work in films like Poseidon and Glory Road just doesn’t have the same weight as that of the other actors on the disc. Though he is able to discuss with some intelligence his own philosophy on films and the meaning of those in which he has acted, the interview only highlights his own pomposity, since all the discussion is more about him than his acting. The line that best summarizes his incompetence is the following, “I don’t know how method-y I am.” I’m not sure Lucas knows what method acting is.

    Following Lucas is heavyweight Daniel Day-Lewis, whose recent performance in There Will Be Blood proved him the greatest, most daring actor working today. Day-Lewis is quite private, so just the privilege to interview him is an honor and undoubtedly a momentous occasion.  The discussion mostly follows his limited but much acclaimed resume, and the talk of his early work is particularly fascinating. He exhibits a personality not often seen in his few available interviews, and their conversation about his experience with the Royal Shakespeare Company is quite engaging.  I was most curious to hear about Day-Lewis’ recent work, largely because I am more familiar with it,  and the interview provides decent insight. The focus on his relationship with Martin Scorsese is well-covered, as is his rationale for working so infrequently.


    The last interview on the disc is with Dennis Quaid, a largely overlooked but very talented actor.  The film discussed in the most depth during the interview is The Right Stuff, undoubtedly one of Quaid’s greatest roles. His comments are candid, genuine, and informative, though he’s not naturally as engaging a speaker as the other interviewees. Some of the stories Quaid shares aren’t as relevant to the discussion as he may think, but they aren’t necessarily uninteresting. Since I’m naturally fascinated with Quaid, his work, and the decisions he has made, I really enjoyed hearing his thoughts as well as Brown’s perspective on his career. This interview is decidedly more focused on Quaid’s life than his specific acting methodology, and it is all the better for it. However, there is a fair amount of talk on Quaid’s early movie experiences, and it is so nostalgia-infused that it proves the most exciting part of the interview.


  • A Film By Who?

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

    Carol's Journey  (2002)

    Carol’s Journey, pretentiously billed as “A Film By Imanol Urbie” (honestly, are we supposed to know who this guy is) is a surprisingly cold, unimaginative, dull film about a little girl from New York who joins her mother on a trip to Spain at the height of that nation’s Civil War. Though made in 2002, I could have been convinced that Urbie sat down to watch Pan’s Labyrinth, then determined he should make another film. What could it be about? Charming little girl in Spain? Check. Period Piece set in the Civil War? Check. Dysfunctional family? Check. Beautiful cinematography, mind-blowing originality and inventiveness, and devastating ending? Whoops!


    In all fairness, four years separate the two productions, but that doesn’t make the comparison unhealthy. Pan’s is a film that took the troubles of a girl much similar to Carol and placed them in an exciting, surprising world. Carol’s Journey  is a clichéd mess without a head or a heart, an entirely numbing bore.  Sadly, what took me out of the film the most, as silly as it sounds, is the actress who plays Carol, Clara Lago. Though I am at this point unable to evaluate her potential for greatness, she, quite simply, looks a little bit like a boy. I am embarrassed to admit that I had such a problem with the appearance of a young actress, but I really could not get past her unisexual haircut and boyish habits. Above all, it made an adolescent romance with young Tomiche disingenuous and incredulous, rendering the emotional core of the film, well, core-less.


    There is very little to say about the film, because it, itself, has very little to say about life. Carol goes on a journey. Bad stuff happens. Good stuff happens. More bad, more good, more bad. The end. Sure that is the basic premise to every film, but most others don’t drawn attention to their simplicity in the way this film does.  It is hard to believe that Uribe has been making films since the golden era of movies (the seventies), since there is nothing masterful or ambitious about this undertaking. He is quoted as saying, “It seemed to me a challenge to make a film with children, in which important and serious things are counted.” I’m pretty sure just about every film fits this criterion. That’s right, every single film. Go ahead and throw one at me, out of the randomizer: Airplane! - ok, so there are kids on the plane, people are going to die if they can’t find someone who can fly a plane and didn’t have fish for dinner - check and check. How about another: Casablanca - well maybe I’m being a bit too figurative, but “Here’s lookin’ at you kid” says it all.


    It is unfortunate that I must be so harsh on a filmmaker who clearly wanted to tell an exciting, important story. However, next time he should consider that wanting to tell an exciting, important story is the first step in making a pretentious, often eye-roll-inducing film.  Placing the weight of a film on the shoulders of two young actors is an admirable undertaking, but the ambition of a film has no effect on its success. A movie as seemingly pointless as Airplane! can be just as successful as Casablanca in terms of what it tried and managed to achieve. Next time, Uribe should consider this loophole of sorts in the medium of film, instead telling an even less purposeful film, perhaps involving adults. This is a feat I sincerely hope he can manage.


  • Man on Fire

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

    The Natural  (1984)

    The Rocket  (2007)

    Prodigal director Steven Soderbergh is quoted as saying what he hates the most is when every part of a movie looks the same. It is this crime, though, that many times the otherwise original, inventive independent films are guilty of. Ironically, Soderbergh’s career was birthed from this circle, and many of his early films were a bit monotone. It is a great treat, then, when such a film is able to blend imaginative story with inventive visuals. The Rocket, directed by Charles Binamé, is just such a film.

    Though natively from Belgium, Binamé is a Quebecer director who has a very distinct cinematic eye that should be given a look at broader fare.  However, backhanded compliments aside, The Rocket is a superb hockey film, a spectacular sports movie, and all together a really good effort.

    Playing legendary hockey player Maurice “The Rocket” Richard is Roy Dupuis, who embodies the man with sincerity and precision.  Richard may not be as familiar to Americans as Gretzky or Lemieux, but he is almost indisputably the best player to come out of Quebec.  However, the film is more than just his story. It tackles the complexities and atrocities of the National Hockey League during the Great Depression (and beyond), as well as the era in general.  Though this time period has been handled well in dozens of films, there is much more that allows this film to live up to the legend it replays.

    For one, the way Binamé shoots the hockey scenes is just marvelous. I’m not sure a sporting event has been captured so majestically since, well, ever.  It’s certainly not the best sports film ever made, but it belongs among the ranks of them.  The ultimate test for a sports movie is simple: is the game captured in a more exciting way than it is broadcast on television? The answer, in this case, is a defiant yes.  I’m a huge hockey fan, but I can assuredly say that I may prefer revisiting this film to watching some live games.  

    Despite the magical quality of much of the film, it is not without its faults. Some scenes feel a little clichéd, such as, early on, when an employer confronts Richard about the financial situation of his family.  Also, the film becomes a little redundant in that many of the scenes don’t necessarily say anything new about Richard the man or the environment he inhabited.

    However, the ending of The Rocket can only be compared to one other sports film, The Natural.  Poignant, heart-pounding, and majestic, the ultimate fate of Richard is not what makes the conclusion so perfect. Rather, it is the way Binamé brilliantly captures the brutality of the sport in a way that is true to the story and, particularly, the character himself.

    The Rocket is an invigorating, enlightening, enthralling film about the culture built around one man and the era he embodied.   It leaves little unanswered about his life, and, more significantly, about the state of professional hockey.  Extrapolating the conditions expressed in the film, one can imagine just how wonderfully reflective it is of the nature of sports in general.  It was money that drove the managers, but resolve that impassioned Richards.

  • Film Loses 'Sight'

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

    No End in Sight  (2007)

    Craig Ferguson’s film on the Iraq war has been called a documentary, an exposé, and an indictment.  In a way, it is all three. He provides many factual accounts from those involved in the decision-making, combat, and reporting of the war.  He exposes the actions of several politicians and key planners, and, quite clearly, their mistakes.  He then accuses such authorities of making a grave mistake that cost Americans and innocent Iraqis thousands of lives.

    No End in Sight begins with a Donald Rumsfeld press conference in which he emphasizes that the war is simply too complex for most Americans to understand.  In the following thirty minutes, Ferguson successfully disproves that statement with engaging insight into the mistakes that were made in the early planning stages of the war, most of them by Rumsfeld, Bush, and by the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), which was doomed from the start.  The first act of the film is gripping, informative, and, above all, incredibly frustrating.  I couldn’t help but want to get up from my seat, reach through the screen, and strangle some of the men on screen.  Naivety, ignorance, and laziness are inexcusable characteristics of men making such important decisions regarding the fate of several countries, including their own.

    As soon as I was good and fired up, though, the film encounters some major pacing-related problems.  Edited by Chad Beck and Cindy Lee, the film begins to feel like endless successions of talking heads incessantly describing every mistake made regarding the war. By the end of the second act, the film had become so redundant and repetitive that I had been desensitized to any potentially emotional and frightening revelations later on.  As the men on screen argue, though not directly to each other, about the proper terminology and sequence of events, Ferguson gets bogged down in a world of nearly incomprehensible information. Maybe someone who took a very keen interest in all the political and military details would be fascinated by these endless ramblings, but I was nothing more than bored by it.

    Regardless, it is clear that Ferguson and the editors know what they are doing, for the most part.  Narration by Campbell Scott, a severely underrated actor, is very well placed. He never just describes what we are seeing, but serves as a way to complement the images with new information.  Most of the storytelling in a documentary happens in the editing room, and, despite the aforementioned issues, its pretty spectacular. When text is used to reveal information, the haunting score disappears, emboldening the usually devastating information. 

    Also remarkable is the way Ferguson refuses to make villains of Bush or Rumsfeld, a huge fault of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11.  Sure he exposes their angering leadership in-capabilities and negligence, but he never proposes that they are the enemies. They simply made very poor decisions that had overwhelmingly tragic consequences.

    No End in Sight provides plenty of information that will be new to most Americans in a way that is sometimes compelling but often times numbing.  The biggest problem I had with it was, at the end, when Ferguson decided to tell the stories of some injured Veterans. It was not so much the way he did so as the effect it did, or rather didn’t have on me. I was so taken out of the film by all the stuffy politicians and experts that I could make no emotional connection to these victims of the war.  Still, the incompetence he exposes makes the film worth seeing, if only for a dose of pessimism that will make everyone hope for nothing but an end. B-

  • Mumblecore Shmumblecore?

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

    LOL  (2007)

    Joe Swanberg’s latest mumblecore film examines the relationships of three men, Tim, Chris, and Alex, and their addiction to technology.  Swanberg is considered a forerunner of the mumblecore movement, a term given to films of the new millennium that are independent, usually shot digitally, and portray the lives of twenty-somethings through improvisation and non-professional acting. LOL of course fits that criteria, delving into how the men seek satisfaction in internet relationships, cell phones, and other technology.  As if the film’s title wasn’t indicative enough, it’s clearly a film for the twenty-first century, though certainly not for everybody.

    Along with the staples of mumblecore films, Swanberg’s own flavor permeates the film. Artistic, uncomfortable, and somewhat gratuitous nudity attempts to put the audience directly in the mind of the helpless men.  Swanberg, also headlining the cast as Tim, joins C. Mason Wells and Kevin Bewersdorf as the film’s trio.  The digital, cinema-verité style of the film is complemented by these non-actors, creating scenes that are tonally perfect.  Many are quick  to criticize the mumblecore movement for realistically dull portrayals of often seemingly pathetic characters. Swanberg clearly avoids any such pitfalls with a compassion for all everyone on the screen, even if just another girl on the internet.
    That said, there certainly are faults within the technique of this film in particular. Since it deals with so much online video content, the entire movie being filmed digitally de-emphasizes these portions. Additionally, the way the film is edited is certainly distracting, with several jump cuts just within one scene, or even one shot.  It breaks up the film and causes it to lose some grounding in reality, when all Swanberg was attempting to do was make it feel more like a documentary.  As for the cinematography, despite its simplicity, at times it feels like the issues and commentary are being forced. Several shots indiscreetly force us to look at women the way these men do, which causes discomfort and, instead, took me out of the mind of the characters.  It is this manipulation and heavy-handedness that diminish the impact of the film, along with the limited scope and somewhat obvious message, that is. 

    Still, there is quite a lot to be said for young filmmakers like Swanberg who certainly take risks with subject matter, if not with budget and style.  If it is not the content that shocks, then certainly the way it is told will be refreshing to those bombarded from Jerry Bruckheimer movie coasters.  And if neither the subject nor the approach shock you, then at least the film is sure to leave you exposed and informed about the way these twenty-something truly live in the digital age.  The film is as realistic a depiction of modern communication as one can imagine, seeping with relevance and brevity.

    It is because of the passion exhibited by Swanberg in LOL that my curiosity about the mumblecore movement is at least piqued.  Unlike the now stereotypically categorized indie dramedy a la Little Miss Sunshine, not a shred of contempt can be found; nor does Swanberg take pleasure in the struggles of others. I truly got the sense that Swanberg was almost too familiar with the world he portrays in the film; it frightened me to consider putting myself in his position. Whether or not I’m ready to sit down and watch another of Swanberg’s explicit tellings (Kissing on the Mouth, Hannah Takes the Stairs) is another story, so my excitement is certainly restrained.  LOL is an intriguing if not captivating entry for anyone looking to explore modern, emerging film techniques.

 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<December 2009>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
293012345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
3456789


Categories
 


Advertisement