Under discussion:

Film Name  Production Year

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer  (2006)

The International  (2009)

This is really one of the worst films I've seen this year. I had heard it pretty much universally panned by critics but I really didn't expect it to be that bad. As bad as I had heard this movie was, I still couldn't help my curiosity with director Tom Tykwer. I would have to say I consider myself a fan of his, even after this last effort. I would also say that the shortcomings of this film are primarily the fault of the screenplay and not the direction.

The writer was Eric Singer and this was his first major motion picture. The plot was extremely choppy and many of the key points made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Some of the conspiratorial points of this film were not only left unexplained but the portions of which were explained proved them to be completely unnecessary. The dialogue was even worse than the plot. At one point, Naomi Watt's character is confronting Clive Owen's character about details in his past. He very gruffly (Clive Owenly) responds, "I'm not gonna talk about it. Just read my file." about half an hour later, we are explained the details of his past by Naomi's character who had "made some calls." Unfortunately, the information she finds is not important to the plot and by this time nobody cares anyway.

The cinematography of this film was pretty good. It was shot by Frank Griebe. I am a pretty big fan of his work with Tykwer. I thought 2006's Perfume: The Story of a Murderer is one of the best shot films in the past 10 years. Unfortunatly, even great cinematography could not have saved this film.

Under discussion:

Film Name  Production Year

Two Fisted  (2004)

Come Hell or High Water  (2008)

The Astonished Man  (2008)

Two Fisted (2004)

**** Stars out of 5

Directed by: Todd E. Freeman

Starring: Jason Sabala, Robert Blanche Andrew Harris and Sarah Rosenerg

Running Time: 101 minutes

Rated: NR

Released: 2004

Language: English

Song: This one felt very appropriate.

______________________________________________

______________________________________________

Review:

            I guess I could start this review with a bit of a disclaimer (as if I was being paid for this). Director Todd Freeman is actually someone I grew up with.  His father was the Pastor of my church during much of my very formidable teenage years. And although he probably didn’t realize this at the time, he absolutely had a lot to do with sparking my interest and subsequent obsession with film in general. Objectivity was not much of an option for this one. I really wanted to like it.

            That being said, this film definitely didn’t disappoint. It wasn’t lacking in flaws but most were very forgivable. The story was very well paced and the most of the characters were pretty well developed.

            The main character Ty is played by Jason Sabala. This was a great casting call. Not only did he play his part especially well, his general physique was absolutely perfect for the role. It is one that demands attention whenever onscreen. It was also a bit deceptive. At first glance, standing over six feet tall and covered in tattoos, you could quickly assume plenty of the typical bare-knuckled tough guy tropes usually associated with the look. His character is actually quite reserved and collected throughout most of the film.

            The score of this film was very much hit and miss for me. Certain scenes used a heavy percussion based rhythmic sound that I thought worked well. Some of the other scenes though used more of a grand swelling score that I felt took away from the authenticity of the scene. When it comes to score, I really have no idea what I’m talking about, but I felt I should mention it here because of how contrasted the two different types of music were in this film. And how much better one of them worked than the other.

            I usually make some sort of attempt in my reviews to mention the cinematography of the film. This will be no exception. This film was shot remarkably well. There were plenty of complicated shots that not only gave the audience something cool to look at; they fit within the context of the scenes. I found myself continuously and pleasantly surprised at the simultaneous complication and subtleness of the camerawork. I think the most memorable scene is one that involves a drug deal and a shootout in an industrial yard full of large stacks of pipe. I got the feeling this was a place that Todd (err... umm.. Mr. Freeman) had driven by often, and thought: “Damn, I could make something look really cool with this place.” Unfortunately, the transfer of the DVD I watched was a little sub-par. It wasn’t as bad as it could have been but some of the darker scenes were too dark and you had to strain to make out what was going on.

            My only real critique of the film was that there were a few scenes that I thought should have been cut or replaced. There are several times in the film that notably quirky and comedic things seem to take place. I don’t think I would have cut them all, because overall it gives the film entirely more character. I would have, however cut one or two. I think that at some point, it started to obstruct the tone of the film. The movie was just over an hour and a half long, so I don’t think you would want to cut very much.

I have to end this review with my full recommendation. It was engaging from start to finish and I’m very glad I saw it. It’s quite refreshing to see a piece of art produced at a low budget level with that amount of conviction and talent.

Todd works with his fellow filmmaker brother Jason in Portland, Oregon. They have some other projects that I’m ever so excited to see. Come Hell Or High Water is Todd’s newest film. And The Astonished Man is one directed by Jason. Unfortunately, I don’t know much about these films but I’m keeping them on my radar.

Come Hell or Highwater Trailer. from Todd Freeman on Vimeo

.

Under discussion:

Being John Malkovich  (1999)

Adaptation  (2002)

Where the Wild Things Are  (2009)

This is the part of my blog that I pick a director and take a few minutes to examine his career. This month I will take a look a one of Hollywood's coolest people, Spike Jonze. Why?? Because I said so.

Spike started his career in the skateboarding industry shooting promotional skate vids. Later, he would co-found Girl Skateboard with Rick Howard. He went on to raise the artistic bar when it came to traditional skate videos with one he directed called Mouse. Here is an clip which features pro skater, Eric Koston as Charlie Chaplin in a moment of discovery.

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

His most recent video for Lakai shoes was titled Fully Flared. Here is by far the coolest intro to a skate video ever.

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

He has also had a very accomplished career as a music video director. His work with The Beastie Boys, Bjork and Fatboy Slim has been critically acclaimed. Everyone remembers the Beastie Boys' "Sabatoge" video and who could forget Christopher Walken's dance moves in the hotel lobby in Fatboy Slim's "Weapon of Choice"

His most popular video may still be the amature dance recital for Fatboy Slim's "Praise You" video. My personal favorite is this gem from the mid-90s. Remember that Jack Johnson video a couple of years ago that featured him singing the entire song backwards. Well, it had allready been done. Here's Spike's video for The Pharcyde's "Drop"

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

OK, enough of this. I'm a movie guy, let's get onto his film career. In 1998 he made his first full-lenth feature, Being John Malkovich. This film featured John Cusack, Catherine Keener, Cameron Diaz and of course John Malkovich. More importantly, it featured an incredible screenplay by writer Charlie Kaufman about a secret portal into the mind and soul of a New York actor. This combined with the semi-surrealistic camera style of Jonze created an incredibly memorable film. I recall watching this film and thinking that I had never seen a concept as inventative as this one.

A few years later, Jonze and Kaufman would colaborate again in 2002's Adaptation. I recall reading the synopsis of this movie when it was still in post-production and thinking that it had to be the most original concept for a movie since Being John Malkovich. This is a movie... about a screenwriter, writing a screenplay.... for the movie that you are currently watching, which is supposed to be an adaptation of a popular book. Charlie Kauafman played by Nicolas Cage is the film's main character. In one of it's most brilliant moments, Kaufman reveals to his twin brother (also played by Cage), "I've written myself into the movie." Jonze's direction was spot on in this one. It was much more of a strait shot film than BJM because most of the trickery lied within the script.

Spike is currently working on an adaptation of the super-popular, Where The Wild Things Are. The screenplay was co-written by himself and first-time screenwriter, David Eggers. This is going to be a live action version of a short story. The news I've read about it is very concerning. Apparently, the attempt to animate the character's mouths onto the film is proving very technically difficult. I even read somewhere that Warner Bros. may be asking for a complete reshoot. A move that would more than likely kill the project entirely. Here is a leaked test shoot of the film.

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

I really hope this one gets released. I think it's got great potential to be, if nothing else, a very fun movie.

Under discussion:

Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections  (2007)

*** Stars out of 5

Directed by: David Earnhardt

Running Time: 80 minutes

Rated: NR

Released: 2007

Language: English

Song: Zion I and The Grouch – Digital Dirt

            I try to choose a song that I am reminded of while watching the movie. I had several in mind before this one came to mind. I really wanted to use Guttermouth’s Gold because of the chorus:

they say this is the land of the free
to me that means I have the liberty to sit for
my rights cuz I don't care
to do what everybody else would do I'm fine right
here
I voted once but I didn't win I'll never vote again

            I almost went with Operation Ivy’s Knowledge – “All I know is that I don’t know nothing.” But I settled on some good hip-hop from the Bay Area. Enjoy!!

Review:

            Documentaries always seem to be the hardest for me to review. One reason is simply that I don’t really care to watch many of them in the first place. Add to that the fact that many of the cinematic elements that I like to analyze such as cinematography and acting are not really factors in documentaries. Also, many docs are very politically motivated. It is much harder to review a film as a film if you staunchly agree or disagree with the slant that is being put forward by the director. But enough of my complaining, I only will say that I do my best to inform the reader of the pros and cons of the film they are potentially going to watch. I usually do a good job of keeping any political leaning I have at a safe distance. With all of that being said, I do need to inform you that I see tend to see the world through a pair of skeptical eyes. These are the same eyes that I watched the film through; a film that happens to be based largely on a grand conspiracy theory.

This documentary was much more of an exposé than an exploration. What I mean by that is that I never really felt as though they were trying to get to the bottom of anything. I felt much more that this was made by someone with a problem and a soap-box. This film is completely void of any counter-point whatsoever. I think you lend a lot of credibility to your claim just by inserting a dissenting opinion once and a while. Even if that opinion is weak, the audience should be given a chance to hear it.

            One glaring problem I had with this movie was how easily it should be to find out if the booths were designed to swap or miscount votes. Many times throughout the doc, the electronic booths are referred to as “not auditable.” While at the same time, during the Clint Curtis interview, he repeatedly states that it is impossible to make this source code hidden. This code is precisely what makes the equipment always auditable. The point he is making (correctly) is that the machine can only do what it is programmed to do. This program (code) contains the key as to what it is actually doing. At this point of the film, I am watching it through the eyes of someone that writes code for government contracts. At one point of the film there is a shot of a county warehouse full of these machines. All the county really would need to do is refuse payment to Diebold until the code was inspected and approved by a third party software guru. It wouldn’t take a genius to read this code, test it and make an assessment as to what the booths are actually doing.

            Something else I really don’t care for in documentaries is when someone is being interviewed and the camera cuts way too often. It seemed as though throughout some of these interviews, the shots were only lasting about two or three seconds on average. I know many documentarians will cut out the interviewer’s questions but in this case, it seemed a bit too spliced together. I find that this cuts into the integrity of the film.

I will conclude with my somewhat reluctant recommendation for this film. In spite of its faults, I did take something away from this film. I do agree that there is a serious problem with the electronic machines and we, as the ultimate consumer should either demand a paper ballot backup or go back to paper all together.

Under discussion:

Z  (1969)

The Patriot  (2006)

Thirteen Days  (2000)

Jeepers Creepers  (2001)

Carnivàle [TV Series]  (2003)

Deadwood [TV Series]  (2004)

Munich  (2005)

John Adams  (2008)

John Adams (2008)

*** 1/2 Stars out of 5

Directed by: Tom Hooper

Starring: Paul Giamatti, Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson and Stephen Dillane

Running Time: 201 minutes

Rated: NR

Released: 2008

Language: English

Review:         

Something dawned on me as I was watching this series. At one point we watch the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Another shows the inauguration of the first President of the United States.  We also see the depiction of the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party early in the series. I came to wonder: Why haven’t I seen this before? Aren’t these some of the most pivotal moments in the shaping of our nation? I’ve read about them in books, and I probably seen some of this stuff re-enacted on the History Channel or public broadcast. But, never on the big screen or a major production cable special such as this. I’ve seen some pretty good political thrillers that are based on historic events, such as Thirteen Days, Munich or Z. But none of those events took place in what could be argued as the most important period of the forming of our nation. The Patriot takes place during this period. But that movie was much less about the events taking place than it was about the characters involved. So why is it that some of the most riveting, philosophically provocative and emotionally charged real life stories have been confined almost solely to the pages of a history book or bad re-enactments on PBS?  I have my own speculations but I will quickly remind myself that this is supposed to be a review of the series and not the incessant ravings of a libertarian mind.

            So, let’s start off where I typically like to, with the cinematography. In the first couple of episodes, I was very taken by some of the beautiful scenery and use of color pallets. A lot of the shots I enjoyed the most were filmed in the winter with a thick bed of snow on the ground contrasted with all of the earthy tones of the various structures and fauna springing up from the ground. Much of these gave a very Norman Rockwell-like impression.

There were also plenty of shots that I not only didn’t care for, I was ultimately annoyed with. This series is filled with one technique that was completely overused. What I’m referring to is when the audience is subjected to watching a scene unfold from behind an out of focus obstruction or obstructions. Imagine watching something happen as you are peering through weeds or grass. This makes sense, if you are being laying down in an open field and being chased by Jeepers Creepers. This makes no sense however, when you are watching a heart to heart conversation between a 90 year old John Adams and his beloved son. Why are we hiding in the grass? Are we waiting for a plot twist in which Mr. Adams takes his big walking stick and beats his son to death? (SPOILER ALERT: This does not happen) This series is completely filled with these shots and every one seems very out of place. I removed a half star just for that.

Moving along, the cast was quite good. I was a bit worried simply because of my lack of affection to Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney (Mr. and Mrs. Adams, respectively). I was a bit surprised at how much I enjoyed both of their performances. Giamatti put down what I would call his best performance thus far with passion and fervor. Linney played the more patient and reserved, but still passionate counterpart to the team. Tom Wilkinson was very good as the pragmatic yet somewhat frivolous Benjamin Franklin. And Stephen Dillane was Thomas Jefferson. He was a very integral part of Adam’s story. He established himself as Adam’s closest friend and ally. Later, politics would try their friendship to its very brink. He may have been the best performer of the series. It was certainly one of the more challenging roles. One of my favorite scenes is towards the end when John Adam’s doctor says that while some wrote or spoke or fought for this revolution, it was Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson who thought for us all. Rufus Sewell, I believe clearly established himself as the series’ only true antagonist, the empirical Alexander Hamilton. His character was one of the most interesting to watch because it showed (assuming historical accuracy) how quickly a revolution spawn from ideal, philosophy and principal could be infiltrated and sullied by politics and partisanship.

The only other problem I had with this series was somewhat inherent in the nature of a miniseries. A decent 2 ½ hour long movie may have a lull that lasts 45 minutes or so. A series that spans about 9 hours however is subject to a much longer and less forgivable lull. The first couple of episodes really pulled me in. We are treated to very well put together depictions of both the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party. Unfortunately, we must very quickly shift to a much slower gear and remain there for the rest of the series. I recall thinking to myself, after watching the fourth or fifth episode, that if I had to wait another week for the next installment, I very likely would have given up on it. I’m glad that I didn’t, because once you have gotten used to the slower pace, you can more easily take in and process the deep rooted philosophical banter that is thrown about between the founding fathers………..and still today.

In summary, I will give this series my recommendation. It is more than likely, the most historically accurate telling of the events that took place in New England during the late 18^th century. Although, the story is primarily about its namesake, John Adams, it is just as much about the American Revolution as a whole. This story has been sugarcoated and hand fed to us practically since it was current events and any history buff that’s interested in a more candid look at the founding fathers would do themselves justice to pick this one up.

Recommendations:

            If you have already seen this one and enjoyed it, I would suggest checking out other HBO series. I would say Deadwood and Carnivàle are good choices.

Under discussion:

This Is Spinal Tap  (1984)

This Is Spinal Tap (1984)

I'm not sure how old these are but they're new to me.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Under discussion:

Summer Palace  (2008)

The Year My Parents Went on Vacation  (2008)

***** Stars out of 5

Directed by: Cao Hamburger.

Starring: Michel Joelsas, Germano Haiut and Daniela Piepszyk

Running Time: 104 minutes

Rated: PG

Released: 2007

Language: Portuguese with English subtitles

Synopsis:

The year referred to in the title of this film is 1970. Brazil is being held by a totalitarian regime. The great soccer player, Pele has just scored his thousandth goal and the national team is preparing for the World Cup.

Mauro (Joelsas) is like any 12 year old Brazilian boy at the time. He thinks only of soccer and girls. Unfortunately for him, his political parents have to leave him with his Grandfather while they go “on vacation”.

Review:

I can’t really say anything bad about this film. It seemed interesting from the box and I had pretty high hopes for it. I am very pleased to report: it did not disappoint. The only challenge I had to get past was the fact that I am not particularly familiar with the history of the backdrop of this film and it doesn’t do much to fill you in. I believe I made a similar comment about Summer Palace, but in the case of this film, you don’t really need to know the history behind the struggle. I actually think it may have worked out better knowing less in this movie. Keep in mind, you are trying to empathize with a 12 year old that knows and cares nothing about politics.

            I tend to make a comment about the cinematography of every film I review so why should this one be any different. It was actually shot beautifully. We never see the same camera angle twice throughout this movie. And, I really liked a lot of the angles that this was shot from. Many times we see what’s happening from behind an obstruction of some sorts, giving the viewer almost a mischievous “peeking in” feeling.

            The acting was very well done as well. The lead character, Mauro was played by Michel Joelsas. I wasn’t sure about him at first, but by the end of the movie, he had convinced me. This performance was by far the most critical to the film. On several occasions, he gets his heart broken and the audience really needs to feel that with him for the film to be even remotely successful. I also really enjoyed the performance of Hanna, as played by Daniela Piepszyk. She was the street wise, neighborhood girl that befriends Mauro.

            One of the themes that runs through the veins of this film is that of a community pulling together when someone is in need. This is another reason that it felt unnecessary to get into too much depth in regards to the politics of the conflict. Within that neighborhood, it just didn’t seem to matter which philosophy you subscribed to, everyone was in the same boat and the compassion they showed the new Mauro took precedent over everything. Well, everything except soccer of course. I think the country’s passion towards the sport was the one true common philosophy of Brazil.

            My favorite aspect of this film was that although the underlying plot was heartbreaking, there were plenty of subtle comedic moments designed to break the tension and keep audience light hearted. I laughed out loud at one particular scene in which Mauro is being served breakfast by one of the old women in the building. He has to constantly reposition his plate and cup because she is apparently blind as a bat and is spilling everything onto her kitchen table.

            This is the type of film that grows on you as you watch it. At first, I was only mildly interested but as I got deeper into it, I fell more and more in love with the characters. I would give this one my full recommendation.

Under discussion:

Winter Sleepers  (1997)

Run Lola Run  (1999)

Heaven  (2002)

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer  (2006)

    This was the fourth film I've seen by Tom Tykwer and until watching it, I was still unsure as to whether I could consider myself a fan of his. I thought Run Lola Run was brillian but was worried that he may have been a one-trick pony. Winter Sleepers was the next film I saw by him and was pretty dissapointed. I gave him another chance with Heaven and although I didn't fall in love with it, it still reminded me of his talents and to keep an eye out for his future work.

     Perfume...... sealed the deal for me. I am now squarely on one side of the fence. This was a fantastic movie. The acting, especially by Whishaw was superior every scene. The screenplay was well written, keeping the story moving at a fast enough pace as to not loose my attention while still allowing for an entire life story to unfold.

    What got me more than anything was the use of color palettes. It forces you to use the term: "brilliant" in it's most literal sense.

Under discussion:

Rope  (1948)

            I haven't seen a movie that has blown me away like this in a long time. Hitchcock's idea was to make this film in one continuous shot. Unfortunately, this was not possible at the time because the cameras back then only held about ten minutes worth of film. In an act of pure ingenuity, Hitchcock used a technique that made it seem as though this was only one shot. About every ten minutes, your attention is directed to an intimate object for about two or three seconds and then back to the story. This is the point at which the film is cut and reloaded into the camera. The editing is done to make this transition seamless and the audio track never cuts, giving the impression that it was one camera movement.

            The acting in this film is fantastic. I have always maintained that Jimmy Stewart has the most powerful screen presence in all of film. His characters demand attention, simply by virtue of his demeanor. What makes this film great however, are the subtleties portrayed by his character. Keep in mind; it is not until the very end of this film, that he actually vocalizes what he has been thinking. But we are all very aware of exactly what is going on in his head from the moment his first suspicions arise.

            I can’t really say enough about this one, I’ve only seen a handful of Hitchcock and none have ever disappointed me. But this is the one so far, stands out above the rest. It pulled me in from the first scene and kept me thinking about it several days later.

Under discussion:

Brick  (2006)

Overall, I liked this film. It had an intelligent plot, better than average camerawork and a couple of pretty descent characters. I didn’t have a problem with the jargon, per se… I only had a problem with the backdrop.

I generally think that this would have made an incredible film had it not been told from a high-school student’s point of view. This film has all of the classic clichés and nuances of a great piece of film noir. We have the classic femme fatale, the lead characters spends most of his time getting beat up, and oh yeah, the jargon. The problem with these things is that the fact that these are high-school students playing them out. It really gave me the impression, much of the time that I was watching an elaborate high-school play in which the kids were portraying adults. Unfortunately it was more of the other way around.

I really didn’t see any aspect of this story that hinged on the age of the characters. It makes me wonder why it was made in this way. Overall I liked it but I did find myself laughing at some of the parts that (because of the inappropriate backdrop) just delved into the silly spoof realm of film.

Under discussion:

The Cry  (2008)

The Cry (2007)

* ½ stars out of 5

Directed by: Bernadine Santistevan

Starring: Christian Camargo, Adriana Dominguez and Carlos Leon

Running Time: 80 minutes

Rated: R

Released: 2007

Language: English

Synopsis:

The Cry is a modern telling of an old Hispanic folk legend. La Llorana (the crying woman) is somewhat of a ghost in Mexico, Central and South America. In some versions of the story, she was a woman scorned, who got her revenge by drowning her children in the local river.

This movie takes La Llorana to New York City’s Central Park, where an epidemic of missing children is putting the city into a frantic state. We follow a pair of detectives (Camargo and Leon) as they investigate the disappearances and a young mother (Dominguez) who has visions that drive her to investigate the legend and the abductions herself.

Review:

            I don’t watch a lot of horror movies and this one illustrates why. It seems to me that the line between cliché and parody keeps getting thinner and thinner. To clarify for any aspiring horror director reading this: Parody is an over-exaggeration of an idea or technique that is a serious attempt to be funny. Cliché is an over-exaggeration of an idea or technique that is a funny attempt to be serious. This film was full of the latter.

            Any movie that has the typical (see cliché above), person drawing scary pictures while in a trance scene, is going to have to work pretty hard to regain my interest. I can’t recall how many times I’ve seen this done and it is just getting sad.

            The second cliché I saw was the ever-so-popular super scary whispering voices heard in the heads of the main characters. This too is neither original nor frightening. It has been done more times than the previously mentioned scary picture drawing scene and with less of an affect.

            The third and most egregious stereotypical, low-rate horror tactic used in this film was the quick flash of scary images on the screen while no one is expecting it technique. This serves the film two purposes; it saves the budget when longer shots of quality gore special effects cannot be afforded and it also allows the editing to create the startling scene as a substitute for real suspense and horror.

            When I received this screener, I was a bit intrigued by the folk lore of La Llorana so I decided to do some research on it before I watched it. There was nothing extraordinarily interesting about the legend but I did take note in the fact that throughout different parts of the Hispanic world, there are vast differences in the original story of La Llorana. I was very interested in seeing which of the several versions of the story this film decided to adapt. Unfortunately, I was very disappointed when, rather than picking one, it simply garbled all of the versions together. This really ate into the entire concept of the legend. The film makers even went a step further and added their own aspects to the legend. In one part, the detectives are explained, “she gets her power from the water.” I think they borrowed this idea from another folk legend from the East, his name was Godzilla.

I can’t really say much of anything good about this flick. The acting was not horrible, but it was not very good either. The ending was both disturbing and predictable, but not satisfying. I could point out that the character of Maria (Adriana Dominguez) was nice to look at throughout the film and I enjoyed the music performed by Del Castillo. But I won’t.  Overall, there was no aspect of this movie that made it worth the time I spent watching it.

Under discussion:

Rushmore  (1998)

The Royal Tenenbaums  (2001)

The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou  (2004)

The Darjeeling Limited  (2007)

I'm sure this could be said of quite a few good film makers. But I really feel strongly that his films are an aquired taste. I really didn't care for Rushmore until the third time I watched it. The Royal Tenenbaums and Life Aquatic were both much better to me the second time around. Finally, with his latest, The Darjeering Limited, I loved it the first time around. I would have to say this is his best film to date. The colorful images, the camera movement and slow-mo scenes were stunning and the on-screen chemestry between the major players was a joy to watch.

Under discussion:

You're Gonna Miss Me  (2007)

Manda Bala  (2007)

You're Gonna Miss Me (2005)

*** 1/2 stars out of 5

Directed by: Keven McAlester

Starring: Roky Erickson

Running Time: 94 minutes

Rated: NR

Released: 2005

Language: English

Synopsis:

You’re Gonna Miss Me is a documentary that profiles the career and subsequent mental condition of Roky Erickson, lead singer for the influential sixties band, 13^th Floor Elevators.  Roky started his career at the top, gaining almost instantaneous fame with his band. He had a great rock and roll voice that is said to have inspired the stage presence of Janis Joplin.

With interviews from ZZ Top’s Billy Gibbons, Sonic Youth’s Thurston Moore, and Angry Samoans’ Metal Mike Saunders telling the professional side of the story and Roky’s five brothers, mother and two ex-wives telling the about his home life. You’re Gonna Miss Me is much more of a story of schizophrenia it’s debilitating effects on those who suffer from it than that of the lead singer from a psychedelic rock band.

Review:

I held on to this one for a while before I actually stuck it in and watched it. For some reason, the topic at hand and what I had read about it from the back of the case and other reviewers just didn’t seem to grab me. I was really expecting much more of a “Where are they now?” rock-doc, (VH1 style) than what it actually turned out to be. I was never really interested in the psychedelic rock scene and much less in the music that it produced. I would typically rather hear a hip-hop remix of Jefferson Starship than actually listen to the original track. But, I digress, it is kind of interesting to take a healthy dose of culture that my parents were into when they were my age.

Roky’s life was actually quite tragic. He was the eldest of five boys born to an eccentric mother and emotionally absent father. He went from the severely broken home to the sixties music scene which was filled with booze, acid trips and heroin syringes. Roky dove in head first, slowly and steadily acquiring paranoid delusions and very unmanageable schizophrenia.

It’s really hard to tell from this movie which aspect of his life contributed more to his illness. His home life was obviously a recipe for disaster, his drug abuse definitely permanently fried his brain, and his retirement was spent with the same neurotic and paranoid mother that had probably screwed him up in the first place.

All of this is staged in the background of a bitter family feud being fought in court. His mother doesn’t seem to believe he should be on any medication and his brother, Sumner is petitioning for the control over his trust so he can get him back on his medicine and attempt to stabilize his ever fragile mind. It is pretty obvious in this film that his mother’s methods of helping her son with yoga and “good, healthy living” are not doing the trick.

The largest obstacle this film had to overcome was in attempting to tell Roky’s story through Roky’s point of view. Although I don’t think it completely succeeded, I am not sure how it could have been done, considering his state of mind. I will say that the film may have been better if we could have heard from Roky directly a bit more. The time he spent in front of the camera was very limited.

Ultimately, a documentary’s success is based mostly on how interesting the topic is. Much like in the case of Manda Bala, this one succeeds for one major reason: It took a topic that I knew little about and made me interested in it. I think that’s all I really care to ask of a doc. Give me something to think about.

I had some help from my nephew, Jonathan

Under discussion:

Manda Bala  (2007)

Manda Bala (2007)

**** out of 5 stars

Directed by Jason Kohn

Language: Portuguese with English subtitles

Running Time: 85 min

Synopsis:

Sao Paulo, Brazil is a city of 20 million strong. It is also one of the most dangerously violent cities in the world. Manda Bala is a documentary about frog farming, plastic surgery, kidnapping and the corruption that ties all of these very lucrative industries together

Review:

            I was a bit unsure of this one. Although I have found myself being drawn into them once I start them, I have never gotten very excited about watching documentaries. I was a bit apprehensive about one of them being my first Spout screener because I’m not sure I know how to review a documentary. They usually seem to be the type of film that you would see when an interest in that subject already exists. Oh well, I digress, it had all the makings of something I’d be interested in: fascinating synopsis, good cover art, frogs and subtitles.

First and foremost about this movie had to be the cinematography. This is not a trait you would necessarily associate with docs but this one just set the bar. The overall scenery was gorgeous, and some of the angles they used with the high speed camera, especially at the frog farm, peaked my interest. I also liked the ear replacement scene in the dimmed operating room.

I liked the music selection as well. I did think the sound editing was a little confused. It seemed that parts had the background music so loud that you couldn’t really hear the interviews. Of course, I don’t speak Portuguese anyway so I’m not sure exactly what I’m complaining about.

This movie also has a bit of footage from ransom tapes that are mixed in. As the film progresses, this clips continue to get more and more graphic. It actually is a little surprising that the director chose to put some of the more gut-wrenching scenes in because it comes up so gradually. I didn’t find this to be overly sensationalistic and if you are squeamish, you have plenty of time to close your eyes.

The problem I had with this documentary was that for the vast majority of it, I wasn’t sure of its thesis. I believe that the filmmaker (Kohn) was attempting to make a dramatic philosophical point, but it ultimately became clouded by the many different directions the rest of the film takes you. I think that what he was trying to say was that, if S.U.D.A.M. (a government program designed to re-distribute wealth to poorer regions) would have not been taken over by corruption and greed, Sao Paulo would be a dramatically different place. This may very well hold to be true, but didn’t we also learn that the same politicians who are corrupted by greed are staying in power by buying the vast majority of their votes with more social welfare programs in the slums?

I also was unsure about the message behind the part about the violent nature in which Portugal took over Brazil. Was his attempt to say that this type of behavior is so embedded into the culture of Brazil that the country’s future is doomed by its history?

After seeing all of the different industries that exist in Sao Paolo as a result of the kidnappings, I couldn’t help but to ask myself: How many residents would be out of work if the region became more secure. If people stopped bulletproofing their cars, hiring bodyguards, replacing their ears, taking helicopters to work, putting microchips in their body and taking advanced defensive driving courses, what would happen to that part of the economy? And more importantly, will we ever find out?

Regardless of anything I didn’t like about the movie, I would still have to recommend it. It was everything that you should want in a documentary. It was gripping from the opening scene and it keeps you absorbed with it right up until the closing credits. Any documentary should aspire to do what this one did, it pulled my interest into a subject that previously, I had none in.

Under discussion:

Taxi Driver  (1976)

American History X  (1998)

In America  (2002)

Dead Man's Shoes  (2006)

This is England  (2007)

***** out of 5 stars

Directed By: Shane Meadows
Starring: Paddy Considine, Toby Kebbell, and Gary Stretch

Language: English

Released: 2004

Synopsis:
This film is about a soldier, Richard (Considine) who returns home to his small town in the Midlands of England to take revenge on the group of thugs, led by Sonny (Stretch) that, years ago brutalized his mentally challenged brother, Anthony (Kebbell). He starts out with a carefully calculated plot designed to terrorize the group. But soon enough, he ups the ante, picking them off one by one in a fashion that leaves the remaining few begging for mercy.

As the story unfolds we learn piece by piece, the events that took place those many years ago that lead to Richard’s rage.

Review:
I can’t really say anything bad about this film as a whole; I fully enjoyed it and was very surprised at how well the scenes were put together on a seemingly limited budget. It seemed to pay homage somewhat to Taxi Driver (disillusioned veteran in green jacket goes on killing spree) while still staying true to its own story.

The acting was outstanding, especially in the case of Paddy Considine, who co wrote this story with director Shane Meadows. I don’t think I’ve seen him in anything since his superb performance in Jim Sheridan’s In America but I will be looking for his work in the future. Much like Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver, Considine pulled off a performance that not only was menacing and haunting, but still loveable and identifiable. Toby Kebbell, who played Richard’s mentally challenged brother, also put together a very believable act. And, in case you were wondering; no, Kebbel is not really mentally challenged. These two characters shared the majority of the screen time with a supporting cast of thuggish drug dealers who were who were also portrayed adequately.

This film is full of flashbacks which are all done in black and white. In this way, the format was similar to American History X. I didn’t find the black and white to be particularly elegant or artsy. I think it was just though of as the best and more distinct way to separate the ongoing story from the background. The camerawork I was more impressed with were in some of the more intense scenes leading up to the killings. I’ve read a few reviews of this film that painted to be a bit more “stylish” than I think it was but none the less, the cinematography was quite sufficient to help create some very thrilling scenes.

Possibly, the most fundamentally important aspect of this film was the character development of Richard. This was what created the bond between the story’s main character and the empathy of the audience. This was done wonderfully. There is no question, from this film’s opening narrative of: “God will forgive them. He'll forgive them and allow them into Heaven……….. I can't live with that.” to its dramatic finish, that Richard’s anger is completely justified. You will most definitely find yourself cheering for the monster throughout.

This was the first Shane Meadows film I’ve seen. His filmography on Spout reveals that this is his “Most disliked movie”, averaging only three stars. If this is an accurate depiction of what I should expect from the rest of his films, he will surely and quickly fall into becoming one of my new favorite directors. I am now very much looking forward to next week’s delivery of This Is England. It’s been very easy for me to fall for the work of some of these very intriguing British directors, such as Danny Boyle, Jim Sheridan and Guy Ritchie.

I give this film five stars and my full recommendation, primarily because this is the type of film that will not only make it very quickly to my collection, but it is one that I will surely be watching time and time again.

Under discussion:

The Conformist  (1970)

**** out of 5 stars

Directed By: Bernardo Bertolucci

Starring: Jean-Louise Trintignant, Stefania Sandrelli and Gaston Moschin

Language: Italian with English subtitles

Released: 1970

Synopsis:
The backdrop of this movie is Mussolini’s Italy in the 1930s. This is the story of Marcello (Trintignant), a man who has a life long affliction with sticking out in a crowd and is desperately trying to find normality in his life. Every action he is taking is an effort to blend in and be accepted. He is constantly regarded as an oddball because of his general demeanor and lack of emotion. He joins a group of secret fascist police, assigned to carry out assassinations and other dark deeds to individuals that are hurting their political cause. He even goes so far as to marry someone he regards as an unintelligent and mediocre young woman, Giulia (Sandrelli) in an attempt to further his ability not to attract unwanted attention.

He is taking his new bride on their honeymoon in France when he is given his assignment. A former professor has defected from fascist Italy and is now considered an intellectual dissident. It is Marcello’s job to eliminate him.

Soon, we learn from flashback scenes why Marcello has lived his life in constant fear of being noticed and why his life has been anything but ordinary.

Review:
This film is one of the best I’ve seen in a long time, although I may be partial to the philosophically charged theme the setting. I couldn’t help but compare this film to Costa-Gavras’ Z (1969), another European film with a similar feel and subject matter. While I don’t regard this film as the same level of masterpiece as Z, it did prove to be superior in a few areas. One of these areas was the cinematography. This film had some awing and very beautiful shots along with a variety of camera angles that gave it a more artsy edge. Watching it, definitely gives the impression that the filmmakers were ahead of their time and put forth an extra effort to keep the audience intrigued.

The only character we really get to know throughout the story is Marcello and although Jean-Louise Trintignant’s performance was great, I felt as though the development of him as a personality was a little lost. I thought the filmmakers could have done more to clue the audience in as to why he turned out the way he did and why he was an interesting candidate for the job selected.

As I said before, I am typically biased for any film that deals with this subject matter. I am especially biased when the film takes a philosophical approach to convey the story. That being said, I still think this was a very powerful and important film that should be watched by anyone who has an interest in this important piece of the world’s history.