The_American_Dream Blog

Slumdog Millionaire

The_American_Dream — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:12:09 GMT

This really was an incredible film. It is rare that film can truly balance everything that you want in a movie; there seems always to be a short coming, but "Slumdog Millionaire" does not have one. The plot of "Slumdog Millionaire" is really very simple, at least at its most basic. It is that story, even when you have seen it again and again, that when it is done right, really makes you believe that there is hope in the world against all adversity.

So this kid lives in the slums of India, and he has battled all manor of terrible events, just to get back to the true love of his life. "Atonement" tried this last year (well, not the slums of India part, but that does not really matter) and "Atonement" was awful. "Atonement" and "Slumdog Millionaire" have a lot in common besides their stories, even despite the face that one was excellent and the other was atrocious. They are both stunningly beautiful, have this age old plot, are Oscar nominees, and do not really make you laugh that much. There are more similarities but they are less important. When "Atonement" tried to accomplish these things, even in the scope of the stage it used to present it; a war, about 70 years of a characters life, sex in a library, et cetera, it could not bring to the audience into the passion of the plight for these characters. "Slumdog Millionaire" has, in some cases, similar scope; we meet the characters three times in their lives, and they walk and hitch-hike on trains all over a subcontinent. The difference lies in the directors.

It seems characteristic of Joe Wright to be somewhat disconnected from his subject; Wright sets you in their world but does not have the audacity to throw his characters in the audiences face, challenging their opinion of a world they do not know. Joe Wright's "Pride & Prejudice" was the same; while his concise, and beautiful telling was a nice departure from the 1995 version made for television, the actors in Wright's telling (all of them A-list in my opinion) did not bring the weight of 1995 version. Additionally, the performances in the 1995 version were spread over 5 hours of film. Wright's upcoming film, "The Soloist" looks good in trailers, but will be no different.

Danny Boyle, on the other hand, is uncompromising when he tells a story. Even in his less moving work "Sunshine", Boyle forced the audience to see eye to eye and into the souls of his characters. "Sunshine" is not really a great movie, more a cool movie that is awesome to see in theaters, but when I compare it to other Sci-Fi epics like Soderbergh's "Solaris", one really feels close to the characters. Needless to say, this comes from Danny Boyle's characteristic close-ups and sharp as a razor light shows. Danny Boyle has found a way to bring a character to the audience in an unusual way that makes a story stick in a viewers mind. Further more, Boyle does not seem limited by the talent of the like Chris Evans.

To speak specifically to this movie is difficult, it seems to me to be unique despite its reused parts. The screenplay by Simon Beaufoy has enough spins on the accepted story that this one is totally new. Some of these spins sent drops of dramatic blood into the veins of "Slumdog Millionaire"; scenes of hardships faced by the children in India made some in the audience gasp, but what else would you expect from a developing nation. The scenes of the slums in "Slumdog Millionaire" were far more moving than those in the documentary "Born into Brothels". Also, the spin that the game-show has in this movie provides a sort of backbone that other films do not have. There are three plots moving throughout most of this film, and when they harmoniously meet at the end, it really brings emotion off the screen. These gems of originality set "Slumdog Millionaire" apart from many other films I've seen.

"Slumdog Millionaire" deserves all the honour it can get from the Hollywood crowd. This seems a year that one of the more independent films can finally take the big prize. Not only does "Slumdog Millionaire" have everything and more that one would want from any Best Picture film, "Slumdog Millionaire" has originality and depth that set it apart from many films this year or any year.

Important and Tumultuous Periods of History? Who Cares!

The_American_Dream — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:52:39 GMT

There is not a great deal to be said for this movie. And it is not because of the sex which is what I was afraid of. But I hoped that this one would, in its epic standing, that it would pull a large amount of material across time and people to make it interesting. Unfortunatly "Summer Palace" is really more than a let down to the point of almost being a waste.

"Summer Palace" swings back and forth from what it gets made out to be. That being and political and sex charged drama spanning most of the dramatic periods in China's history. Well strictly speaking, it does that. This story of people does weave itself (or rather its characters) across distance and events rather completely. However, maybe only half way in or slightly more I was really wondering why I was supposed to care.

Frankly, this is something that can be done very well and in a manner where I really do care. "A Beautiful Mind" is an example of a movie about people that really does span events and changes very well. "A Beautiful Mind" is perhaps not as politically charged as a modern Chinese drama is bound to be, but that is not the point here. "Summer Palace" really wants to tell a story about people and less about a time, this is what ramps it up to its 140 minute runtime, and it is really uninteresting.

"Summer Palace" wants its audience to feel the trails and hardships, internal and external, faced by a small group over the corse of more than a decade. What is wrong with that? Nothing really, only that every time some little thing happens it takes several minutes of a character at sunset trying to work out why their friend stole a book from the library. Needless to say, you are in for far more of this kind of stuff when say someone throws them self off a building.

There is also the pretense that this movie actually captures something about the time. Although it might, between dates, locations, stock footage, and an epilogue, there is not so much the emotion that one feels when there is actual empathy for the situation from the actors. "Across the Universe" encounters this, but makes up for it by being visually stunning beyond use of colors or focus (and also being very trippy). "Summer Palace" does in fact maintain genuinely good photography. However the constant recycling of formulaic shots does not make the movie any more interesting.

With all this, what is there really to say is good? Well not allot. at the start, interesting camera moves and a heavy grit did grab my attention. But for its qualities, "Summer Palace" really falls short of expectations unless you came just for the sex (which is mostly buried under the afore mentioned lengths of sunset shots). "Summer Palace", perhaps grasping at the greats of historical fiction in film such as "Forret Gump", and the epic romance such as "The English Patient", does not impress. "Summer Palace" falls below the films of its county of origin as well, which often speak more volumes about China's history (as in "Hero") and create more connection between actor and audience (despite all the Kung-Fu hullabaloo). So I have to give this movie an overall negative review, not that I am the first it seems.

Thanks to the Maven Group for Watching it, Now You Don't Have to

The_American_Dream — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:22:20 GMT

I suppose, there is not much keeping me from writing a review for this one where I try to make a case for both the good and bad aspects of it. But I am so inclined that "Sun Dogs" does not quite warrant that amount of open handedness to it. It is not easy to come down hard on a movie that was only just bad enough to come down hard on.

What can I say, "Sun Dogs" just does not do it for me. It seeks to prove allot of things it seems; like how Jamaica can have a sled-dog team as much as any nation can, a documentary can be made about anything, and the under-dog (couldn't help it) story is never easy which is why so many movies have that as their theme. These themes are admirable but hard to inspire emotion over which is why "Sun Dogs" fails.

Sure, Jamaica can have as many dogsled teams it wants. They all ready have their bobsled team. Obviously, "Cool Runnings" declares this story as Disney territory making "Sun Dogs" impossible to watch without reminding me how many times I saw "Cool Runnings" after school in second grade. A movie just cannot overcome something like "Cool Runnings" being before it, it makes the audience ask for originality from the filmmakers. I could not say that this is too bad because "Cool Runnings" has so much more than this movie, and "Cool Runnings" only has one narrative going, the ultimate goal of having a Jamaican bobsled team in the Olympics, that ultimate goal makes that movie go over a lot better. "Sun Dogs" really just chases its tail (again, couldn't help it) about starting a dogsled team.

This not only poses a problem with a narrative line, but also manifests itself in the documentary aspect of "Sun Dogs". A documentary needs to have an amount of drama, or thesis. Something that can inspire tension through out. There is some tension in this movie, it lasts barely ten minutes and you have to have watched an hour of the movie to get it. This is a real flaw in this movie that a truly good documentary would not forget about. So when "Sun Dogs" takes it upon itself to make a social commentary on Jamaica (that is not the drama I was talking about early, I'll get to that later), but does nothing with the conclusions it draws, it looses itself to better documentaries.

Finally, the story told here is only the most formulaic of all stories ever. Sure, every genre has a formula, but none so easy as the under-dog (there it is again) formula. Maybe if there was a bit more animosity against the team or within the team it would have been better. Just as formulaic but better. Once you've seen a movie like "Cool Runnings" you have seen "Sun Dogs".

After watching that, one is forced to shrug their shoulders and ask "Why was that so important?". And sometimes it is to bad because despite its many failings, "Sun Dogs" has allot to do with dedicated and impassioned people. But there is not enough really good stuff to get "Sun Dogs" going.

90 Minutes

Directed by Andrea Stewart

Palm Pictures

A Nasty Review of a Nasty Movie

The_American_Dream — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:50:52 GMT

When this on came out, there was some amount of talk about it, everyone had to say that this was a mediocre movie. That is the very best of what I can say for it. Not that "The Libertine" is the worst movie I've seen, it is just not at all good. Furthermore, what gets me like with other movies I say bad things about, it could have been better or at least it gave the pretense that it was a better movie.

At its immediate opening "The Libertine" seems like a perfect sort of costume-drama as well as an interesting portrait of an interesting person. A film lover can enjoy for the first several minutes a decent amount of cinematic beauty, and a portrayal of several interesting figures. However, before long this stops being so great. After entering "The Libertine", a muck dominates the screen and basic frame of the movie.

Muck, a color in about every shot of the picture. Sometimes this can be used well to bring out a time, a feeling, or a place. Directors have used this forever, something tells me that it is not that hard to do, but really hard to do just right. Recently HBO's "John Adams" used muck very effectively, but only occasionally. When every shot of a movie is dominated by the same colors each time, I only find myself loving the fact that I did not see this on in the theater where this would have been too much. It is very clear what the director seeks to do, bringing out the tones from period pieces of art such as the work of Vermeer. I have seen Vermeer done well and it does not look like "The Libertine". How long can one look into the same muddy puddle? Well not 114 minutes which is more than enough running time for this mucky movie.

However, I am not going to say that that was the worst part of the movie. What did pain my eyes more than anything else in the movie was Samantha Morton's performance. I did not see "Mister Lonely" it looked okay, but it was her performance in the trailer that really turned me away. She looked painfully familiar when I first saw her in this, now I have more reason to not see other movies featuring her this prominently. Never has a performance been more dry and uninterestingly delivered as this one.

But I will try not to pin all the blame on her (only most of it), the rest of the performances is smeared among several of my favorite actors; Johnny Depp, Tom Hollander, John Malkovich, and even Jack Davenport. All make the best of what they are given (as I am sure that Ms. Morton did), but none falls harder than Depp who the movie leans on for support without giving its main character enough to hold it up. Where a tour-de-force would be, a struggling cast of top-notch actors is left. In the end, the is simply unfortunate.

However, I feel it necessary not to pin to much to one person or group. Obviously, at some point on the line, a writer has some blame in not being able to create enough for this movie. The best lines of the script seem to be prose from the Earl of Rochester's own works, something greater, although apparently not much greater, than this movie. Perhaps not the whole movie but certainly the last two acts.

At first, or rather, the first act of "The Libertine" seems good all things considered. There is good and lively character exposition, while not forgetting to point out what sort of disgusting people the movie revolves around. All this is generally very good, it could even be relished in a movie. But when the second act stumbles in, all there is is an amount of filth with nothing to balance it out, the movie looses sight of any kind of solid matter for the opportunity to show off its already evident themes. Any audience knows what the movie is about by the time "The Libertine" takes the opportunity to throw it in your face again and again. Finally, the brief third act steps in, with nothing more good to bring to the screen. The third act comes through in two of its own wakes, the first really really bad, the second only really bad. The audience suffers through the disgusting end of John Wilmot's life just wishing he had died sooner (which is a terrible thing to say, especially for Johnny Depp's role). Finally when he does die, an ending must be slapped on so that the filmmakers can feel like it actually was meaningful. Since deep down they knew it wasn't at all meaning full, they put another one in slightly earlier.

Unfortunately, I have nothing much good to say for this movie. I wish that it was mediocre. If it was, it would have been better than this. I did not like it, which, as John Wilmot made clear at the beginning, was exactly what he wanted. Damn him.

The Marriage of Character and Story

The_American_Dream — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:40:31 GMT

FORWARD: Once again, I am perusing deeper themes while looking at only a few movies. However, this review will probably not serve as a review per-say, where an amount of discussion is spent over the qualities of the movies. The movies cited are as examples to discuss deeper themes of character and qualities attributed to a movies plot.

"The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" is to be my chief example for this review, for the reason that after speaking with an individual who had seen some of this movie they had come to the conclusion that they did not like it based on the personification of the characters. In this movies case, the question can be honestly raised, whether or not that was the point. The facts of "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" are well researched, and it is therefore evident that what this film is laying down is an amount of truth that is not often seen in movies of its genre.

Westerns in general are very character driven, it is rooted in the fabric of the western in that they are so often about the rouge bandits traversing the desert looking for a bank to rob. This is very different from the reverse of this which comes up too particularly in war films where the characters are usually driven by something past what they can actually change. In ether case, what is being seen is an example of the marriage between character and story.

Back to "The Assassenation of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford". This movie becomes an example of the kind of movie people do really like to see, because the plot is totally driven by the characters themselves. This fact makes the events more unpredictable, when there is something that sets the characters going besides their own driving force, one motif will dominate the film. In war movies, you can count on it that those tried and true motifs will play through the film; you cannot get three inches into most war films without all the heroism, camaraderie, in the face of evil blood thirsty Nazi's. It is when war films spin the trials of the war toward an individual that they surpass what interest can be drawn by the basic motifs, "Paths of Glory" takes the war time base and spins it toward a more individualistic perspective. The simple fact of all this is, letting the character take the wheel of a movie will always lead to twists and turns for a more interesting plot. Frankly, "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" breaks from the bounds of the classic western by not letting itself all the way into that genre where, although character driven, the characters come almost pre-pacaged for the movie.

So, to the contrary of what my fellow movie watcher said, the characters in "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" might not be totally admirable but that is not the goal of this movie. By not being admirable, they give the story dimension that is lost in movies that suffocate in the motifs of their genre. It is easy to say 'Maybe the characters where supposed to be like that.' but harder to say why that would be the case. The movies here allow for great story to come from the less admirable but necessary character.

Just for the sake of continued discussion, characters do not need to be less admirable for the plot to be more interesting. "Lars and the Real Girl" show this. Again, a movie that is totally character driven and not lost to any particular theme. "Lars and the Real Girl" may have taken the easy way out by choosing not to really fit into any particular genre, set that aside, and the chance is made to break stereotypes that might have arisen had the movie fit into a particular genre. And again, "Lars and the Real Girl" has only admirable characters. It is true that sometimes an audience to this movie might not find the characters admirable, but it is only ever the case that changes in character are temporal and come from the plot driven by those living it.

The facts of character and story are simply that you cannot have one without the other, that is really obvious. But sometimes less obvious is what blending of character and themes of plot make for the most interesting experience. In the end, the more character is in the experience, the more interesting and versatile experience can be. It does not always limit a movie to have the plot come before the character holding it, "Apocalypse Now" does not loose the interest of experiencing the movie just because the main character is driven by things he could not control. The perfect mix of character and story is only a generalization, but it is safe one to make and has very clear cut reasons for being.

An Amount of Middle Ground

The_American_Dream — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:13:56 GMT

After seeing this movie, and several of the comments bellow, I am forced to ask "Was this really that bad?". Perhaps "War, Inc." is not all the hype that it has gotten. It isn't, even to the point where I may feel betrayed by the trailer. But, in answer to the question, I would have to say that it wasn't that bad.

"War, Inc." brings several good things to the screen. This is a satire, that in itself is worth something to me. That the subject of gloomy documentaries can be humorous and poignant to the subject. This is a good thing, and it is something that is lacking in this world with gloomy documentaries.

Another point about this movie, it is not really indie; indie really is just some guys with a camera and little or no money, with the idea that they have something overwhelmingly important to say by not doing much at all with an audiences time (as in "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou", which itself isn't very indie anyways) and that can yield perfectly fine results as well. "War, Inc." differs from this in that, although it is in limited release, it has many of the blockbuster qualities, seeing it, one realizes that the production was hardly pressed for money. This movie also does have something to say to the world, maybe it is something that you hear everyday on NPR, but that does not make this movie any worse for what it is.

As for some actual reviewing, as opposed to simple opinions on what "War, Inc." is or is not, I would have more positive things to say for it than some of what has been said here. But not, however, glowing with endless lines of praise for it. As I have said, it was even a bit of a let down. But, Cusack does mount a tripled outfit as writer, actor, and producer which may be somewhat of a stretch, having some amount of control on almost every aspect of the film (except, I assume the streak of peroxide blond hair he sports). Never the less, this movie does not loose itself to John Cusack, which is one of the best things the movie does not do.

Also, as I said before, "War, Inc." brings something to the audience in that it allows a chance to have some amount of joviality over the ugliness of the truly grotesque world we happen to live in. This is not a problem, "South Park" is a masterwork of this and it, like "War, Inc." gives us pause for humor as well as self reflection on what we do. This is something to be commended.

The point is that "War, Inc." although a let down, I found to be just fine for what it is. This cannot be said for some other movies, movies that fit into really another category all together or lack some vital part to them. "War, Inc." does not reserve itself to such halls. In its case, one should find an amount of middle ground for what it is as an existential work of satire which it lives up to perfectly, and a movie which is more second rate but not totally problematic.

Uncooked, Raw, Drama (You Can't Eat It)

The_American_Dream — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:11:02 GMT

I cannot really say one way or to other on this movie, it is fine. "You're Gonna Miss Me" is right in the middle of anything I could say about a movie in so many ways that it is almost hard to write about. That being said, I have to review this one, and there is plenty to be said about it.

"You're Gonna Miss Me" is not really a new genre, there are only an infinite many movies about whacked out rock stars, this is just a somewhat more recent one that is more serious than "This is Spinal Tap". It is a fine genre, and this movie in particular does the genre credit in that, it actually has an almost hopeful message or ultimate outcome. Even though "You're Gonna Miss Me" is as good a version of this division of documentary as most, "Dogtown and Z-Boys" does things this movie does not that set it apart and make for a better film in its case. "Dogtown and Z-Boys" comes full circle, from a somewhat comprehendible start through the story of whacked out skaters and back to a clear resolve. This is something that is important for movies in general, and a good documentary tries to at least come full circle; at the end of "An Inconvenient Truth", the audience gets an amount of closure on what we can do to un-whack the world. "You're Gonna Miss Me" leaves the audience at the very peek of such an arch waiting for real defiant closure.

There is really more to the movie than its seat in the pantheon of documentaries. "You're Gonna Miss Me" works as a portrait of many things. First, as a portrait of Roky Erickson, the movie does really very well. I did not really know anything about him until this movie, and this movie brilliantly introduces him and shows the audience Roky's life up until where the documentary starts and then through the recent past to Roky's recovery today. His story is really one that could not be brought out any other way than film, reading the summary on the back of the box, one gets an idea, but for this subject, film is the only way to show as much as this movie takes upon itself to show. Frankly, "You're Gonna Miss Me" is a very well done portrait of Roky Erickson and his life and it is an interesting watch.

Another figure captured in this movie is a certain part or lifestyle in America that is also hard to capture in any other media than documentary film. So much of Roky's life, and the lives of those around him, is so polarized from what most find tangible. "You're Gonna Miss Me" brings a huge spectrum to the screen, from absolute disgusting degradation, to the lives of those trying to find solace away from it and the extremity to which that goes. There really is nothing like it, particularly not in other media.

Although "You're Gonna Miss Me" has these remarkable attributes, it has some key things missing that only make it so much more neutral. This is most connected to the unfinished arch mentioned earlier but is really only a problem because "You're Gonna Miss Me" brings in this wide spectrum on the the screen. This problem is drama. "You're Gonna Miss Me" is just raw drama. There is so much sorrow and so much depravity to the people in this movie that it would seem hard not to have the drama, but that is just the problem, all that there is is this hardship. Again, the story needs to come full circle, "Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star" frankly does allot of the same things and comes full circle and is total schlock. It can be done with a depressing subject too; "Sophie Scholl- The Final Days" kills the main characters but there is closure in that from the arch of the movie.

In the end, "You're Gonna Miss Me" is so neutral of a film that it is almost hard to say that for it (or against it as the case may be). Now, when I look for closure for this review I almost cannot find it. This is a fine movie and that is all that I can really say to wrap this one up.

Directed by: Keven McAlester

Palm Pictures

Not Rated

97 minutes.

Capturing Themes and Maintaining Film Theory

The_American_Dream — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:31:24 GMT

FORWARD: This is a review of two movies, "Black Hawk Down" and "Saving Private Ryan", while also discussing principals that I believe make for better movies. In this review, I hope to look at more than just these movies and look at movies in general more.

These two movies have a lot in common, not just their classification as war movies, they seek to put the viewer in the action of the movie and they have similar underlying themes of brotherhood among soldiers and never leave another man behind. But there is (I find) a better one between the two, despite similarities and differences. To discuss this, one has to really step back from what is normally looked at in a review and take into account some film theory.

Starting, however, with themes. There are several in these movies, particularly that of camaraderie mentioned before. This is one part that "Saving Private Ryan" does discuss very well, "Saving Private Ryan" asks where the line is to be drawn between the life of one man and the lives of those trying to save him. "Black Hawk Down" decides to say 'just go get him'. Both are fine but frankly, "Saving Private Ryan" has an ambiguity there that is interesting. But there are other themes and motifs that are at the center of these movies that have to be seen in a light other than, what is an interesting topic to approach.

Both movies also have this sometimes paradoxical view of, being a soldier is a great thing (even to the point where the movie could be used as propaganda), but also make very clear that they have the immortal 'can't we make a better world, end the suffering, bring them home' interpretation. The more extreme versions of this are clear too, "Paths of Glory" clearly has one to say over the other. However, on these themes, "Black Hawk Down" emphasizes the point that the characters are just ordinary people (another example of which is "The Lost Battalion"). Having that key point, particularly form the beginning, gives better character. "Saving Private Ryan" does touch on this, but they build it up, almost with suspense, this ends up making a great cliché. "The Lost Batalion" does this too but does not build up so much to it.

But where the principals of film making come into these movies is when these movie tackle capturing the war experience. Both movies force the audience into the action, Spielberg even says in supplemental material on "Saving Private Ryan" that he wanted to get a "news reel" feel to the movie. Throughout "Saving Private Ryan" the camera is jostled almost to the point of "Blair Witch Project" status (although not as nauseating as "Cloverfield"). These principals that Spielberg tries to incorporate ultimately fail. The clear reason here is because he gets caught up in trying to get his "news reel" feel, and the movie forgets that it should be a movie. Ridley Scott however does not forget to keep his filmmakers reserve. Scott slams the audience into action and vividly puts the horrors of war not he screen but there is a key difference. The difference is that Scott uses the principals of filmmaking to his advantage in bringing across the point of graphic war violence.

Before getting into this, more philosophical, part of the critique, it is important to describe what these principals are. Most of these seem relatively innocuous, but they are vital to good filmmaking. When setting up towards action, particularly when you are trying to capture real world action, it is vital to have some kind of establishment. When this is done it is far easier for us the audience to actually feel more in the action. To note another Ridley Scott film, "Kingdom of Heaven", Scott clearly shows his expertise in these fundaments by giving the viewer wide shots of armies and catapults and so on. When one has that in their mind, it makes the in-your-face action real. When the catapults have already been on the screen, when one sees a giant rock or ball of flame come through the wall, it is clear where it came from. Spielberg does this, only to a lesser degree, being jerked from one close-up of a tank firing to another close-up of somebody trying to cover from the debris and then going back to the wide of the whole ordeal is confusing. It becomes particularly annoying when all the action could have been in one shot. This principal goes way back, and is brought out all the time in movies made today like "Sin City" and "The Black Dahlia" but is not limited to this noir.

To reiterate, and to explain better, one could not that in "Black Hawk Down" Scott always focuses the action after reviewing it first. For example; there is a point in which a convoy of transport vehicles (the viewer has already seen them get in) gets attacked and parts of one soldiers body fly about and in the last moments of his life he pulls a "Tell my wife I love her". But this short piece is done very nicely and Scott uses these principals throughout it; there is a wide shot and every vehicle passes, then there is a somewhat more close shot of the explosion going off and soldiers taking their defensive positions, then a very tight point-of-view shot from behind a vehicle that directs the attention at the dismembered body, then an over-the-shoulder view for the dialogue, after a bit more shooting there is a shot wrapping it all up of medics clearing the scene. This shows how, when used correctly, simple film theory produces a better result because of the greater knowledge about the action. That scene really sticks with me, although I can recall scenes from "Saving Private Ryan", parts like this of "Black Hawk Down" hold fast to a viewer. This is not that hard, scenes like that nicely dot even "Cloverfield", a movie totally in point-of-view.

These are just one example of what these principals can do to heighten the action of the movie, but there is more than that to discuss between these two movies regarding character and how they are brought across. This needs to be discussed more than simply who the people are and how that is introduced, because the characters in movies should go beyond those on the screen, some face of humanity should be up there too. Spielberg is a master at this, "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence" not to mention "Schindler's List" and even "Munich" are testament to Spielberg's talent here. There should be something in characters that is somewhat openhanded or universal. Noted, the war genera is not easy for everyone to relate to, both movies use common ploys to achieve this but, in the end, faced between the full circle flashback of "Saving Private Ryan" and the end monologue of "Black Hawk Down" (which brings the themes of the movie full circle), the more simplistic monologue gives the audience resolve and makes a movie far more endearing.

Additionally, Scott generally leaves an amount of bias aside. This is less clear in "Black Hawk Down" when it can be seen as a race-war from time to time. "Kingdom of Heaven" however is unflinching in how it shows both sides. Spielberg does not weigh both sides, this works well when his thesis is like that of "Schindler's List" in telling the stories of the holocaust, but "Saving Private Ryan" wants to deal with a war experience, that cannot be done without a more general view of people laying their lives on the line. And even when there is the element of race in "Black Hawk Down", Scott makes it clear, the reason for the fighting is far deeper than that.

Again, these movies demonstrate how simple things go a long way in influencing the final product of a film. Between these two, "Black Hawk Down" really takes it away with all its many qualities. Despite even the best efforts of a great director, Spielberg, who knows how to always get the upper hand in movies with his long linage of big blockbusters and superstars. Scott has always been somewhat of an odd ball out on these matters, people are not always sure what to associate him with. But to end, on this (and other movies), Scott puts down only the best workings for some of the best movies.

Not for the Faint of Heart (Then Again, Neither is the World)

The_American_Dream — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:35:28 GMT

A truly rare and unique documentary. "Manda Bala" has about everything good about it. Everything from in depth interviews from everyone involved with the wide range of topics this documentary approaches, to just plain old good filming. But about the movie.

"Manda Bala" takes an unflinching look at an ugly subject. Interestingly enough, the subject of this movie is not really one you see people yelling about in the park. "Manda Bala" is about corruption and violence in Brazil, particularly Sao Paulo. The movie makes it very clear just how broad this topic is, but this does not stop the film makers from putting together this extraordinary film. I say film for a reason, this film is more than just a documentary, I would go so far as to say that this is a stand out in its field movie, it brings together facets of documentary and marries them with cinematic principals that are easily lost in the making of documentaries.

"Manda Bala" stands out as a documentary for several reasons. It has in it a few simple topics that it it calls our attention to, corruption and street violence, and presents them without fooling around or going in circles over and over again. Poignant interviews and on-the-spot photography bring the viewer into the causes and effects of the corruption and violence in Brazil. Movies in general take these themes upon themselves all the time. "Syriana", although a decent and compelling drama on a similar subject, seems to loose focus on these themes, and not just because it is a fictional movie with drama and characters. "Manda Bala" has characters and drama in the sense that there are real people that the audience follows on journeys in their lives. There is even a sense of connection, compassion even, for people concerned, all the while stressing the brutality with extreme vividness. And finally, "Manda Bala" brings the good, the bad, and the ugly right on the screen so the audience can see it. The cruelty of politicians and murderers, the compassion of doctors and police.

As a strait-up movie, "Manda Bala" also excels. Brazil lends itself to some cinematic qualities, vast cities with skyscrapers reaching out of sprawling slums, mountains covered in rain-forest, all under azure skies. This imagery abounds in "Manda Bala", blues and greens of nature splashed with the ochre tones of the slums and the skyscrapers. But there is also simply good filming, the way shots are set, the juxtaposition of interviewers and translators. Beautiful photography, with even quirky scenarios. It is strangely elegant. The film also uses its status as a documentary to punctuate this beauty with stark, edgy, stock footage. It is good to have these qualities in a documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth", even though it is a good documentary, gets boring. "Manda Bala" also holds its own. "The Fog of War", another great documentary, it just one interview. Both of these movies are equally insightful, but "Manda Bala" has them beat in some way as documentaries, in addition to its cinematic qualities.

Also as a documentary, "Manda Bala" is not for the fait of heart. It is one that can turn your stomach, but the audience of a documentary knows that this is the world. The audience faces the brutality of a movie like this for a reason. The fact that this movie pulls it off is truly a mark of great documentary film making. This is something to look for in the best of movies, stories, and particularly, documentaries.

This is a great film. Well worth the while of any audience. But part of this fact is that it cannot be taken lightly, even when this movie has irony or dark-humor. "Manda Bala" is a wonderful portrait of the world we sometimes have to face.

Directed by Jason Kohn

Not Rated

Seeing is Believing

The_American_Dream — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 04:21:32 GMT

I just got back from "The Fall". This is its first day in wide release (which means one theater in Chicago), I had been looking forward to it for months now. "The Fall" met my expectations and gave me a new look at movies and the world. That is really kind of a lame and formulaic intro, but I need something before I can get into the real review of this extraordinary film.

The trailer alone recalls to one the quotes you see on the DVD box of a movie. Quotes like 'visually arresting' 'a masterpiece' 'visually stunning' 'fantastic' and the like. But you really have no idea until you see the movie and then also know that everything in it, all the locations all the costumes et cetera, are 100 percent real. Suddenly you are seeing the world a new way.

The visuals are something I really do want to talk about. But the only real way to describe this movie in particular is to see it yourself. It is so off the charts of anything ever seen before that to see the whole thing is the only way. In addition, much as I would like to describe and discuss the visuals, there are other things about this movie that are important and interesting to discuss. This is a bit of a departure, as in previous reviews I have spent time on the style and colors of a movie. But "The Fall" offers its visuals so freely that, although equally important to a film as a whole, other themes get bogged down. At times in "The Fall", these themes are easy to over look.

Along with all the beauty the movie has, "The Fall" deals primarily with deep and existential themes of colliding experiences and interests. Throughout, there is a sense of two worlds, and a variety of categories the worlds fit in; imagination vs. reality, love vs. exploitation, life vs. death. These conflicts are central to "The Fall" and are embodied in many different ways. Also interesting, is that it is not entirely clear until during the climax that all these things are at work in the movie.

To begin, "The Fall" is almost totally between the two main characters, a crippled stuntman and an immigrant child. The stuntman wants to kill himself. The immigrant girl wants him to continue his story that embodies her life, his life, and the people around them. Already there is a conflict between the characters. And the both of them are always trying to get the other to maintain their agenda. This, the key factor to the movie, conflict between the two is actually symbolized in their dialogue. The two never quite understand what the other is saying and they often interrupt each other. Switching off on what the details of the story are.

The story that is being told, or rather the two stories that are being told to the viewer, are symbolic and represent a conflict. Here, although I did say that there were two, there are actually three. But the viewer does not know this until the very end, something I would rather not ruin (but probably will anyway). All three are congruent, tied together by one. There is the life in the hospital, characterized visually, by the same set of actions, places, colors and so forth. There is the life of the story, characterized, by an always changing set of the above. The world of the imagined ends up being divided between the two main characters, they fight over its presentation. This, however, is where the subtleties really begin.

I really have to ruin the movie at this point to talk about this in the most detail I can. The stuntman who is telling the story, as well as the girl, have agendas invested in how the story effects the world in the hospital. The stuntman wants morphine to kill himself, the little girl looks for the perpetuation of the story. Here is where the changes to the story play a part. The stunt man will make the changes the girl wants, so long as in the hospital she follows his requests. But, at the climax, these come into great conflict. The girl who wants to hear the story, ends up saving this man because, if the story ends happily so can his own life. But he resolutely wants his life to be miserable. This conflict comes when they argue over the events in the story. The voiceover shifts between the two of them. This had been foreshadowed with their person to person dialogue up to that point, some arguing and miscommunication.

Eventually though, the conflict is reconciled in keeping with basic dramatic structure. Order is restored. But the very end brings upon the movie a whole new meaning of their lives up to that point, what they had done, who where the players. I do not want to ruin the ending. Plus I am not entirely sure as to its meaning. It has many possible interpretations. It deals with love, the loss of imagination, the truth of mythology, all this is in the movie.

So to wrap up, and to actually give a review of "The Fall". "The Fall" is a very powerful movie. It has this existentialism and symbolism deeply rooted in it, but it couples it beautifully with only the most amazing visuals in a movie. "The Fall" has no failings in my opinion. Sometimes it puts the viewer in a position he may not like, but it lets one see and feel elements that are impossible other wise. I highly recommend this movie. It represents allot of things, a true marriage of a great film like beauty and plot and meaning. It keeps an amount of action and intension. And it is all real, a glimmer of hope that movies are not to be totally one with the computer. "The Fall" flies above other films as a true testament to the art of the cinema.