leeroy711

Under discussion:

Brick  (2005)

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  (2007)

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  (2005)

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  (2004)

This is England  (2006)

***** 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.