tmoney

I had the pleasure of seeing Daft Punk's "Electroma" at the Metro in Chicago a few weeks ago, and really enjoyed it.  Aesthetically think Gus Van Sant's, Gerry.  Except for two guys walking in the desert, it is two robots.  There are some very disturbing images, and very beautiful images as well.  I don't think there is a word spoken in the entire film, but I can't recall for sure.  But it is great.  I recommend it if you can find it.

I am putting my reputation on the line here giving such a good review to a Michael Bay film.  Bay was the butt of all jokes in film classes (along with Jerry Bruckheimer).  And he still ought to be the butt of all jokes to a seasoned film viewer.  With films like Armageddon, Bad Boys, Pearl Harbor under his belt, it feels as if Bay invented the summer pop corn blockbuster.  So going in to this, one must realize they are seeing a Bay film.  That being said, Bay really     out-Bayed himself this time.  

I watched this film a while back, and it was really a film that stuck with me. This is a short documentary in black and white, about the concentration camps and I must say it is quite powerful.  It's a different kind of powerful though.  When we watch a movie like Schindler's list or The Pianist, the mystique of the Hollywood story pulls us in, enchants us, and wines and dines us.  It is all made possible with the magic of movie making.  With emotion, story, script.  And while it is all very affecting, there is something different about Night and Fog.  The narration is monotone.  It feels like what it is.  A documentation of what went on.  It feels like somebody going through a filing cabinet and reading off the facts of the case.  This gives way to a chilling striking reality.  Everything shown on screen isn't makeup and actors digging deep for a striking performance.  It is chilling reality that reminds us how humans treated one another a few decades ago, and how not much has changed.

How do we judge a Michael Moore film?  Do we shun his films because they are obviously agenda based and biased?  Do we judge him based on the level of deceptive editing tricks?  Do we praise him because we agree with his stance on a particular issue?  Moore has always been a difficult filmmaker to approach.  My past approach as a film student was: Michael Moore is bad.  And I could write 14 page papers (probably six Moore papers in college) based on a particular editing smoke screen that he pulled over his audience or biased approach, etc.  

I was not around in 1978, and I guess I am glad, as I would have been disturbed beyond belief by the event that occurred at Jonestown.  

To be honest, I never even saw this movie.  Some movies you don't even have to see to give a bad review!  Did I just write this to be pretentious?  Perhaps.

300 was a film I had been looking forward to for months.  I was an enormous fan of Sin City, and while I know this was a different director, I was expecting something similar.  The over-stylized shots, noir-cheese dialogue, absurdly badass characters, etc.  Well this film tried all of those, but it came across as weak.  I can't blame the dialogue for being corney in this film because I think they were going for that, but it was just delivered terribly.  The acting was the part of the film that alienated me the most.  Then there were the characters, all of whom I only laughed at because of how terrible the makeup or costumes were.  And I was expecting the film to look like the trailer hinted at, but basically the "cool" shots were all crammed into the trailer, and didn't look nearly as cool in context to the rest of the film.  The CGI was terrible.  TERRIBLE.  Any time it showed more than 50 people, it looked like Sim City for Sega Genesis.  Well maybe not that bad.  Anyways, you will all probably love this film.  I would recommend this if you are: A. In High School (not a jab at high schoolers, i would have loved this myself in high school), B. You love movies that have "sweet action scenes", C.  Your favorite band is KISS.

Here's the scenario.  An akward, prepubescent Chinese kid lives with his mother, sister, and grandpa in a shady, whore infested motel.  Humour ensues, while you will certainly find yourself cringing at the "i was that age once" moments.  

The latest film from acclaimed director Terrence Mallick was not extremely well received by critics. Many panned it as too slow moving, and without compelling narrative. I have to disagree. I find it too bad that so many film goers have such short attention spans that only a cause-effect narrative will hold anybody's interest. I was actually suprised I enjoyed this film so much. 1. I don't enjoy period pieces often. 2. It's about Pocahontas. 3. It has Colin Ferrel in it. Well 1. The film focused less on the period aspect, and more on the human element. 2. Pocahontas' name is never mentioned. 3. Collen Ferrel was phenomenal. This film was a piece of sheer beauty. Dialogue is only used when necessary, and voice over narrates most of the film. But this isn't story forcing dialogue like Platoon. It is poetic, beautiful and brilliant. If you have seen the David Gordon Green films, you know what I am talking about. The entire film resonated with the style of George Washington (even though Mallick created the style). The music is extremely tasteful (i.e. The film wasn't scattered with tribal beats and yelping). The cinematography is gorgeous. The entire film is just brilliant. If you are expecting another Titanic, look elsewhere. If you are expecting a highly romanticized Disney film, this is not it. If you can handle a highly philisophical, contemplative, deeply emotional film, watch The New World immediatly. I was blown away. I don't often call movies stunning masterpieces, but this film is.

What do you think? Is this list too harsh? Some say movies are a thing of personal preference, and to an extent, that's true. But I do see a difference between a good film and a bad film. Now I challenge you to find me somebody who is semi-educated in film, or at least knows the difference between high art and popular entertainment. Could someone like that honestly tell me that the movies in the list are good films. This is not an issue of whether or not the movie is enjoyable. It is an issue of whether or not the film is a good film (in context of what a good film is which is an entirely diifferent topic). Now there is nothing wrong with entertainment. But there are plenty of entertaining films that are much more respectable than the films in my list. For those of you who looked at the list and thought, "Wow. Those are all really great films." Then message me, and I'll give you some suggestions of films that I personally consider "great films." I've seen you're kind of films. Take a look at mine. P.S. I understand that some of you may love some of the films in my list, and still have great taste in movies, so take this argument with a grain of salt.

Now I may upset some of you folks, but I have to say that I really don't like Jim Jarmusch. Now I am only judging this on two films of his that I've seen, 1. Ghostdog, and 2. Broken Flowers, and also what I have heard about Coffee and Cigarettes. I think Jarmusch gets an idea about a cool movie into his head, then doesn't go anywhere with it. For example, Ghostdog. A story of an "urban samurai". Sounds cool. It's not. It was boring. And then, "oh I am goona make a cool movie revolving around coffee and cigarettes. Good idea? sounds like it, but from what I have heard it was just plain boring. Then you have Broken Flowers. A guy on a roadtrip searching for his son. Sounds like a good setup. I didn't think it worked at all. Some call it typical Jarmusch. I call it poor filmmaking with the mask of a hip indie film.