This interview with the writer of the "Battlefield Earth" movie is surprisingly insightful.
Showing posts with label Films of the 2000s. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Films of the 2000s. Show all posts
Monday, October 28, 2019
Saturday, July 18, 2015
Movie Review: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Every year at New Year's when the clock passes midnight, groups of people will traditionally sing "Auld Lang Syne". But why? The original poem that the song is based on is about whether the past is worth remembering - whether the recollection of good memories is worth the cost of remembering the bad ones. The phrase "auld lang syne" can be translated "old times" or "days gone by". The original song goes:
"Eternal Sunshine" asks the same kinds of questions though it revolves around a completely different holiday. The movie begins with one of the great first lines in all of film: "Random thoughts for Valentine's day, 2004: Today is a holiday invented by greeting card companies to make people feel like crap." The line is delivered in voice-over by the main character Joel, played by Jim Carrey. Joel is in a long-term relationship with Clementine (Kate Winslet) but is informed that she has chosen to end the relationship by having him erased from her memory. A small company named Lacuna, Inc. has discovered a medical procedure which allows people to safely have memories erased such that, to the subject, it's as if they never happened. Joel is so devastated by this news that he decides to have her erased from his memory also. The problem is the procedure is unstoppable and irreversible and part-way through he changes his mind.
The question that the characters face is the question of whether, in the final analysis, their relationship was really worth it. If all of their experiences with the other person - the euphoria, the fighting, the regret, the hurt, the togetherness - if it could all be summed up like an accounting ledger, does the end result turn out to be negative? If it is, then is a person better off wiping the ledger clean? "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" is, in some ways, an exploration of the Tennyson phrase "'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all" stretched over 100 minutes.
But while Joel is grappling with the question of whether his experience with Clementine was worth it, I wonder if the movie is posing an even larger question to the audience. I think the movie asks whether romantic relationships and romantic love IN GENERAL are really worth it. At least I think it hints that way.
Consider that the movie presents us with quite a few different relationships comprised of many different personalities with different parameters and different histories. Consider that with all its variety, there's one thing that holds true in every presented case: the relationship is not making anyone happier and the relationship is not making anyone better.
There is a man in the movie who falls in love with a woman only to find her with another man. There is another man pursuing romance through predatorial means. There is a married man who has an affair and by the end, his wife has found out the devastating truth and will probably divorce him. Another character is falling in love with a woman but finds that his love is unrequited. And then, there is one particular couple who Joel spends much time with (played brilliantly by Jane Adams and David Cross). This is one of those couples who seem to spend every waking hour of their lives fighting. In lesser movies, "fighting" denotes melodramatic screaming and slammed doors. But this movie is too smart for that. Here, the depiction is of a couple whose conversation is non-stop bickering - their entire lives seem devoted to cutting down the other with passive-aggressive digs. Each insult is met with under-the-breath muttering, each comment is met with a retort, no mistake goes unnoticed, no negative thought goes unspoken. It's a couple that we've all known or seen somewhere in our lives. It's exactly those relationships that you look at and think, "why are they even together?" After all, it can't possibly be worth it. Can it?
As Lacuna's machine goes through Joel's memories, erasing them one by one, it suddenly comes across the good ones and Joel is forced to re-live those as well. Joel realizes, of course, that he doesn't want to let go of those memories. One such memory provides my favorite visual in the movie: Joel and Clementine lying together on a frozen lake in the middle of winter and gazing up at the stars. Joel has one of the moments so rare in life: "I could die right now, Clem. I'm just... happy. I've never felt that before. I'm just exactly where I want to be." And Carrey gives it the perfect tone. But the moment is fleeting and soon that memory is gone.
A while later, Joel's remembering the day that he and Clementine first met. They're at a beach party and they sit together and stare out at the ocean. But this memory will soon be erased too. It's here that Kaufman uses the fleeting nature of Joel's memory to speak to the fleeting nature of life itself:
Clementine: This is it, Joel. It's going to be gone soon.
Joel: I know.
Clementine: What do we do?
Joel: Enjoy it.
As the mind machine traverses the synaptic connections of Joel's brain, we see the various events in Joel and Clem's relationship in a "stream of consciousness" order. The usual slow and predictable ebb and flow of human relationships is replaced by a collage of context-less episodes. We see a horrible fight mashed right up against blissful euphoria and we struggle to assimilate the two into a cohesive idea. It's reminiscent of "Slaughterhouse-Five", the classic story of a man who becomes "unstuck in time". One moment he's married, the next he's a child, the next he's fighting in WW2 - we have to consider his life as a mosaic rather than a portrait. It's a task we're not accustomed to and it doesn't come easy.
There's a musical example of this too. If you can get past the fact that William Shatner is involved, there's something interesting to be found in the oddball non-hit "In Love" by Fear of Pop. The song tells the story of a relationship from two perspectives. The background singers (Ben Folds) are singing lyrics from the the relationship at its peak ("Hold me in the morning / and tell me I'm / The only one alive"). Meanwhile, the lead "singer" (Shatner) is speaking from some time after the proverbial plane has crashed into the proverbial mountain ("I can't tell you anything / And I can't commit / You're right / I can't commit ... To you!"). The back-and-forth flow of the song between the vocalists forces shuffles and intertwines the two perspectives. It leaves us to try to reconcile diametrically opposite feelings from the same person but from across two different points in time. In theory, it's all up to interpretation. Personally, I have to give the Shatner side more credence, though. Have you heard that guy? That guy is angry.
At the end of the movie, it's up to Joel and Clementine to reconcile the extremes of their love/hate - to come up with their own "sum of experiences". The last scene of the movie is yet another one of those scenes that feels utterly unique to "Eternal Sunshine". Joel and Clementine (who think they've just met) listen to audio tapes of themselves listing all the things they hate about the other person and all the memories they don't remember.
Joel [on tape] And the whole thing with the hair - it's all bullshit.
Joel: I really like your hair.
Clementine: Thank you.
They hear the pain and devastation they're capable of causing each other but they decide to give a relationship a(nother) try anyway. It's an ambiguous ending, technically. One could view it cynically and say that it's literally a case of "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Who are the brain-erased versions of Joel and Clementine, we might wonder, to think they know better than the versions of themselves that lived and learned and experienced? They're being willfully ignorant - they're still following the siren song of physical attraction even after they've seen the consequences.
But I don't see the ending as cynical and I don't project that the movie is trying to be either. I think, I hope, that the ending of the movie drops a hint that they've learned the one thing that will "break the cycle" they're in...
Joel: I can't see anything that I don't like about you.
Clementine: But you will! But you will. You know, you will think of things. And I'll get bored with you and feel trapped because that's what happens with me.
Joel: Okay.
Clementine: ....Okay... Okay.
By accepting the other's flaws, by acknowledging their own flaws, they've moved beyond their own selfish, self-centered thinking. For the first time they have the possibility for a relationship that's both self-less and forgiving. Thinking back, for all the poisonous relationships we've seen throughout the movie, that's the one thing no one had figured out. With people, as with memories, acceptance is absolutely invaluable - often, good and bad are hopelessly entangled.
9/10.
Every year at New Year's when the clock passes midnight, groups of people will traditionally sing "Auld Lang Syne". But why? The original poem that the song is based on is about whether the past is worth remembering - whether the recollection of good memories is worth the cost of remembering the bad ones. The phrase "auld lang syne" can be translated "old times" or "days gone by". The original song goes:
Should Old Acquaintance be forgot,
and never thought upon;
The flames of Love extinguished,
and fully past and gone:
Is thy sweet Heart now grown so cold,
that loving Breast of thine;
That thou canst never once reflect
On Old long syne.
"Eternal Sunshine" asks the same kinds of questions though it revolves around a completely different holiday. The movie begins with one of the great first lines in all of film: "Random thoughts for Valentine's day, 2004: Today is a holiday invented by greeting card companies to make people feel like crap." The line is delivered in voice-over by the main character Joel, played by Jim Carrey. Joel is in a long-term relationship with Clementine (Kate Winslet) but is informed that she has chosen to end the relationship by having him erased from her memory. A small company named Lacuna, Inc. has discovered a medical procedure which allows people to safely have memories erased such that, to the subject, it's as if they never happened. Joel is so devastated by this news that he decides to have her erased from his memory also. The problem is the procedure is unstoppable and irreversible and part-way through he changes his mind.
The question that the characters face is the question of whether, in the final analysis, their relationship was really worth it. If all of their experiences with the other person - the euphoria, the fighting, the regret, the hurt, the togetherness - if it could all be summed up like an accounting ledger, does the end result turn out to be negative? If it is, then is a person better off wiping the ledger clean? "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" is, in some ways, an exploration of the Tennyson phrase "'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all" stretched over 100 minutes.
But while Joel is grappling with the question of whether his experience with Clementine was worth it, I wonder if the movie is posing an even larger question to the audience. I think the movie asks whether romantic relationships and romantic love IN GENERAL are really worth it. At least I think it hints that way.
Consider that the movie presents us with quite a few different relationships comprised of many different personalities with different parameters and different histories. Consider that with all its variety, there's one thing that holds true in every presented case: the relationship is not making anyone happier and the relationship is not making anyone better.
There is a man in the movie who falls in love with a woman only to find her with another man. There is another man pursuing romance through predatorial means. There is a married man who has an affair and by the end, his wife has found out the devastating truth and will probably divorce him. Another character is falling in love with a woman but finds that his love is unrequited. And then, there is one particular couple who Joel spends much time with (played brilliantly by Jane Adams and David Cross). This is one of those couples who seem to spend every waking hour of their lives fighting. In lesser movies, "fighting" denotes melodramatic screaming and slammed doors. But this movie is too smart for that. Here, the depiction is of a couple whose conversation is non-stop bickering - their entire lives seem devoted to cutting down the other with passive-aggressive digs. Each insult is met with under-the-breath muttering, each comment is met with a retort, no mistake goes unnoticed, no negative thought goes unspoken. It's a couple that we've all known or seen somewhere in our lives. It's exactly those relationships that you look at and think, "why are they even together?" After all, it can't possibly be worth it. Can it?
As Lacuna's machine goes through Joel's memories, erasing them one by one, it suddenly comes across the good ones and Joel is forced to re-live those as well. Joel realizes, of course, that he doesn't want to let go of those memories. One such memory provides my favorite visual in the movie: Joel and Clementine lying together on a frozen lake in the middle of winter and gazing up at the stars. Joel has one of the moments so rare in life: "I could die right now, Clem. I'm just... happy. I've never felt that before. I'm just exactly where I want to be." And Carrey gives it the perfect tone. But the moment is fleeting and soon that memory is gone.
A while later, Joel's remembering the day that he and Clementine first met. They're at a beach party and they sit together and stare out at the ocean. But this memory will soon be erased too. It's here that Kaufman uses the fleeting nature of Joel's memory to speak to the fleeting nature of life itself:
Clementine: This is it, Joel. It's going to be gone soon.
Joel: I know.
Clementine: What do we do?
Joel: Enjoy it.
As the mind machine traverses the synaptic connections of Joel's brain, we see the various events in Joel and Clem's relationship in a "stream of consciousness" order. The usual slow and predictable ebb and flow of human relationships is replaced by a collage of context-less episodes. We see a horrible fight mashed right up against blissful euphoria and we struggle to assimilate the two into a cohesive idea. It's reminiscent of "Slaughterhouse-Five", the classic story of a man who becomes "unstuck in time". One moment he's married, the next he's a child, the next he's fighting in WW2 - we have to consider his life as a mosaic rather than a portrait. It's a task we're not accustomed to and it doesn't come easy.
There's a musical example of this too. If you can get past the fact that William Shatner is involved, there's something interesting to be found in the oddball non-hit "In Love" by Fear of Pop. The song tells the story of a relationship from two perspectives. The background singers (Ben Folds) are singing lyrics from the the relationship at its peak ("Hold me in the morning / and tell me I'm / The only one alive"). Meanwhile, the lead "singer" (Shatner) is speaking from some time after the proverbial plane has crashed into the proverbial mountain ("I can't tell you anything / And I can't commit / You're right / I can't commit ... To you!"). The back-and-forth flow of the song between the vocalists forces shuffles and intertwines the two perspectives. It leaves us to try to reconcile diametrically opposite feelings from the same person but from across two different points in time. In theory, it's all up to interpretation. Personally, I have to give the Shatner side more credence, though. Have you heard that guy? That guy is angry.
At the end of the movie, it's up to Joel and Clementine to reconcile the extremes of their love/hate - to come up with their own "sum of experiences". The last scene of the movie is yet another one of those scenes that feels utterly unique to "Eternal Sunshine". Joel and Clementine (who think they've just met) listen to audio tapes of themselves listing all the things they hate about the other person and all the memories they don't remember.
Joel [on tape] And the whole thing with the hair - it's all bullshit.
Joel: I really like your hair.
Clementine: Thank you.
They hear the pain and devastation they're capable of causing each other but they decide to give a relationship a(nother) try anyway. It's an ambiguous ending, technically. One could view it cynically and say that it's literally a case of "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Who are the brain-erased versions of Joel and Clementine, we might wonder, to think they know better than the versions of themselves that lived and learned and experienced? They're being willfully ignorant - they're still following the siren song of physical attraction even after they've seen the consequences.
But I don't see the ending as cynical and I don't project that the movie is trying to be either. I think, I hope, that the ending of the movie drops a hint that they've learned the one thing that will "break the cycle" they're in...
Joel: I can't see anything that I don't like about you.
Clementine: But you will! But you will. You know, you will think of things. And I'll get bored with you and feel trapped because that's what happens with me.
Joel: Okay.
Clementine: ....Okay... Okay.
By accepting the other's flaws, by acknowledging their own flaws, they've moved beyond their own selfish, self-centered thinking. For the first time they have the possibility for a relationship that's both self-less and forgiving. Thinking back, for all the poisonous relationships we've seen throughout the movie, that's the one thing no one had figured out. With people, as with memories, acceptance is absolutely invaluable - often, good and bad are hopelessly entangled.
9/10.
Monday, June 9, 2014
IMDB 250 - Rang De Basanti (2006)
Rang De Basanti (2006)
Awful. Awful. Awful. Paper-thin characters, paper-thin plot, totally unrealistic but here's the good news - they managed to tell it all in just a hair under three hours. There must be lots of scenes left on the cutting room floor. To top it all off, it's a movie that has the audacity to murder. Huzzah! At one point, a guy joins the air-force and it's a total of 5 minutes of screen time later that the news announces his plane crashed. That's probably the world record for quickest Goose. Just tortuous, stupid manipulation.
I won't bother reviewing this movie in the usual way - it's not worth it. I don't even care. There's no way this should be considered even a good movie, let alone one of the best. If there are enough dumb people out there to keep it in the IMDB 250 then we all deserve what we get.
The good news is, this is IMDB keeps yearly "snapshots" of the Top 250 list. I'd seen every movie in every list from 2007-2012 and this is the final movie I had to watch to complete the list for 2013. The only problem is I just looked and they recently added more snapshot lists going all the way back to 1996 so that'll keep me busy for a while.
It's funny to see what the list of 1996 looks like. Keep in mind that the internet was only for nerds back then so that explains why "Star Trek: First Contact" is somehow the seventh greatest movie of all-time. But the nerd factor of the internet can't explain everything so there are quite a few other surprises. There's not one but TWO Wallace and Gromit shorts in the top 10. Cheech and Chong's "Up in Smoke" at 27. "That Thing You Do" at 35? It's a good movie but how'd that happen? The Transformers movie is on there but not the one you're thinking of... The cartoon from the 80s is on the list. So surreal.
Anyways...
3/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 383.
Awful. Awful. Awful. Paper-thin characters, paper-thin plot, totally unrealistic but here's the good news - they managed to tell it all in just a hair under three hours. There must be lots of scenes left on the cutting room floor. To top it all off, it's a movie that has the audacity to murder. Huzzah! At one point, a guy joins the air-force and it's a total of 5 minutes of screen time later that the news announces his plane crashed. That's probably the world record for quickest Goose. Just tortuous, stupid manipulation.
I won't bother reviewing this movie in the usual way - it's not worth it. I don't even care. There's no way this should be considered even a good movie, let alone one of the best. If there are enough dumb people out there to keep it in the IMDB 250 then we all deserve what we get.
The good news is, this is IMDB keeps yearly "snapshots" of the Top 250 list. I'd seen every movie in every list from 2007-2012 and this is the final movie I had to watch to complete the list for 2013. The only problem is I just looked and they recently added more snapshot lists going all the way back to 1996 so that'll keep me busy for a while.
It's funny to see what the list of 1996 looks like. Keep in mind that the internet was only for nerds back then so that explains why "Star Trek: First Contact" is somehow the seventh greatest movie of all-time. But the nerd factor of the internet can't explain everything so there are quite a few other surprises. There's not one but TWO Wallace and Gromit shorts in the top 10. Cheech and Chong's "Up in Smoke" at 27. "That Thing You Do" at 35? It's a good movie but how'd that happen? The Transformers movie is on there but not the one you're thinking of... The cartoon from the 80s is on the list. So surreal.
Anyways...
3/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 383.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Movie Review: The Bridge (2006)
The Bridge (2006)
The Golden Gate Bridge is the suicide "capitol of the world". Documentary filmmakers filmed it for a year, capturing actual suicide footage and then interviewed the friends and family members of the deceased to learn their story. The film is the fullest exploration of suicide I've ever seen - it explores mental illness, the causes of suicide, the warning signs and the pain that's left for the living.
The most harrowing story (and the one that made me watch the movie) is a man who decides to kill himself and realizes he's made a huge mistake the second his hands let go. It's absolutely chilling. But he survives to tell others his experience.
Obviously, with this subject matter, the movie is extremely intense. It's an experience that's not for everyone... and it's not something that I'm going to watch on repeat... but it is well made and powerful.
8.5/10.
The Golden Gate Bridge is the suicide "capitol of the world". Documentary filmmakers filmed it for a year, capturing actual suicide footage and then interviewed the friends and family members of the deceased to learn their story. The film is the fullest exploration of suicide I've ever seen - it explores mental illness, the causes of suicide, the warning signs and the pain that's left for the living.
The most harrowing story (and the one that made me watch the movie) is a man who decides to kill himself and realizes he's made a huge mistake the second his hands let go. It's absolutely chilling. But he survives to tell others his experience.
Obviously, with this subject matter, the movie is extremely intense. It's an experience that's not for everyone... and it's not something that I'm going to watch on repeat... but it is well made and powerful.
8.5/10.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
IMDB 250 - Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India (2001)
Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India (2001)
This movie is 3 hours, 44 Minutes and 29 Seconds long. Feel free to stop reading the review now because that pretty much tells you all you need to know.
"Lagaan" is a movie about an Indian town in colonial times who challenges the Evil British to a game of cricket. If the villagers win (in a game they don't know anything about) they will not have to pay the back-breaking taxes levied on them. If they lose, they'll have to pay triple.
I say "The Evil British" because the movie makes sure to avoid all nuance and subtlety. The Good Guy is good all the time and is never not good. The Bad Guy is a mustache twirling baddy who has no redeeming qualities. In one of his first scenes, the main bad guy ("Captain Evil") meets a vegetarian and makes him eat meat. But it's against his religion, the man protests, and besides what does Captain Evil even get out of it? Nothing, but he's just pure evil and, as we need to keep the movie under 4 hours, he needs to be established as pure evil.
Following the Good Guy everywhere is the terrifically attractive Love Interest who makes her affections obvious. The Good Guy doesn't seem to notice or care. What is he thinking? Will they ever be together? Then mid-way through the movie he declares that he loves the Love Interest. Why did he not say anything before this? Because that wouldn't be contrived enough for this story.
Of course the movie ends with the climactic BIG GAME... The Big Game... of Cricket. In between song and dance numbers, the movie packs in every cliche from every terrible sports movie ever made by humans. Heightening the action slightly is that it's cricket and I have no idea what's going on. At the midway point of the match the score is 273-3 and it's not looking good for our heroes but there's always a chance that they'll make a miraculous comeback. And at that point in the movie, I knew I was nearing the end and looked at the time... still an hour left. Have you ever "neared" the end of a movie and there was still an entire hour left to go?! I have.
4/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 380.
This movie is 3 hours, 44 Minutes and 29 Seconds long. Feel free to stop reading the review now because that pretty much tells you all you need to know.
"Lagaan" is a movie about an Indian town in colonial times who challenges the Evil British to a game of cricket. If the villagers win (in a game they don't know anything about) they will not have to pay the back-breaking taxes levied on them. If they lose, they'll have to pay triple.
I say "The Evil British" because the movie makes sure to avoid all nuance and subtlety. The Good Guy is good all the time and is never not good. The Bad Guy is a mustache twirling baddy who has no redeeming qualities. In one of his first scenes, the main bad guy ("Captain Evil") meets a vegetarian and makes him eat meat. But it's against his religion, the man protests, and besides what does Captain Evil even get out of it? Nothing, but he's just pure evil and, as we need to keep the movie under 4 hours, he needs to be established as pure evil.
Following the Good Guy everywhere is the terrifically attractive Love Interest who makes her affections obvious. The Good Guy doesn't seem to notice or care. What is he thinking? Will they ever be together? Then mid-way through the movie he declares that he loves the Love Interest. Why did he not say anything before this? Because that wouldn't be contrived enough for this story.
Of course the movie ends with the climactic BIG GAME... The Big Game... of Cricket. In between song and dance numbers, the movie packs in every cliche from every terrible sports movie ever made by humans. Heightening the action slightly is that it's cricket and I have no idea what's going on. At the midway point of the match the score is 273-3 and it's not looking good for our heroes but there's always a chance that they'll make a miraculous comeback. And at that point in the movie, I knew I was nearing the end and looked at the time... still an hour left. Have you ever "neared" the end of a movie and there was still an entire hour left to go?! I have.
4/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 380.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
IMDB 250 - Hachi: A Dog's Tale (2009)
Hachi: A Dog's Tale (2009)
As the title suggests, this is a dog story. It's a "G Rated" "Family Film" that's appropriate for the family of all ages.
I went into it quite cynically. Family films rarely make it into the IMDB 250 and this one I'd never even heard of before. Ever. Could it really be that good if it's been out for three years and I've never even heard of it?
The first half is an exercise in formula. Through some sort of mix up a man (Richard Gere) finds a lost puppy. The puppy is about the cutest puppy ever and yet he simply can't find anyone else to take him and nobody comes forth to claim him. So he keeps him despite his wife's disapproval. And, of course, the puppy gets into all sorts of mischief.
But while we've seen the first half in movies before, the second half takes a turn that is a "different take" on things. And even going into it with arms folded, it did get to me. You know how it is... If you've ever owned a dog or simply like dogs or have any feeling towards any animal whatsoever, I think you'd have to be made of stone not to (at the very least) well up at this movie. And it's safe to say I'm definitely not made of stone.
7.8/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 377.
As the title suggests, this is a dog story. It's a "G Rated" "Family Film" that's appropriate for the family of all ages.
I went into it quite cynically. Family films rarely make it into the IMDB 250 and this one I'd never even heard of before. Ever. Could it really be that good if it's been out for three years and I've never even heard of it?
The first half is an exercise in formula. Through some sort of mix up a man (Richard Gere) finds a lost puppy. The puppy is about the cutest puppy ever and yet he simply can't find anyone else to take him and nobody comes forth to claim him. So he keeps him despite his wife's disapproval. And, of course, the puppy gets into all sorts of mischief.
But while we've seen the first half in movies before, the second half takes a turn that is a "different take" on things. And even going into it with arms folded, it did get to me. You know how it is... If you've ever owned a dog or simply like dogs or have any feeling towards any animal whatsoever, I think you'd have to be made of stone not to (at the very least) well up at this movie. And it's safe to say I'm definitely not made of stone.
7.8/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 377.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
IMDB 250 - Like Stars on Earth (2007)
Like Stars on Earth (2007)
A boy struggles in school and in life until an inspired, vibrant teacher comes along and recognizes that he simply has dyslexia.
Well, it's tough to be cynical about a movie where a little boy realizes his potential because someone cared about him. I will say that this movie is charming and it is somewhat touching in some places. Having said that, it really isn't that good. It's cloying and obvious and filled with cookie-cutter scenes that we've all seen a thousand times. It also has too many songs and there's no reason for a dance number (yes, I know it's the cultural norm).
I wouldn't say it's awful but it's like a "very special episode" of "Growing Pains" if "Growing Pains" episodes were 3 hours long.
5/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 372.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
IMDB 250 - Memories of Murder (2003)
Memories of Murder (2003)
A young woman is raped and murdered in a small South Korean town. The police force looking at the case may be from a rural area, but they have seen their share of murders. Except there's one thing that makes this one different: no evidence. It appears that the killer is a professional - he's systematic enough that they have nothing to go on. Soon after, there is another murder. And then another.
"Memories of Murder" is based on the true story of the first serial killer case in South Korea from 1986 - 1991 which remains unsolved.
Leading the case are two different detectives with two very different methodologies - one from the big city, one from the country. I know that sounds like every buddy cop movie ever but the movie is good enough to make it seem fresh and real. Aside from the almost total absence of guns, there's another aspect that makes this movie rise above the formula - it counterplays the drama of the situation with black humor. South Korea, after all, was under a dictator at that time and police brutality was not unusual. In one scene of the movie, when a detective is unhappy that a suspect will not confess, he dropkicks him after a running start. In a later scene, same situation, another dropkick of the suspect.
Scenes like these are at the heart of why this movie works - it has such a delicate balance to strike and it succeeds. We want justice so we root for these cops but we watch them use brutal tactics and it reminds us of that they're not exactly "the good guys". We want them to succeed to catch the killer and yet, in moments that show their bumbling ineptitude, it works as comedy. It's a very strange and unique stew of feelings and genres.
"Memories of Murder" does all of these things well - it's smart, it twists, it turns, it leaves us guessing. So what's wrong with it? The problem is just the movies format. Police officers trying to track down a serial killer in a procedural drama is something we've (perhaps literally) seen a hundred times before. They find clues, they investigate leads, they bring in suspects - even if these elements are done well (and they are) they can't possibly have the same impact after 3,000 episodes of "Law and Order" have aired.
A very good film - interesting and entertaining - and with a very strong and memorable ending. But it just doesn't rise to the level of being great.
6/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 370.
A young woman is raped and murdered in a small South Korean town. The police force looking at the case may be from a rural area, but they have seen their share of murders. Except there's one thing that makes this one different: no evidence. It appears that the killer is a professional - he's systematic enough that they have nothing to go on. Soon after, there is another murder. And then another.
"Memories of Murder" is based on the true story of the first serial killer case in South Korea from 1986 - 1991 which remains unsolved.
Leading the case are two different detectives with two very different methodologies - one from the big city, one from the country. I know that sounds like every buddy cop movie ever but the movie is good enough to make it seem fresh and real. Aside from the almost total absence of guns, there's another aspect that makes this movie rise above the formula - it counterplays the drama of the situation with black humor. South Korea, after all, was under a dictator at that time and police brutality was not unusual. In one scene of the movie, when a detective is unhappy that a suspect will not confess, he dropkicks him after a running start. In a later scene, same situation, another dropkick of the suspect.
Scenes like these are at the heart of why this movie works - it has such a delicate balance to strike and it succeeds. We want justice so we root for these cops but we watch them use brutal tactics and it reminds us of that they're not exactly "the good guys". We want them to succeed to catch the killer and yet, in moments that show their bumbling ineptitude, it works as comedy. It's a very strange and unique stew of feelings and genres.
"Memories of Murder" does all of these things well - it's smart, it twists, it turns, it leaves us guessing. So what's wrong with it? The problem is just the movies format. Police officers trying to track down a serial killer in a procedural drama is something we've (perhaps literally) seen a hundred times before. They find clues, they investigate leads, they bring in suspects - even if these elements are done well (and they are) they can't possibly have the same impact after 3,000 episodes of "Law and Order" have aired.
A very good film - interesting and entertaining - and with a very strong and memorable ending. But it just doesn't rise to the level of being great.
6/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 370.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Movie Review: Russian Ark (2002)
Russian Ark (2002)
Alfred Hitchcocks' classic "Rope" was famously made to look like it was shot in one continuous take. The actors would do long sequences of 6 minutes, or sometimes 10 minutes each, where, if anything went wrong, the whole thing had to be redone. By beginning and ending these sequences by focusing on static objects (and some other tricks) the long sequences could be edited together to appear to be one continuous shot. Hitchcock was limited by the maximum amount of film a camera could hold.
Alexander Sorkurov, armed with new digital camera technology, created "Russian Ark" - a 90 minute film - entirely contained within one continuous shot. With a cast of literally hundreds (perhaps a thousand or more) extras, the movie took six months of rehearsal in order to film the entire movie in one day. And given that that day in Russia only allows 4 hours of sunlight, and given that the movie is an hour and a half, they had only a few chances to get everything right.
We view the movie through the eyes of a Russian man (who is probably dead or perhaps dreaming) who finds and speaks to another man, a Frenchman, in the same situation. From the visual point of view of the Russian, we float through a palace and examine the world of the Russian aristocracy - we barge into diplomatic ceremonies, we glide through extravagant balls and drop in on masquerade parties. Most of the world we see is from the Tsarist Russia period but characters from all of Russia's history inhabit the same spaces.
The movie is avante-garde, mostly plotless and mostly characterless. Nothing is certain and nothing is explained. It's obviously not going to be most people's cup of tea. But it is also looks absolutely beautiful and the movement of the camera with the first-person point of view creates a dreamlike sensation. And, let's face it, part of the enjoyment is the appreciation of how it was done - it's about the spectacle and the feat of making something we've never seen before.
6/10.
Alfred Hitchcocks' classic "Rope" was famously made to look like it was shot in one continuous take. The actors would do long sequences of 6 minutes, or sometimes 10 minutes each, where, if anything went wrong, the whole thing had to be redone. By beginning and ending these sequences by focusing on static objects (and some other tricks) the long sequences could be edited together to appear to be one continuous shot. Hitchcock was limited by the maximum amount of film a camera could hold.
Alexander Sorkurov, armed with new digital camera technology, created "Russian Ark" - a 90 minute film - entirely contained within one continuous shot. With a cast of literally hundreds (perhaps a thousand or more) extras, the movie took six months of rehearsal in order to film the entire movie in one day. And given that that day in Russia only allows 4 hours of sunlight, and given that the movie is an hour and a half, they had only a few chances to get everything right.
We view the movie through the eyes of a Russian man (who is probably dead or perhaps dreaming) who finds and speaks to another man, a Frenchman, in the same situation. From the visual point of view of the Russian, we float through a palace and examine the world of the Russian aristocracy - we barge into diplomatic ceremonies, we glide through extravagant balls and drop in on masquerade parties. Most of the world we see is from the Tsarist Russia period but characters from all of Russia's history inhabit the same spaces.
The movie is avante-garde, mostly plotless and mostly characterless. Nothing is certain and nothing is explained. It's obviously not going to be most people's cup of tea. But it is also looks absolutely beautiful and the movement of the camera with the first-person point of view creates a dreamlike sensation. And, let's face it, part of the enjoyment is the appreciation of how it was done - it's about the spectacle and the feat of making something we've never seen before.
6/10.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
IMDB 250 - 3 Idiots (2009)
3 Idiots (2009)
In this Indian film, three college students go on a series of misadventures but are opposed at every turn by the crusty dean who rules with an iron fist.
This movie is awful. If you took "Animal House" and took out everything about it that's good, it would be this movie. "Saved by the Bell" was more self-aware and nuanced. "Lizzy McGuire" was more subtle in its approach to humor. Most cartoons are more smartly written.
Speaking of cartoons, this movie wisely punctuates jokes with cartoon sound effects. Did someone drop their pants? SPROING! The stodgy dean of the college has slightly crossed eyes, a comical under-bite and speaks with a lisp. In case they haven't beat you over the head with the stupid humor enough, the director's overlayed it with loud, overbearing circus music to jam that message into your skull with a jackhammer. You know that Bollywood tradition of always having musical numbers in non-musical movies? They didn't forgo that particular custom. The music and dance sequences are so bad that even cast members of "Glee" would be embarrassed.
OK, so all that amounts to a bad movie. So what? Here's the part that put me over the edge.... it's 3 hours long. Someone somewhere actually thought this dumbed-down frat boy mess needed the David Lean treatment. I don't know how or why this movie got into the IMDB 250, but I don't want to know. I just sat through 3 hours of this tripe and I'm finally done with it.
3/10.
Total Top "250" Movies Seen: 367.
In this Indian film, three college students go on a series of misadventures but are opposed at every turn by the crusty dean who rules with an iron fist.
This movie is awful. If you took "Animal House" and took out everything about it that's good, it would be this movie. "Saved by the Bell" was more self-aware and nuanced. "Lizzy McGuire" was more subtle in its approach to humor. Most cartoons are more smartly written.
Speaking of cartoons, this movie wisely punctuates jokes with cartoon sound effects. Did someone drop their pants? SPROING! The stodgy dean of the college has slightly crossed eyes, a comical under-bite and speaks with a lisp. In case they haven't beat you over the head with the stupid humor enough, the director's overlayed it with loud, overbearing circus music to jam that message into your skull with a jackhammer. You know that Bollywood tradition of always having musical numbers in non-musical movies? They didn't forgo that particular custom. The music and dance sequences are so bad that even cast members of "Glee" would be embarrassed.
OK, so all that amounts to a bad movie. So what? Here's the part that put me over the edge.... it's 3 hours long. Someone somewhere actually thought this dumbed-down frat boy mess needed the David Lean treatment. I don't know how or why this movie got into the IMDB 250, but I don't want to know. I just sat through 3 hours of this tripe and I'm finally done with it.
3/10.
Total Top "250" Movies Seen: 367.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
[Editor's Note: This is an old blog post from last Summer. For some reason, it was moved to the present time as if it were new but the post itself is unchanged... other than this note.]
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)
It's pretty safe to say that the Western, as a genre, is alive and vital once again. With modern movies like "True Grit", "Red Dead Redemption" in the video game realm and on TV, the series "Deadwood", which I continue to rave about even though no one listens, the genre is, in a word, "back".
2007 ALONE saw the release of "No Country for Old Men", "3:10 to Yuma" and "There Will Be Blood". That's impressive. With that many quality Westerns in the same year, it wasn't surprising that the Brad Pitt vehicle "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" got overlooked. In terms of public opinion and critical acclaim it was barely a blip on the movie radar. For these reasons - and as dangerous and slippery as such statements are - it may be the most underrated movie of all-time.
The movie tells the story of the last days of the outlaw bank/train robber Jesse James and his gang. After more than a decade of running from the law, Jesse's brother Frank James decides to go on one last big score and retire. With various gang members being killed, arrested or leaving over the years, Jesse increasingly has to rely on untested, unknown recruits and he's becoming increasingly paranoid. With a hefty ransom on his head, a U.S. Marshall could be anywhere, any ally could be planning to shoot him in the back and any job could go wrong.
This movie has everything I could possibly want in a Western... or really everything I'd want in ANY movie for that matter. When you're in the old west and everyone is carrying a gun on their hip and you're surrounded by outlaws, any moment could mean life or death. This movie has a life, a brutality and a tension that's hard to match. This movie is dark, it's tense, it's brutal and violent and sepia-toned and beautiful. And it's dark. The only criticism I can lob at it is that I can admit that Brad Pitt is essentially too good looking and, as a period drama, it can take you out of the reality of the movie. But such moments are brief.
In fact, all the acting in the movie is excellent. Brad Pitt - great as always, Sam Rockwell plays Charley Ford and is good in everything and Casey Affleck is excellent as the Coward Robert Ford. I think this is one of his first roles (I know I'd never heard of him) and he completely embodies the character. There's also a small "cameo" type role from Zooey Deschanel and a tiny cameo from Nick Cave who did the score.
The thing that stood out immediately was the cinematography. The look, style and shots in this movie are, at times, incredible. Certain sections and shots in this movie are some of the best I've ever seen. The direction is top-notch, the sound is great, the music is great and obviously the writing is excellent.
I spend some time on this blog talking about overrated films and why they're sometimes not all that good. But this movie IS good. It's my favorite film of any I've watched in recent memory. It's a reminder that even after all these years, movies can still stress me out. And a movie can still make me afraid of the dark.
9/10.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
IMDB 250 7.5 - Ip Man (2008)
Ip Man (2008)
In 1930's China, the task of assigning computer internet addresses (IP addresses) was not trusted to a mere machine. Only a man - a master of counting at the highest level - could be charged with such an important task. This man is the Ip Man.
In the city of Fansho in the 1930's, Kung Fu schools are everywhere. But even with an abundance of martial artists, one man (Ip Man) stands above them all as the most unstoppable fighting machine. When the Japanese occupy during World War II, the Japanese general in charge of Fansho decides to settle the question of Chinese vs. Japanese martial arts. He sets up a(n underground?) fight club and, before long, forces Ip Man to participate.
Ip Man tells the story of a real man,Yip Man, who invented the martial art school of Wing Chung. And THAT sentence is the extent to which I trust "Ip Man" to be historically accurate. The rest portrays Yip Man as a saint, the Japanese as mustache twirling villains and implies that Yip Man was the rallying cry that allowed China to win World War II. I wondered if the U.S. had a hand in that war but the movie didn't say and I didn't have time to fact-check.
"Ip Man" is a Kung Fu movie through and through... with one twist. Remember the old Kung Fu movies from the 70's where all the dialogue is overdubbed? "Ip Man" does that... but it actually overdubs the Chinese dialog with Chinese. So even though there's fake-sounding speech, you still also have to read subtitles. Not that I mind subtitles, I just can't stand when all the dialogue is overdubbed - it's one of the surest ways of taking me out of the movie completely.
Speaking of languages, one of the central characters is a translator. This is because the Chinese and Japanese don't understand each other. That's a little troubling, then, in the scenes when the Chinese and Japanese characters - who needed his services just a few scenes before - speak directly to each other without him. Whoops!
The writing is weak, the directing is serviceable, the editing is average, the music is particularly cliched and, even if the acting is OK, the overdubbing makes sure that it appears weak. Where the movie excels is in the action sequences. The fighting is lightning-quick and meticulously choreographed at the highest level. In that sense, this movie follows in the vein of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" (though the physics involved is a little more down to Earth). And it plays all the hits (one vs. one, one vs. 10, 50 vs. 10, etc.) and all of them is complex and extremely well done. And that, and only that, is why this movie is in the IMDB Top 250.
If you're a Kung Fu fan this movie is a must-see. I am not. The only time a fight is interesting, for me, is when I care about the outcome.
6/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 354.
In 1930's China, the task of assigning computer internet addresses (IP addresses) was not trusted to a mere machine. Only a man - a master of counting at the highest level - could be charged with such an important task. This man is the Ip Man.
In the city of Fansho in the 1930's, Kung Fu schools are everywhere. But even with an abundance of martial artists, one man (Ip Man) stands above them all as the most unstoppable fighting machine. When the Japanese occupy during World War II, the Japanese general in charge of Fansho decides to settle the question of Chinese vs. Japanese martial arts. He sets up a(n underground?) fight club and, before long, forces Ip Man to participate.
Ip Man tells the story of a real man,Yip Man, who invented the martial art school of Wing Chung. And THAT sentence is the extent to which I trust "Ip Man" to be historically accurate. The rest portrays Yip Man as a saint, the Japanese as mustache twirling villains and implies that Yip Man was the rallying cry that allowed China to win World War II. I wondered if the U.S. had a hand in that war but the movie didn't say and I didn't have time to fact-check.
"Ip Man" is a Kung Fu movie through and through... with one twist. Remember the old Kung Fu movies from the 70's where all the dialogue is overdubbed? "Ip Man" does that... but it actually overdubs the Chinese dialog with Chinese. So even though there's fake-sounding speech, you still also have to read subtitles. Not that I mind subtitles, I just can't stand when all the dialogue is overdubbed - it's one of the surest ways of taking me out of the movie completely.
Speaking of languages, one of the central characters is a translator. This is because the Chinese and Japanese don't understand each other. That's a little troubling, then, in the scenes when the Chinese and Japanese characters - who needed his services just a few scenes before - speak directly to each other without him. Whoops!
The writing is weak, the directing is serviceable, the editing is average, the music is particularly cliched and, even if the acting is OK, the overdubbing makes sure that it appears weak. Where the movie excels is in the action sequences. The fighting is lightning-quick and meticulously choreographed at the highest level. In that sense, this movie follows in the vein of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" (though the physics involved is a little more down to Earth). And it plays all the hits (one vs. one, one vs. 10, 50 vs. 10, etc.) and all of them is complex and extremely well done. And that, and only that, is why this movie is in the IMDB Top 250.
If you're a Kung Fu fan this movie is a must-see. I am not. The only time a fight is interesting, for me, is when I care about the outcome.
6/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 354.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
IMDB 250 Challenge Revision 5 Complete (Part 1)
As you probably know, I have a (continuing) mission to watch every movie on the IMDB Top 250. I had previously accomplished this task a few years ago, however as ratings fluctuate and more movies are released, movies slip out of the 250 and others take their place. This requires that I continuously revise my list and watch the new ones to keep up. I finished the fifth revision earlier this week, watching the movie "Kick-Ass". Here are the latest movies and a few thoughts.
My Rating: 7/10
Do I need to even write anything? With Pixar, you know you're getting a quality movie and this one is no exception. It's a worthwhile addition to the great "Toy Story" franchise that follows a gang of toys as they are forced to deal with their owner is too old and doesn't want them anymore. It's certainly a good movie but definitely not as good as the previous two. Michael Keaton (Batman) does a nice job as Ken of "Barbie and Ken" fame.
My Rating: 8/10
I was against this movie. If there's one subject for a movie that doesn't attract my attention, it's facebook. On top of this, I had seen the clips of this movie on late night talk shows which suggested that the movie's thesis is that the creator of "The Facebook", Mark Zuckerberg is supposed to be some sort of intellectual collossus who looks down on us little people with our tiny intellects with disdain. Yeah, copying myspace would make Isaac Newton himself gasp in awe and wonder.
Fortunately, my preconceived notions were largely inaccurate. The Social Network is smart, stylish and fast paced. Aaron Sorkin does his usual "people thinking and speaking too quickly which shows how smart I am" thing but it's fine. Justin Timberlake as Napster founder Sean Parker?
"We need to cast a computer nerd, who can we get?"
"Oh I know, Justin Timberlake!"
"Yess." (Slow fist pump)
But then, that's kind of the point. The point of the movie is not to tell an accurate account of history, it's about making an entertaining movie. And it succeeds. But for everything that it does well in terms of style and building drama, it lacks heart. I thought it was a really good movie and I really enjoyed it and I don't think I'll ever want to watch it again.
My Rating: 8/10
The conventional wisdom holds that Leonardo DiCaprio died on the Titanic in 1912 so there's no way he can be in movies anymore. But Chris Nolan is such a genius, he found a loophole. Leo is dreamy and can still exist in people's dreams so if you make a movie about dreaming you can still cast him. BOOM.
Just like "The Social Network" this one is extremely hyped and stylized and similarly it does live up to the hype. "Inception" is a sci-fi action "flick" where a technology exists that allows people to inhabit the same dream. In turn, there arise organizations in the business of "breaking into" people's dreams in order to steal secrets or plant ideas which will yield profit for them in the real world.
"Inception" is a fast-paced, well done action movie with a nice psychological twist - much in the same vein as "The Matrix" (and not too far off in terms of subject matter as well). The key for me was that within the basic premise outlined above, they also go into a dream within a dream for a number of levels until your mind gets twisted a bit. It was a unique experience that really took a good action movie and put it over the top.
My Rating: 6/10
A claymation movie for adults, this movie is about being quirky and different. So different, in fact, that at times it's just weird. It tells the story of a young girl in Australia who picks a random person from the US and writes a letter to them. Soon an extremely unlikely pen pal relationship is struck. Though claymation, the movie is nearly colorless in its palette (at times it's nearly black and white) with some color here and there. This visual suits the tone of the movie which depicts a bleak world where people are dealt a bad hand but try to remain hopeful. The characters deal with depression, sadness, emptiness, abandonment, psychosis and generally the sad state of humanity. And yet it's claymation! At times it's very creative and clever, at times I loved the quirky, strange nature of it, at times I really rooted for the characters but unfortunately it doesn't sustain greatness for the entirety of the movie and I thought the ending was very weak.
My Rating: 5/10
This is a Korean film that centers on two Buddhist monks that live in harmony with nature out in the middle of nowhere. There's very little to say about this movie because it's sparce and slow. There's probably about one line of dialogue for every minute of film time. There are many beautiful shots of pristine nature as the film slowly and quietly shows the passage of time, the imperfect nature of man and the peaceful beauty of the natural world. The main theme of the movie is the cyclical nature of life (as the title suggests). In the end, it's a 5 for me. To value this movie more or less than any other movie would imply that some things are more valuable than others. This view of unequal value leads to a possessive spirit. And a possessive spirit will murder. *gonnNNGGGG*
My Rating: 7/10
FINALLY they make a ballet-centered movie about the descent into madness! It seemed obvious to me.
Obviously "Black Swan" centers around ballet but the real subject of the movie is psychological illness. We are not merely spectators as the movie attempts to draw us in as much as possible to put us in the unsound mind. And it does a pretty good job. The movie is paranoid, claustrophobic, disjointed, intense and can be, at times, hard to watch. But then, that's the point. But then, that means that it's not a movie for everyone.
I really think it's a good movie, but it's not great - I was moved and I was into it but nothing sort of pushed me in 100%. But within the confines of such a movie, Natalie Portman give an amazing performance as the main ballerina Nina Sayers. Her performance is multi-layered, multi-faceted and completely convincing. I haven't seen all the other nominees but I can only assume her Oscar is completely earned.
Who knew that someone from the Star Wars prequels could actually be good at movies?!
To be continued....
Sunday, July 25, 2010
IMDB 250 Challenge Revision 4 Complete
As you probably know, I have a (continuing) mission to watch every movie on the IMDB Top 250. As ratings fluctuate and more movies are released, movies slip out of the 250 and others take their place so I have to continuously revise my list and watch the new ones to keep up. I finished the fourth revision earlier today, finally watching the movie "My Neighbor Totoro". Here are the latest movies and a few thoughts.
My Rating: 7/10.
Obviously, one of the new movies on the IMDB 250 has to be Avatar. A sci-fi action flick in 3D, it doesn't really need any explanation or any more hype from me. There are few movies out there as polarizing as this one. I've heard that it's the best movie of all-time and I've heard that it's garbage. Straight away, it's certainly not the best movie of all-time. At best it's a lesser retelling of "Dances With Wolves" which IS great and IS amazing and IS one of the greatest movies ever made and yet is sadly not on the current IMDB 250 list). But I also don't want to go too far in the "don't believe the hype" vein to say that it "sucks". I maintain, at least for now, that it is an entertaining movie, that is fairly well-done and kept my interest. So, I have to give it a 7/10 though bordering on a 6 and at the same time, I don't understand what all the "best movie ever" hype was about at all other than mass temporary insanity.
I wonder if it was the 3D experience that did it. Does the sensory experience of amazing 3D imagery elevate it into a "higher" experience? Should that be considered against the usual criteria of emotion, plot, acting, directing, score, etc.? For my purposes, I'm leaving it out and judging it by its 2D aspects. For that, its current position of #109 all-time is a sad joke.
My Rating: 6/10.
I don't remember much about this movie. I could sum up my review of it in three words: it was alright. Attempting to blend comedy with action/horror and taking advantage of the "zombie craze", it occasionally succeeds. But it's not a terrific success and you'd be better off rewatching "Ghostbusters" or "The 'burbs" (a severely underrated movie). The special surprise cameo (which I won't spoil) was completely wasted, I thought. This movie since being on the list of 250, has slipped out of it which I think is absolutely correct.
Unadjusted for inflation, this is the highest-grossing movie in the US to begin with the letter "Z".
My Rating: 5/10.
Another anime movie and it seems all anime movies on the list have the same elements in common: they all are beautifully animated and feature hyper-surreal, hyper-imaginative visuals. As best as I can recall, they're all "family" movies as well. This movie is no exception. With their mother in sick in the hospital, two sisters and their dad move into a new house that's said to be haunted by forest spirits. With their father's encouragement, the two sisters soon find the tales to be true,
There's nothing wrong with this movie, it's fine as far as movies for kids go but there's also nothing that stood out for me either. The visuals are very nice and maybe if I was watching it as a kid I would feel differently but as it is, I didn't really like or dislike it. Therefore a 5/10.
My Rating: 7/10.
Probably the best movie on this short, arbitrary list, "Blood Diamond" tells the story of a group of people caught in the blood diamond trade (diamonds from Africa whose profits are used to fund civil war). Leonardo DiCaprio is suprisingly good and Jennifer Connelly doesn't hurt the movie either. The strongest performance is Djimon Hounsou who probably should have been Oscar-nominated. This movie is well-written, well-directed, and well-acted. It's very good but a bit too long and ventures too far out into the "action movie" territory to rise to the level of being great. My 7/10 rating borders on an 8.
Movies This Revision: 4.
Average Score: 5.75.
Best Movie This Revision: "Blood Diamond".
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 333.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
TBL : PoC - NO..... WTF?!
The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans (2009)
Sometimes you're in the mood to watch a movie that makes you laugh. Sometimes you're in the mood to watch a movie that makes you cry. Sometimes you're in the mood to watch a movie that makes you think. Are you ever in the mood to watch a movie that makes you say, "WTF?!"
Sometimes you're in the mood to watch a movie that makes you laugh. Sometimes you're in the mood to watch a movie that makes you cry. Sometimes you're in the mood to watch a movie that makes you think. Are you ever in the mood to watch a movie that makes you say, "WTF?!"
No? Me neither.
But, for the purposes of this review let's pretend that you are. Well then, I highly reccomend "The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans". Directed by Werner Herzog and starring Nicholas Cage, "TBL : POC - NO" is about a corrupt cop working in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Lieutenant McDonagh (Cage) fights to rid the world of drug dealers, prostitutes and gangsters when he isn't doing drugs, visiting prostitutes and making deals with his bookie. Actually, that's not true, he can multitask. Going to question a witness? Close the door and smoke some dope. Caught a couple doing drugs? Let them off with a warning and take their stash.
Cage is attempting to solve a quintuple homicide case, keep his prostitute girlfriend safe and pay his bookie (and the mob) before something unfortunate happens to him. All the while, he's deteriorates in front of us, devolving into the Edgar the "sugar water" alien from "Men in Black". Sometimes he sees imaginary iguanas and can't stop staring. Are they imaginary? The Val Kilmer character said it wasn't real, but was that a joke? I know the dead alligator was real but what's the long out of focus shot of the living alligator all about? I'm pretty sure the snake was really there.
Is this a taught crime drama? Is it humanist tragedy of contradiction? Is it a clever satire of society's corruption? Maybe it's a parody of corrupt cop movies. Maybe it's farce. It's probably a farce. Watching the movie, one doesn't know what to think. Having watched the movie, I guess it's safe to apply the catchall term "dark comedy".
This is the kind of movie that people who are more intellectual than I will hale as brilliant cinema. Probably everything is symbolic, everything weird is to provoke a reaction and everything that seems stupid was done on purpose to be stupid. This is also the kind of movie that morons berate because it doesn't make sense as a straight-ahead, formulaic thriller. While I think the former are more right than the latter, this movie isn't my type of entertainment. And it's a "must see" if you want to see something confounding and ambiguous with shades of silliness mixed in. Or is it?
Rating 5/10 - Ambivalent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
