Frem Here To Awesome Festival
Advertisement

"So many movies, so little time..."
Interested in: No particular genre

QFLW's movie tags

Advertisement

  • Lightly delightful

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

    Basically another version of the Cinderella fairy tale, this time featuring a middle-aged woman.  Not a lot of character development or weight to the plot, and you can see where it's all going to end, but the cast is a delight.  You feel for Frances McDormand's Miss Pettigrew, the one sensible head to be found in the frivolous, gossipy society she's stepped into.  Amy Adams bubbles brightly; Lee Pace is adorable as her true love and musical partner.  Their scene in the club, where she sings "If I Didn't Care," is the highlight of the film, a lovely, poignant moment that, you might say, brings her character back to her senses.

    There were only four people in the theater when I saw it; all of us women.  We clapped at the end and came away dabbing our eyes.


  • The Darjeeling Limited

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

    This latest of Wes Anderson's films is, for me, right up there with The Royal Tenenbaums and Rushmore, which I love dearly.  Quirky, offbeat, strangely simple (sometimes just strange), engaging, funny, sad.  Excellent performances from the three brothers (Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman and Adrien Brody) taking this train trip in order to renew their bond after their father has died and their mother disappeared into a convent in Tibet.  One of my very favorite moments has no dialog in it at all--it's just Adrien and Jason staring at Owen as he unwraps the bandages from his head and face.  Their expressions are perfect and priceless.  But throughout the film, more is often said with looks or gestures than through the understated dialog.

    Everything about it made me smile, from the large (characters and storyline) to the small:  the odd yet well-chosen soundtrack; Anderson's use of color and slo-mo; careful overhead shots of (for instance) a tray's contents; subtle running jokes throughout the film.  Etc.


  • What Heart?

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

    The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things

    Written & directed by Asia Argento, based on the novel by J. T. LeRoy

    My heart sank when I pulled the DVD out of the envelope.  Wasn't interested in watching this film, and my first instincts were correct.  A horror story told erratically and clumsily, without any relief.  Not the performances, not the writing, not the camera work.

    In hindsight I noticed that the kudos on the DVD sleeve are for the novel, not the film.  But the film doesn't make me want to read the book.


  • Let's get togther and be all right

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

    Africa Unite  (2007)

    Africa Unite:  A Celebration of Bob Marley’s Vision 

    Produced and Directed by Stephanie Black

    I’m stealing part of the blurb from the jacket:  “In commemoration of Bob Marley’s 60th birthday, [this film] is centered on the Marleys’ first-time-ever family trip to Ethiopia in 2005…three generations of Marleys take part in a landmark one-week event…with the ultimate purpose of inspiring the young generations of Africa to unite for the future of their continent.”

    And so it is.  Bright, emotional, flavored with music from a 12-hour concert the Marleys performed during the event—I found it enjoyable and interesting, but it also made me sad, rather than lifting my spirits.  So much harm inflicted on Africa from Western civilizations; so much that needs healing.  Can and will it happen?  I sincerely hope so.  Watching and listening to the participants on camera reminded me of hippies in the Sixties.  Much positive, strong talk, celebrating and praying, but how much of it translated into action in the end?  Perhaps I’m too skeptical or cynical.

    Still, the film focuses on an important idea that needs support and encouragement.  Plus you can dance to it. 


  • Power Means Not Having to Respond

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

    Out of Balance  (2007)

    Out of Balance:  ExxonMobil’s Impact on Climate Change 

    Written, directed and narrated by Tom Jackson

    I put off watching this film because I guessed (correctly) that it would outrage and depress me further regarding Big Oil’s sway over the planet.  I was pleased, however, to see that despite the gloomy, alarming cover artwork, the documentary is calm and clear, presenting its information rationally, without stooping very much (as far as I could tell) to the rhetoric or histrionics of propaganda.

    The film’s primary focus is in disclosing ExxonMobil’s steady campaign to confuse the public, keep us from understanding that the current changes in global climate are unnatural and are definitely a solvable problem.  For of course, as the world’s largest corporation and largest oil company, if public and governmental opinion were to go against it, that would cut into its enormous profits.  The corporation is so pervasively powerful and wealthy that it has pretty much gotten away with doing exactly as it pleases, without having to bother about the ecological problem it has contributed to, says Jackson.

    I’m suspect of claims that any one person or entity is all to blame for anything, but Jackson doesn’t make that assertion.  He acknowledges that we are all, to one degree or another, contributors to the current state of affairs.  He chose EM as a focus because it is the largest of the oil companies.  I would have liked to hear about some of the others in the industry, whether they have behaved in a similar manner in order to sustain profits.  Talking about only one of the oil giants could seem to imply that it’s the only “bad guy” instead of merely being Big Oil’s top dog.

    Still, hearing of EM’s refusal to acknowledge responsibility and its ability to avoid significant consequences has re-ignited my indignation.  I remember when the Exxon Valdese spilled its devastating cargo in 1989.  The film touches on how the company did more harm than good while trying to appear that it was cleaning up the spill and asserting that the effects were not as detrimental as claimed.  At the time, I chose to never again buy anything from Exxon, but over the years lazily slid out of such determined protest.  I’ve decided to go back to boycotting EM, and will look into which political candidates have accepted money from them (or any other oil companies, for that matter).  It won’t make a huge difference, of course, but it’s the principle of the thing.

    I’d like to see films like this and An Inconvenient Truth shown in science and economics classes.  Not as gospels or tools of anti-global warming indoctrination but as starting points for raising questions and concerns. 


  • Thumbs up

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

    Reign Over Me  (2007)

    I disagree with the All Movie Guide:  this film is not a stinker and not a waste of talent or subject.  I’d been a little reluctant to see it because I feared it might lean too far in the direction of World Trade Center and shamelessly go for the emotional jugular.  9/11 is emotionally affecting enough; there’s no need to push or manipulate us into the “correct” emotional response, thank you.  But the reluctance was unfounded.  The film has some flaws but is well-written and appealing.  I was never a fan of Adam Sandler’s comedies; he can certainly be funny but in general his comic films have left me cold.  He’s turned out to be a talented actor, however; in particular I’d point to Spanglish, Punch Drunk Love and now this film in evidence.

    What I liked about the film was its focus—not the tragedy of 9/11 but one man’s groping for a way to deal with his part in that tragedy in his own way and time (without the well-meaning but wrong-headed and intrusive attempts by his in-laws to forcibly direct that healing), and the rekindling of a friendship that is beneficial to both men’s lives.  The one worrisome bit was Binder’s injection of a romantic attachment between Sandler’s character and the woman who had been making sexual overtures to Don Cheadle’s character.  But far from being a vulnerable innocent, Charlie Fineman struck me as being able to take care of himself.  Reign Over Me, taken from the Who’s song “Love Reign O’er Me,” becomes an apt title, as both Charlie and Alan (Don Cheadle) struggle to get out from under imposed controls and become open to loving and trusting those around them again.

    Good cast, good turns from all concerned, especially Cheadle and Sandler.  Well worth seeing.   And anyone who gets the excellence of Quadrophenia and The River will always be OK in my book.  ;-)


  • Trailer better than the film

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

    August Rush  (2007)

    Schmaltzy and impossible.  Good performance by Robin Williams, but the three leads (Highmore, Russell and Rhys-Myers) do little more than radiate their looks in wide-eyed, wistful or angst-driven poses.  The dialog is often inarticulate and pointless.  No child could make those sounds on a guitar so immediately and easily.  I did like that the film managed to convey the joy and connecting properties in music, but it was obviously trying to push emotional buttons rather than tell a believable story. 

  • Dan's the man

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

    Dan in Real Life  (2007)

    In general I did enjoy this movie.  Some very funny moments, but I was bothered by the underlying premise:  that Dan (Steve Carell) was some sort of sad sack and an overprotective, clueless parent.  His two older children are horrible to him without justification.  He tries to do the right thing by his brother, and he's good at his column.

    Well, at least the lovely Juliette Binoche is part of the cast, and it all ends correctly.


  • Good, eh?

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

    Wilby Wonderful  (2004)

    Wilby Wonderful, written and directed by Daniel MacIvor

    This film has been referred to as a “dark” comedy, but a better word would be “poignant.”  Wilby Wonderful centers on a group of characters in the small Canadian island community of Wilby.  Two things are about to happen:  the Wilby Days Festival and an ominous disclosure of those who had been involved in “the Watch scandal.”   The situations and relationships of the story’s characters become gradually clear.

    It begins curiously with a long-faced man on a bridge (James Allodi) who is obviously planning to kill himself by jumping off it.  His jump is interrupted by the unexpected arrival of a handyman in his truck.  Hastily the man climbs back down, but his foot gets stuck between the bridge’s bars as the driver approaches.  The two men apparently know each other; the embarrassment of the one is awkwardly heightened by the silent but understanding concern of the other (Callum Keith Rennie).  Our jumper realizes the other guy isn’t going to go away, so he morosely lopes off to his own car and drives off.  After watching him disappear, the man with the truck sets about the job that brought him to the bridge in the first place:  he pulls out and unrolls a large banner that cheerily declares “Wilby Wonderful.”  It turns out to be a misprint—the banners are supposed to say “Wonderful Wilby.”  The misprint becomes a gentle pun—things might be misaligned now, but they “will be” wonderful if given the chance.

    We find out that the would-be jumper is Dan Jarvis, the video store owner whose wife has just left him after he was discovered in an affair with a man—Walter “Duck” McDonald, the handyman with the truck.  Poor Dan’s suicide attempt becomes a running joke throughout the film, as each of his subsequent (and inept) attempts are thwarted.  Something in this suggests he doesn’t seriously want to die, he just doesn’t know how to face the humiliation of having been found out.

    From there throughout the day we encounter and gradually learn about Emily Anderson (Ellen Page), teenage daughter of single mom Sandy (Rebecca Jenkins).  Emily is trying to decide what to do with her hair, then races off to a petting session with her new boyfriend Taylor (Caleb Langille).  Emily’s mom runs one of the town’s diners and is still the man-hungry floozy that she was in high school.  Emily’s dash across town causes Carol French (Sandra Oh) to slam on the brakes of her bulky SUV while she’s rattling off directives on her cell phone.  Carol is a real estate agent who is organizing the festival and trying to sell her mother-in-law’s house to the mayor, Brent Fisher (Maury Chaykin).  Carol’s husband Buddy (Paul Gross) is one of the town’s policemen who is investigating the Watch scandal.  The mayor’s brother-in-law Stan Lastman (Daniel MacIvor) is Buddy’s partner.  Sandy Anderson and Buddy are attempting to have an affair, but so far haven’t gotten beyond surreptitious groping and kissing as brief opportunities present themselves.

    Everything comes to a head in the evening.  Dan finally manages to hang (but not kill) himself from an exposed beam in the house Carol is trying to sell to the mayor.  Flapping papers and muttering to herself about everything that has gone wrong during the day, she doesn’t at first see him.  The film takes on a touch of farce as she flies around hysterically trying to figure out what to do.  Just as she’s gotten him cut down, the mayor and his family arrive to look at the house.  She stuffs the unconscious Dan into the cupboard under the stairs, but the rope he used is still hanging from the beam, and a corner of his jacket is caught in the cupboard door.  The mayor’s obnoxious daughter Mackenzie (Marcella Grimaux) won’t leave it alone, opens the cupboard door while the grownups are in another part of the house…Meanwhile, Buddy discovers that Stan has been planting syringes on the parcel of land known as the Watch in order to prove that the Watch is a hangout for drug users, which in turn furthers the mayor’s plan to turn the Watch into a golf course.  In the motel room Taylor has taken for them, Emily’s realized she doesn’t want to have sex after all and comes to understand that her mother isn’t a bad person.  As Duck tells her, Sandy only wants to love and be loved, just like everyone else.

    The comedy is chuckle-inducing, often subtle rather than knee-slapping, and the characters are recognizable without being stereotypes.  Everyone comes to a new understanding of themselves or their situations and gets to start afresh.  Unlike slick Hollywood endings that imply Perfectly Happy Ever After, Wilby Wonderful ends in low-key believability.  Good performances by a familiar range of character actors, especially James Allodi, Maury Chaykin and Sandra Oh.  I would just add that Marcella Grimaux (playing the mayor's daughter) is the perfect unpleasant, self-centered teenager, and director Daniel MacIvor’s Stan is a scene stealer.  I want to see MacIvor’s other films now. 


  • "He's all of Quebec standing powerful and alive."

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

    The Rocket  (2005)

    The Rocket

    • Directed by Charles Binamé, written by Ken Scott
    • Roy Dupuis – Maurice Richard
    • Julie LeBreton – Lucille Norchet Richard
    • Stephen McHattie – Dick Irvin, coach of the Montreal Canadiens
    • Ted Dillon – Clarence Campbell, commissioner of the NHL
    • Phillip Craig – Tommy Gorman, Canadiens’ manager
    • Serge Houde – Conn Smythe, manager of the Maple Leafs
    • Sean Avery – Bob “Killer” Dill, player for the NY Rangers

     

    I’ve never followed hockey or been to a game but have enjoyed every hockey film seen.  It boils down to the skating.  Cooler than any fancy figuring, seeing burly guys zip around on blades without a thought, amazingly balanced as they execute furious, tricky moves.  I’ve thought of going to games on occasion, but I’d never get such terrific camera’s eye views at actual games, I'm afraid.

    Here then is The Rocket, a film about Maurice Richard, held to be Quebec’s greatest player.  Interesting story, but not as much game time as anticipated.  It centers more on his life and troubles off the ice rather than his triumphs on it.  The film opens on the hubbub surrounding the Canadiens’ game with the Boston Bruins in March 1955.  Someone not named is in, or has caused, big trouble.  Since the movie’s about Richard, it’s not hard to guess who’s at the center of the storm—but for what?  From that opening teaser the film jumps back to Richard as a teenage machinist during the Depression, playing hockey for the postal service after work.  Even then he’s something of a stoic, reticent, keeping his head down but playing hockey with determination and intensity.

    Five years later the Canadiens take him on as a rookie, but almost from the start there’s a problem:  Richard (“The Comet”) has been injured a couple times (broken ankle and wrist).  He breaks his ankle again and is then seen as too fragile for the game.  One journalist refers to him as “a lemon that’s easily crushed.”  They make him sit out games and try to trade him to another team, but no one else will have him.  Eventually, out of desperation, coach Dick Irvin, who’d lobbied hard for Richard in the first place, gives Richard another shot.  The Comet then proves himself to be The Rocket, shining and scoring despite snide remarks from the press for his halting English and players on rival teams gunning for him physically.

    Carefully the film builds up a picture of prejudice against French Canadian players in the NHL.  Insulted in the press, unsupported by Anglo managers and refs, Richard and his fellow “Frenchies” shrug bitterly and heroically carry on, complaining only among themselves.  The Rocket proves he’ll only swallow so much.  At a game with the NY Rangers, Bob “Killer” Dill homes in on Richard, harassing him at every opportunity.  Irvin had tried to keep Richard out of the game as long as possible, as everyone knew Dill meant to take Richard out.  But after Dill bluntly attacks him, Richard throws down his stick, rips off his gloves and gives Dill a couple no-nonsense punches.  Not knowing when to quit, Dill follows him back to the Canadiens’ box and jumps him, only to be pounded further by our Gallic hero.  The harassment within the league, in the papers or on the ice doesn’t stop, however.  After another attack during a game, Richard comes back with sewn-up eyebrow to score brilliantly yet again.  As the team’s owner is congratulating him afterwards, Richard breaks into sobs.  As if bursting to say “yes you’re behind me when I win, but where is your regard when I’m being attacked?”

    The hitherto reticent Richard turns to the press to complain in print about the treatment French Canadians receive, hoping to expose what “everyone” knows to be true in the hope of changing things, to demand respect and equal treatment for his compatriots.  This is all well and good, till he attacks the league commissioner himself.  He’s forced to choose between retraction and apology or being expelled from the NHL.  And then we come to the fateful event at Boston Gardens on March 13, 1955, that opened the film.

    A Boston player strikes Richard in the head with a stick from behind (in those days players didn’t wear helmets).  The referees say nothing to the attacker.  When Richard regains his feet, he goes after the Boston player and whacks him back.  In the ensuing free-for-all, one of the refs holds Richard from behind, allowing another Bruin to punch Richard while Richard’s arms are pinned.  The ref finally lets go; Richard turns and knocks the man out with one punch.  Sacre bleu!  A player, and a Frenchie, has struck a ref!

    Campbell’s decision is to suspend Richard for the rest of the season, and from the playoffs as well.  Nothing at all is done to Richard’s attackers or the referee who held him while he was being punched.  Street rioting ensues; Campbell is physically attacked by fans.  Richard’s initial reaction is to quit hockey altogether, but in the end he begs the fans not to make any more trouble, saying he accepts his punishment and he will be back with the Canadiens in the next season.  The Canadiens go on to win, with Richard’s help, 5 more Stanley Cups.

    Of course I don’t know how bad this prejudice against French Canadians actually was, but the film seems to be using Richard’s story to protest this prejudice, rather than concentrate on Richard’s playing and why he was so good.  I’d have liked to see more of his playing and not so much of the stoic soldiering on outside of the rink.  But it’s a film worth seeing nevertheless. 


  • Tug of War

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

    Mother of Mine  (2005)

    Mother of Mine  [Äideistä parhain]

    Directed by Klaus Härö; based on the novel by Heikki Hietamies

    The title and cover picture had me wondering if this was going to be some man’s soppy paean to his mama.  But no, it turned out to be a quiet yet quite affecting story about a Finnish boy, Eero Lahti, one of many Finnish children sent off to Sweden during World War II for safekeeping.  Told in retrospect from middle age, after Eero’s Swedish foster mother has died, the film’s overall theme is of finally coming to terms with painful, conflicting emotions of the past and with the well-meaning but wounding mistakes both his mothers made.

    Eero’s father is killed in the war, leaving Eero’s mother Kirsti too distraught and worried about Eero’s safety to cope.  It appears to Eero as if his mother has lost interest in him and abandoned him to strangers.  When he finally arrives at his assigned home in Sweden, his surrogate mother Signe Jönsson, obviously expecting a girl, doesn’t seem to want him either.  He doesn’t know Swedish, doesn’t understand Signe’s sharp criticisms, is understandably resentful and unhappy, despite the kindness shown him by Signe’s husband Hjalmar.  Over time this changes, especially after Eero learns about the daughter Signe and Hjalmar lost.  Eero finds out that Kirsti has fallen in love with a German, plans to return to Germany with him and wants Signe and Hjalmar to keep Eero.  What Signe doesn’t tell Eero is that Kirsti changes her mind almost immediately, realizing she could never give away her son.  Eero thinks he’s being forced to leave Signe to return to the mother who abandoned him in the first place and only wants him now because the German left her.  The truth is revealed years later when he goes back to Sweden for the funeral and finally reads Signe’s last letter to him and Kirsti.

    The film tells the story simply and effectively in a pristine, uncluttered setting—the lovely birch wood around Eero’s home in Finland and the clipped green order of the farm where the Jönssons live (even the geese are surprisingly unmessy and docile).  Straightforward, believable performances from the cast, including Topi Majaniemi (young Eero), Marjanna Maijala (Kirsti Lahti), Michael Nyqvist (Hjalmar Jönsson) and especially Maria Lundqvist (Signe Jönsson).  She is the film’s true centerpiece.

    It’s all pretty to look at while deftly poking you with the many cruelties well-intentioned, imperfect adults inflict on children.  Worst of all not being honest with them, under the misguided notion that children have to be protected from reality, that they are incapable of understanding or dealing with truth.  Along with lying to them for selfish reasons.  I was glad I had a fresh hankie on hand.

     


  • You're gonna miss who?

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

    You’re Gonna Miss Me:  A Film About Roky Erickson 

    Documentary directed by Keven McAlester.

     

    13th Floor Elevators?  Roky Erickson? I thought.  Who were they?  Of course the film revealed all.  Soon as I heard the title song I remembered both it and Erickson’s distinctive voice.  I’d just never known them by name.

     

    I also hadn’t realized Erickson and his band had had such an impact in the rock world.  Impressive seeing the likes of Patti Smith, Billy Gibbons and Thurston Moore attest to the Elevators’ influence.  So the flawed goddess that was Janis Joplin learned some of her chops from Erickson?  The Elevators were the first to use the term “psychedelic” to label their music?  Wow.  Who knew.

     

    I was glad the film didn’t carry any of the sensationalizing narrative of things like Behind the Music; it’s a straightforward snapshot of the man’s situation and history.  Drugs, mental illness, horrific placement in a hospital for the criminally insane where he did not belong, dysfunctional family.  Erickson’s mother seemed stranger than Roky himself.  Sad situation that at least doesn’t end in the usual blazing tragedy.

     

    Despite learning things I hadn’t known before and recognizing that the Elevators’ and Erickson’s story is a piece of music history that shouldn’t be lost, I couldn’t stay interested and wasn’t much affected by the film.  Liked the music, however, and found the Power Puff Girls pillows on the sofa at the close of the film intriguing.

     


  • Wondrous Oblivion

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

    Written and directed by Paul Morrison. A story about 11-year-old David Wiseman (Sam Smith), a Jewish boy in South London in 1960 who is mad for cricket but a hopeless player.  He avidly collects cricket player trading cards, has a bat signed by the entire Surrey team and a full set of whites for playing in.  His parents, Ruth and Victor Wiseman (played by Emily Woof and Stanley Townsend) are immigrants from Poland.  At least that’s my guess; I’d originally thought them German, till Ruth teasingly refers to Victor as “you Polack.”  Lilian (Yasmin Paige) is David’s younger sister, a smart-mouthed cello player whom we don’t see or get to know much of.

    The Wisemans, being Jewish, are the target of their neighborhood’s bigotry until the neighbors on their left move out and a Jamaican family, the Samuels, moves in.  Assuming that the Wisemans’ landlord must be Jewish, too, the ringleading bigot, a Mrs. Wilson, buttonholes Mrs. Wiseman, importuning her to complain to the landlord and try to get the Samuels evicted.

    On top of being “darkies,” the Samuels excite much gossip and headshaking by digging up the roses and erecting a cricket net in their back garden.  David is at once entranced, ignoring his parents’ instructions to be polite but not to mix with the Samuels family.  After watching Dennis Samuels (Delroy Lindo) and his daughter Judy (Leonie Elliott) bowl and bat to each other, he more or less invites himself over to join them, all the more pitifully by turning up in full kit.  Dennis and Judy soon realize he’s not the player he wants to be, but Dennis kindly takes him in hand and gives him some real coaching.  Over time David gains enough skill to be allowed to play for his school’s team, instead of being relegated to keeping score, and he and Judy become good friends.

    So caught up in his cricketing, David is rather oblivious to what else is happening around him.  The rest of the neighborhood is incensed that the Wisemans allow David to be so friendly with the Samuels.  Ruth Wiseman, often neglected by her good but work-distracted husband, attempts to turn to Dennis for physical and romantic attention (he wisely declines).  The Wilsons and/or their grandson harass both the Wisemans and the Samuels, leaving them threatening notes, making menacing gestures.  Victor Wiseman keeps the threatening notes to himself and decides to move the family out of the neighborhood.  Then David himself falls prey to peer pressure and snobbery.  He’s given a birthday party to which all his schoolfellows are invited, but when Judy comes to wish him happy birthday as well, he turns her away, afraid of ruining his new-found acceptance among the other boys.

    The tensions and ill feelings come to a head when the Wilsons’ grandson sets fire to the Samuels’ house and cricket netting.  When even the police refuse to believe that the fire wasn’t just some careless accident on the Samuels’ part, Victor speaks up.  It’s a short speech (“You should be ashamed.  We all should be ashamed.  Ask those two about their grandson.”) but it seems to shame the neighbors into being more accepting.

    There are many films about having to grow up and face tough issues like prejudice; this one feels as though it’s merely skimming the surface of things that could be said.  Technically speaking, the sound is uneven—the dialog is so low it’s hard to follow much of the time, while the film’s music blares too loudly.  Sam Smith is wonderfully oblivious but not a lot else.  Leonie Elliott and Yasmin Paige are more natural.  Stanley Townsend is likeable as the well-intentioned breadwinner and Emily Woof as a wife and mother torn by wanting to protect her family yet be accepting of fellow immigrants and seek greater fulfillment for herself.  Delroy Lindo always has an arresting presence.  Over all, I enjoyed this movie and its cast well enough, but it seemed clumsy and ineffectual a lot of the time, just touching on the points it intended to make.  I could see it trying to manipulate how I ought to be reacting.


  • Unforgettable in a hurry

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

    13 Tzameti  (2005)

    13 Tzameti.  The cover described it as “a gruesome existential thriller.”  That made me decide to watch it first of the three in my packet—get it over with.  Gruesome’s not my thing.  But this film may prove to be my favorite of the three.

    Written and directed by Georgian-Frenchman Gela Babluani (that’s European Georgia, not the American state), starring his brother Georges Babluani as Sebastien, the young laborer trying to make money for his immigrant family, this stark, minimalist film hooks you almost right away, building curiosity and ominous suspense.  Sebastien is doing roof repair for Monsieur Godon, a drug addict undoubtedly into criminal activity of some mysterious kind.  He overhears talk of some job that’s possibly going to earn Godon a lot of money; Godon is waiting on an envelope with instructions.  The police are watching Godon’s house, also waiting for this mysterious envelope to appear.  Not long after it does, Godon dies of an overdose.  Circumstances literally waft the envelope into Sebastien’s hands.  After Madame Godon says she’s not interested in having him finish the work on the house and can’t pay him for the work he’s already done, Sebastien decides to take Godon’s place and see what this potentially lucrative job might be.

    The police realize Sebastien has taken the envelope and tail him.  At first I wasn’t sure they were the police.  The situation is gradually revealed as Sebastien gets closer to his unknown destination.  The envelope contained only a train ticket to Paris and a paid hotel reservation.  At the hotel, he gets a phone call giving him further instructions regarding a locker in a train station and is told to get off one stop before the final destination.  He unwittingly eludes the police trap waiting for him by doing so, but the cop trailing him takes the license number of the cab he gets into. The cab leaves him at a crossroads traffic island.  He isn’t waiting long before another car arrives, driven by a man who holds up a card with the number 13 on it, matching the card in the packet Sebastien got from the locker.  He’s driven to a deserted farm where two other men are waiting for him.  He’s searched, made to strip, and one of the men breaks the heels off his shoes, apparently thinking he might have some weapon or bug hidden in them.  All of this, of course, serves only to ratchet up Sebastien’s alarm and apprehension.  But they don’t hurt him, and he’s allowed to re-dress, then is driven off to a large isolated house surrounded by woods.

    There’s a crowd of men there.  Sebastien is led to a room and told to sit down.  Two new men enter the room, and one of them instantly realizes Sebastien isn’t Monsieur Godon.  You can feel Sebastien’s breathless tension, wondering what they’ll do.  When they allow him to speak, he explains that Godon had died of an overdose and he’s come to take Godon’s place.  The two men confer in a corner, hissing that the police may have planted Sebastien and perhaps they should disappear.  But the first speaker says no, he’d rather be arrested than have the group think he ratted on them.  Sebastien, clearly having more than second thoughts, says that if he doesn’t suit them, he’ll just leave, but the first speaker snorts and says there’s no way he’s leaving now; he has to stay and play, even though he has no idea what the game is.

    At this point they’re called downstairs to assemble for the game.  Sebastien is put in a t-shirt with the number 13 marked on it in black tape (“tzameti” is the Georgian word for 13).  Guns are handed to all thirteen players with one bullet apiece.  And so it dawns:  this is a version of Russian roulette, in which the players draw their guns on each other rather than themselves.  The spectators are there to bet on who will survive.  I was hardly less aghast than Sebastien.  But utterly drawn in.  Even though I knew, had suspected all along, that this could not end well even if Sebastien survived the game, I had to see how it all unfolded.

    Sebastien does survive the game, shaken, horrified at himself as much as anything else, yet a small, brief smile of triumph flashes across his face momentarily.  The relief doesn’t last long; he knows he probably isn’t going to make it home alive.  I was convinced the men organizing the game would not allow him to live, since he now knew too much.  He escapes them and is clever enough to post his winnings to his brother the next morning before taking the train back home.  He has, however, the misfortune to take the same train as the brother of the player he killed in the final duel.

    Thankfully, the film is in black and white and Babluani doesn’t rub your face in graphic violence.  Young George, with his large dark eyes, gives a natural and entirely believable performance as Sebastien, showing us his escalating emotions without saying much or over-doing the body language, making you care about him even though he’s done this very foolhardy thing to himself.  He can’t bring himself to fire his gun at first but, to save himself being automatically killed for refusing to play, with trembling arm finally pulls the trigger.  On an empty chamber.  It’s both wrenching and hair-raising.

    Even the despicable characters were interesting, making me wonder what sort of mind takes enjoyment out of this sort of murdering degradation of fellow human beings.  The referee was constantly agitated and angry, shouting at everyone, but when Sebastien is left standing, he calls out “Bravo, number 13, bravo!”  The very obese player’s sponsors treated him with kindness, unexpected among such otherwise heartless men.  Sebastien’s sponsors ask him if he’s “pleased.” 

    Good performances all around.  Sorting out which actors played which characters is a difficulty, however, since in the dialog very few of them give or are addressed by their names.  In fact, Sebastien himself is never named; I learned his character’s name from reading the DVD jacket, and I’m only assuming that the person he mailed his winnings to was his brother.  Well, it only matters in trying to talk about the movie.  Names are irrelevant in the viewing.

     

     

  • Cadfael TV series

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

    Ellis Peters' Brother Cadfael novels are a treat.  She had the ability to make you feel as if you were there, seeing what it was like in 12th-century Shrewsbury, and Cadfael himself is one of my favorite fictional characters - ex-Crusader turned monk; shrewd; wise; large-hearted; interested in everyone, saint and sinner alike.  The series was uneven, however.  Some episodes were well done; some were hard to sit through, despite the excellent presence of Derek Jacobi.  Perhaps in part because it's a little difficult to pull off medieval dialog naturally, without sounding stilted or silly.


  • Inch'Allah Dimanche

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

    The subtitles wouldn’t show up in the DVD player but I watched the film anyway.  An interesting experiment in seeing how much I could follow with the dialog in effect removed.  Put the case away so as not to read more of the notes.  What I knew going in was that this was written and directed by a French/Algerian woman (Yamina Benguigui) and had to do with an Algerian woman joining her husband in France after he’d been working there on his own for awhile.  It was frustrating sometimes because I knew I was missing important details that would make what was happening clearer, but the performances of Fejria Deliba and her supporting cast were so clearly communicative that it wasn’t hard to understand the basic story at all.  A painful situation for Zouina, more or less dragged by a hateful, carping mother-in-law away from her mother, sisters and friends to live in a foreign country with a husband she no longer truly knows.  In France she has no allies or friends, being at the mercy of the tyrannical harpy with no support from her distrustful husband and has to contend with white neighbors who are suspicious and unaccepting of Algerian cultural differences.  The divorcee on the other side of their house takes an interest in Zouina and wants to be her friend, but her overtures get Zouina in still more trouble with the harpy and the husband.  In desperation, she and the children take to sneaking out whenever the husband and mother-in-law are gone from the house for a few hours (later I learned this took place on Sundays, which accounted for the title, which roughly translates to "thank Allah for Sunday").  On their first outing I thought Zouina was running away with the children, but it became evident that she was looking either for a relative or other Algerian woman she had heard lived nearby, someone she could safely cultivate a relationship with.  But her last hope seems to be dashed when she finally finds the woman, who is reluctantly, suspiciously welcoming.  After a short while she throws Zouina and her children out of the house, shouting some sort of imprecation.  My guess was that Zouina had said something about leaving home without her husband’s permission, incurring conservative disapproval instead of sympathy.  Heartbroken by this rejection, Zouina bangs on the door, obviously begging to be accepted/welcomed, and smashes her fist through a window while the children try to pull her away.  Instead of getting back in the taxi to go home, she takes the children on the bus.  The very bus driven by a young man who’s been watching for her whenever he goes by her house.  He makes all the other passengers get off, then takes Zouina and the children home.

    I ended up watching the film again on my computer.  Magically, the subtitles appeared.  Even with the dialog made clear, the film’s closing scene, though pleasing, was puzzling.  I thought for sure Zouina would be heading home into her worst beating ever, especially when brought home by another man.  Everyone is waiting on the front step, mother-in-law in full spate.  But hubby rounds on his mother for the first time ever, tells her to shut up, then faces Zouina with something like concern in his face.  Was he newly cognizant of her spirit and suddenly afraid she might leave him?  Whatever the reason for the awakening respect in his stance, it was apparent that things were going to be different, in a good way, from then on.  Perhaps not perfect, but hopeful.

    The film does well in bringing to life the variegated, intertwined conflicts going on in Zouina’s life:  trying to fit into a new culture, having her support system stripped away, dealing with neighbors both hostile and friendly who don’t understand the world she comes from, the struggle between traditional ways and the emerging feminist movement (the story is set in the early Seventies). 


  • An absolute favorite

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

    A Midnight Clear  (1992)

    I'm not sure I can improve on the All Movie Guide review.  This is an excellent film, very well adapted from the excellent novel by William Wharton.  Intelligent, subtly funny, heartbreaking, thought-provoking; well-chosen cast.  WWII is sometimes thought of as the "good" war, but in reality, as the film points out, all war encompasses evil, horror and stupidity.


  • Live Free or Die Hard

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

    Perhaps I hoped for too much.  But I loved the first Die Hard and remain a Bruce Willis fan, so I keep going to the sequels.  This was disappointment #3.  Too many preposterous stunts, too heavy on the big bangs, rather bland but smug dialog.  While the premise was thought-provoking (just how secure are our most important computer sytems & services, and is it really a good idea to be so dependent on technology?), the menace didn't come across believably.  Neither did the resolution--could Matthew (Justin Long) really thwart the baddie's plan that easily and quickly?  I don't know enough about computer hacking to be able to tell, but it didn't feel realistic at all.  The film seemed to be more interested in looking cool than being logical or smart.


  • Sad

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

    I'm going to be saying things that others have said--but it really is a shame this movie isn't better!  The first Pirates was so cool, such a great adventure, but the sequels should be making Disney blush.  I'm sure they don't care, however, so long as the box office numbers are high.

    The sequels served to make Captain Jack more of a buffoon and less noticeably savvy.  The plots are ridiculously convoluted, hard to follow and illogical.  I admit to finding Pirates II a lark even as it got too silly to be respected.  Pirates III is worse.  Too long, too inexplicably bizarre in places (I'm thinking of Jack in the beyond, fantasizing his multiple selves).  Keith Richards' appearance was a let-down when it came; more could have been done with his character.  Keira Knightly gets less cool and likeable with every encounter; she's really only window dressing.  Her supposedly rousing speech before battle is trite & substanceless.  Poor Orlando Bloom is overshadowed in all this.  The denouement, in which the East India Company baddie has some kind of mental breakdown and doesn't fight back, rings false.  I suspect it was reached for because the rest of the film had already taken up too much time and they had to start thinking "wrap."

    Having said all that, the film is a visual feast and however much of a buffoon, Depp's Captain Jack is worth sitting through this nonsensical mess for (though maybe only once.  I went a second time and it was just too much, seemed even more tired than the first viewing).  I love the excellent Geoffrey Rush as well, was glad he'd been brought back (though it was on a very thin plotline).  Bill Nighy's Davy Jones is also a treat.

    I dread the trotting out of a Pirates IV...though if it comes to pass, I'll probably see it, so long as Johnny Depp plays Jack.


  • Santa Claus(e)

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

    The Santa Clause  (1994)

    While I get really tired of the stance taken in Disney films that grownups are either mean & bad or good but clueless, that kids know everything and should always get their way lest they be the least bit unhappy for even a moment, I do enjoy this film a lot.  It's fun (despite the whiny Charlie who isn't all that cute) and inventive (up to a point); the North Pole workshop is lovely (I especially love Santa's big sleigh bed); I like Bernard the elf and Tim Allen's turn in the central ro