A catastrophe has left the earth uninhabitable. It may have been nuclear holocaust, but most likely it was a meteor. It's left unexplained. A bright light and a serious of concussions are all we are given as explanation for the desolate wilderness left behind. A man and his young boy wander the nothingness in search of food, warmth and protection from a squandered world gone insane.
For many this film will be too relentlessly upsetting. There is not much hope to find from a story where families commit suicide just to avoid starvation and where a person will kill you for your shoes...or your meat. For others it will offer the faintest flicker of hope. When humanity is gone and all that's left is the will to fight forward, a friendly face is as comforting as the ocean shore or a beetle. I find myself in the former category.
Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee are father and son who have lived for years roaming from place to place searching for the bare necessities. The boy had a mother, but she's long gone and all the two have left are each other and their little shopping cart filled with anything useful. There has been no attempt to civilize or repopulate--the crops are gone and the animals are dead. All that's left are wandering bands of masked men ready to rape and kill. They have turned cannibal.
Dad and Boy, as the credits list them, are heading south to the shore where they may find a better life. They need someplace warm, someplace away from treeless forests and ashy skies. Someplace where men don't look at Boy with lusty eyes and someplace where Man doesn't have to teach Boy to commit suicide should the time come. They have a pistol with two shots and Man tells Boy not to be afraid.
There is not much more to say about this. Among the skeletons and discarded diamonds they find solace in simple pleasures like a can of Coke or a bag of Cheetos. Sometimes they meet other people: Man treats them with suspicion and hostility, but Boy, a sign of a better future, meets them with trust and love. He is anxious for friendship, but still ignorant of the world where this was not so.
Mortensen and Smit-McPhee give powerful performances. As Man, his face is careworn, his voice smokey like the air he breathes. The thinly veiled despair in his eyes sometimes unleashes itself onto the world and the result is very moving. Almost better than him is the boy, whose natural sincerity and chirpy voice makes the horrible events his faces unendurable. They don't live a life, they live an existence and their performances in these situations speak volumes about their talent.
The film is exquisitely shot. Every scene is a painting of orange and grey where dust-covered faces seemingly disappear into the background. In the end, however, this is a film about emotion, not ideas nor any of real substance. It is the realization of the Hobbesian state of nature, but that is not enough to make a film engaging for 100 minutes. The film relies on our sympathy with the two people to assume that the film will end happily, but with the reality they have set up it made it impossible for me to think that way. I simply found a bleak, hopeless story about people destined to die. Maybe not today, but eventually and when it happens I know it will be as black as a cellar full of half-eaten bodies.
2.5/4
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
El baño del Papa (2007)
As the film tells us when it begins, the events in this story are essentially true. The year is 1988, and for the first time the Pope has added Uruguay to his list of places visited on his worldwide peace-spreading tour, hoping to bring attention to some of the most impoverished places in the world. The small town of Melo has been gifted with the opportunity of hosting his visit and there is a fervor of excitement. The townspeople hustle and bustle preparing to welcome him, and hopefully plenty of Brazilian tourists, to their poor little community. The date is set for the miracle and we get to see God's blessing for these good folk.
Our story is Beto's (Cesar Troncoso), a smuggler for the small grocery stores who bicycles 60km round trip to Brazil to bring in anything from laundry detergent to whiskey. Living hand to mouth, praying for work to support his family, his daily concerns are his bum knee, his bicycle chain and most importantly the customs check at the border. He and his friends sometimes make two trips a day through marshes and hills, laden with parcels, hoping to dodge corrupt officials and macho soldiers.
Beto's family is too important for him not to risk it, though. His wife, Carmen (Virginia Mendez), is ever enduring to her husband's whims, suffering the highs and lows of their marriage and their finances with grace. The two work symbiotically for the benefit of the family, but it's not always clear that they understand they do. Their daughter is Silvia, a precocious young teen hoping one day to go to university in Montevideo to become a reporter. There is animosity between her and her father which is not completely explored.
They all have their dreams. For Silvia it's an escape; Carmen wants a happy household with a new patio; Beto wants a motorbike. Everyone in the community has their aspirations and the Pope's arrival is seen as a Godsend, there to cure their day to day misery. Well, perhaps not cure it, but at least make things a little more tolerable.
With his arrival nearing, these poorest of the poor give up great amounts, in some cases everything they have, to set up booths selling chorizo, breads, cakes and anything else they can think of. Beto has a better idea: he is going to create a public toilet in his front yard for all of those Brazilian visitors. With every visit he will be a few pesos closer to achieving all of their goals. But what he has to do in order to build that bathroom could tear his family apart.
This is a lot of setup, but it's necessary to understand the importance of what Beto decides to do. If I simply opened saying Beto wants to build an outhouse it would negate his goal and would cheapen the ideas of the people of this wasteland community. The nature of the event--these true stories--are heartbreaking. Watching them eek out less than a living doing whatever they can makes their fervor at the Pope's arrival almost admirable. There are times when we should hate Beto, reprimand him for the choices he makes and for his outbursts, but how can we when we know he is a man on the edge? It is not possible for me to empathize with him. After all, I have never had to work for dirty money to make sure my family can eat. But I can sympathize with him and I do. There is love, resentment and self-hate in his eyes; Beto is an emasculated man who has abandoned dignity to do what he feels is right. Those are feelings that rise beyond a look at poverty and focus in on the very specific consequences of underdevelopment.
This movie is powerful because there is no gloss, there is no sentimentality, there is only human beings trying to survive. Melo is a forgotten place in the world, looked over by modernization and therefore this visit is something worth filming. These people had stories to tell just like the rest of us and that toilet, cheap though it was, was as fitting a dream as any of ours.
3/4
Our story is Beto's (Cesar Troncoso), a smuggler for the small grocery stores who bicycles 60km round trip to Brazil to bring in anything from laundry detergent to whiskey. Living hand to mouth, praying for work to support his family, his daily concerns are his bum knee, his bicycle chain and most importantly the customs check at the border. He and his friends sometimes make two trips a day through marshes and hills, laden with parcels, hoping to dodge corrupt officials and macho soldiers.
Beto's family is too important for him not to risk it, though. His wife, Carmen (Virginia Mendez), is ever enduring to her husband's whims, suffering the highs and lows of their marriage and their finances with grace. The two work symbiotically for the benefit of the family, but it's not always clear that they understand they do. Their daughter is Silvia, a precocious young teen hoping one day to go to university in Montevideo to become a reporter. There is animosity between her and her father which is not completely explored.
They all have their dreams. For Silvia it's an escape; Carmen wants a happy household with a new patio; Beto wants a motorbike. Everyone in the community has their aspirations and the Pope's arrival is seen as a Godsend, there to cure their day to day misery. Well, perhaps not cure it, but at least make things a little more tolerable.
With his arrival nearing, these poorest of the poor give up great amounts, in some cases everything they have, to set up booths selling chorizo, breads, cakes and anything else they can think of. Beto has a better idea: he is going to create a public toilet in his front yard for all of those Brazilian visitors. With every visit he will be a few pesos closer to achieving all of their goals. But what he has to do in order to build that bathroom could tear his family apart.
This is a lot of setup, but it's necessary to understand the importance of what Beto decides to do. If I simply opened saying Beto wants to build an outhouse it would negate his goal and would cheapen the ideas of the people of this wasteland community. The nature of the event--these true stories--are heartbreaking. Watching them eek out less than a living doing whatever they can makes their fervor at the Pope's arrival almost admirable. There are times when we should hate Beto, reprimand him for the choices he makes and for his outbursts, but how can we when we know he is a man on the edge? It is not possible for me to empathize with him. After all, I have never had to work for dirty money to make sure my family can eat. But I can sympathize with him and I do. There is love, resentment and self-hate in his eyes; Beto is an emasculated man who has abandoned dignity to do what he feels is right. Those are feelings that rise beyond a look at poverty and focus in on the very specific consequences of underdevelopment.
This movie is powerful because there is no gloss, there is no sentimentality, there is only human beings trying to survive. Melo is a forgotten place in the world, looked over by modernization and therefore this visit is something worth filming. These people had stories to tell just like the rest of us and that toilet, cheap though it was, was as fitting a dream as any of ours.
3/4
Monday, May 28, 2012
Moonrise Kingdom (2012)
An early favorite at this year's Cannes Film Festival, Wes Anderson's latest whimsical peer into the inner-workings of the family unit is his greatest triumph in years. Bearing his unmistakable visual trademarks this film lacks the vapid eccentricities that have faulted his previous work and simply leaves the audience with an irresistibly endearing poem about the powers of young love.
Diverging from past films, this one centers on two children on a small island of the coast of New England. Bob Balaban sets the scene as the narrator, describing the island as unpaved, wooded Chickchaw territory. It is the 1960's, the people are simple, churchgoing folk. In three days time Hurricane Mabel will strike the region.
Suzy and Sam are two troubled preteens on the island--and they are in love. After a chance encounter at a rendition of Noah's Ark at the local church the two become pen pals until they finally decide to run away together on a ten day journey from one side of the island to the other. Suzy is depressive, violent, book-wormy and observant. Sam is curious, tactile and wise beyond his years. The two are freaks, but they find solace in the company of each other as two misfits with a common goal.
Sam is a member of the Khaki Scouts; he is always prepared with his raccoon cap and his woodland survival skills. Orphaned and troubled, he never made any friends at the Scouts, but his disappearance from the troupe sends Scout Master Ward (Edward Norton) and the local policeman, Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis), on the hunt for him. Suzy's parents (Bill Murray and Frances McDormand) also come into the chase after finding their daughter gone, leaving them with nothing but Sam's letters and watercolor nudes.
There is something uplifting about Anderson's treatment of the fantastic. The pastel, children's book world these hyperbolized characters inhabit feels like it bellowed its way out of the pages of stories Suzy is so fond of. They tell tales of magic and adventure as a metaphor for the struggles that children face. We accept that since these characters are young they can't know what life is about, but for them their problems are all too real and they are of the utmost importance. This film is not about magic, but it is magical and the struggles of this orphan and this misunderstood girl are very real to us.
I have a feeling that Anderson was one of these kids once. Artists are too often misunderstood, and I expect the person who imagined this singular world was someone who never had many friends himself. The escapism he pens into his narratives is bewildering and unreal, but as parables they are sometimes very poignant. In this case it is very much so. We are looking into the mind of this man when we watch his film much more completely than many other directors, and luckily for him he has created a majestic story was rich and detailed characters.
It is always funny and often hilarious. The absurd nature of this island is often injected with drops of razor-sharp wit. My favorite little additions included mentioning of the US Dept. of Inclimate Weather, a kid with an eye patch wielding a bow and arrow and Scout Master Ward's evening glass of brandy sitting next to the cot in his tent. The jokes are laugh-out-loud funny and played with a genius cast also including Tilda Swinton as Social Services, Harvey Keitel as Commander Pierce and Jason Schwartzman as Cousin Ben.
It's a real pleasure watching a movie with so many A-list actors which doesn't simply rely on their skills to make a fine picture. Anderson obviously had a very clear vision as to what he wanted to give to his audience and was meticulous in its framing and direction. He was also fortunately gifted with two great new-comers, Kara Hayward and Jared Gilman as the kids. Their conviction to Anderson's peculiarities is admirable.
Interjected with the comedy is a very clear portrait of two people nearing and fearing adulthood trying to find a place they can call home. Their Moonrise Kingdom is as much each other as it is their destination. It is wistful, imaginative, exuberant and charming in equal measures. The pangs of young love and the glorious realization of family made me happy and appreciative of the world I inhabit as well.
4/4
Diverging from past films, this one centers on two children on a small island of the coast of New England. Bob Balaban sets the scene as the narrator, describing the island as unpaved, wooded Chickchaw territory. It is the 1960's, the people are simple, churchgoing folk. In three days time Hurricane Mabel will strike the region.
Suzy and Sam are two troubled preteens on the island--and they are in love. After a chance encounter at a rendition of Noah's Ark at the local church the two become pen pals until they finally decide to run away together on a ten day journey from one side of the island to the other. Suzy is depressive, violent, book-wormy and observant. Sam is curious, tactile and wise beyond his years. The two are freaks, but they find solace in the company of each other as two misfits with a common goal.
Sam is a member of the Khaki Scouts; he is always prepared with his raccoon cap and his woodland survival skills. Orphaned and troubled, he never made any friends at the Scouts, but his disappearance from the troupe sends Scout Master Ward (Edward Norton) and the local policeman, Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis), on the hunt for him. Suzy's parents (Bill Murray and Frances McDormand) also come into the chase after finding their daughter gone, leaving them with nothing but Sam's letters and watercolor nudes.
There is something uplifting about Anderson's treatment of the fantastic. The pastel, children's book world these hyperbolized characters inhabit feels like it bellowed its way out of the pages of stories Suzy is so fond of. They tell tales of magic and adventure as a metaphor for the struggles that children face. We accept that since these characters are young they can't know what life is about, but for them their problems are all too real and they are of the utmost importance. This film is not about magic, but it is magical and the struggles of this orphan and this misunderstood girl are very real to us.
I have a feeling that Anderson was one of these kids once. Artists are too often misunderstood, and I expect the person who imagined this singular world was someone who never had many friends himself. The escapism he pens into his narratives is bewildering and unreal, but as parables they are sometimes very poignant. In this case it is very much so. We are looking into the mind of this man when we watch his film much more completely than many other directors, and luckily for him he has created a majestic story was rich and detailed characters.
It is always funny and often hilarious. The absurd nature of this island is often injected with drops of razor-sharp wit. My favorite little additions included mentioning of the US Dept. of Inclimate Weather, a kid with an eye patch wielding a bow and arrow and Scout Master Ward's evening glass of brandy sitting next to the cot in his tent. The jokes are laugh-out-loud funny and played with a genius cast also including Tilda Swinton as Social Services, Harvey Keitel as Commander Pierce and Jason Schwartzman as Cousin Ben.
It's a real pleasure watching a movie with so many A-list actors which doesn't simply rely on their skills to make a fine picture. Anderson obviously had a very clear vision as to what he wanted to give to his audience and was meticulous in its framing and direction. He was also fortunately gifted with two great new-comers, Kara Hayward and Jared Gilman as the kids. Their conviction to Anderson's peculiarities is admirable.
Interjected with the comedy is a very clear portrait of two people nearing and fearing adulthood trying to find a place they can call home. Their Moonrise Kingdom is as much each other as it is their destination. It is wistful, imaginative, exuberant and charming in equal measures. The pangs of young love and the glorious realization of family made me happy and appreciative of the world I inhabit as well.
4/4
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Death Becomes Her (1992)
When a stunning, successful and adored dame steals the man in your life again, the only logical thing to do is off her, right? Well... after you finish your seven year binge-eating, obsessive cat lady phase. Goldie Hawn is Helen Sharp, whose fiance (Bruce Willis) is once again devoured by the insatiable, youth seeking Madeline Ashton (Meryl Streep). Months of counselling brings Helen to the sinister conclusion that the only way to reclaim her husband and end Madeline's reign of feminine terror is to wipe her from the face of Earth.
Willis is Dr. Menville, a brilliant plastic surgeon whose work has captured the eye of Madeline. An actress for the stage, she has become fixated on wrinkles and dark spots and anything that might reveal her age. As the years wear on, however, the makeup and facials stop working their magic and she must look somewhere other than the work of her husband, now a limp makeup artist for the deceased.
Helen's return, thin and beautiful as ever, and aggressively seeking her man back, Madeline is frightened into asking for the help of Lisle Von Rhuman (Isabella Rossellini) who gives her a potion which will make her beautiful forever. When Helen and Dr. Menville plot to kill Madeline they discover that not only is she young and beautiful, she is immortal.
Robert Zemeckis directs this wacky, FX-laden comedy with style, but unfortunately it isn't very funny. The 90's were a spectacular time for idiotic plots centered around magic and the wiles of women, but the tones are never quite right and everyone's purpose in the story is rather muddled. Helen is meant to try and kill Madeline which is all well and good. I expected a comedic send-up of "Fatal Attraction". But that plot seems to go by the wayside when Madeline, in a fit of hysterics, finds herself at a random castle patrolled by dobermans and virile young men.
From there the story devolves into some sort of romp between two insecure women fighting for a squirrely little man with no possible outcome. The characters become walking mannequins for Zemeckis's makeup and silly story about two petty women trying to get the attention of men who don't want them.
I did like this for all of the references and little in-jokes. My favorite was the scheme Helen and the doctor were forming to kill Madeline. Their goal was to drive her off of a cliff on Mulholland Drive. Although the film did not come out until ten years after "Death Becomes Her," David Lynch directed a film called "Mulholland Drive". One of his other films was "Blue Velvet" which was Rossellini's claim to fame. A bit of a stretch, but it's little connections like that which makes me smile.
This may be a good drinking film. When sober, however, it's mind-numbing with not much to speak for it besides a good cast in hollow roles.
2/4
Willis is Dr. Menville, a brilliant plastic surgeon whose work has captured the eye of Madeline. An actress for the stage, she has become fixated on wrinkles and dark spots and anything that might reveal her age. As the years wear on, however, the makeup and facials stop working their magic and she must look somewhere other than the work of her husband, now a limp makeup artist for the deceased.
Helen's return, thin and beautiful as ever, and aggressively seeking her man back, Madeline is frightened into asking for the help of Lisle Von Rhuman (Isabella Rossellini) who gives her a potion which will make her beautiful forever. When Helen and Dr. Menville plot to kill Madeline they discover that not only is she young and beautiful, she is immortal.
Robert Zemeckis directs this wacky, FX-laden comedy with style, but unfortunately it isn't very funny. The 90's were a spectacular time for idiotic plots centered around magic and the wiles of women, but the tones are never quite right and everyone's purpose in the story is rather muddled. Helen is meant to try and kill Madeline which is all well and good. I expected a comedic send-up of "Fatal Attraction". But that plot seems to go by the wayside when Madeline, in a fit of hysterics, finds herself at a random castle patrolled by dobermans and virile young men.
From there the story devolves into some sort of romp between two insecure women fighting for a squirrely little man with no possible outcome. The characters become walking mannequins for Zemeckis's makeup and silly story about two petty women trying to get the attention of men who don't want them.
I did like this for all of the references and little in-jokes. My favorite was the scheme Helen and the doctor were forming to kill Madeline. Their goal was to drive her off of a cliff on Mulholland Drive. Although the film did not come out until ten years after "Death Becomes Her," David Lynch directed a film called "Mulholland Drive". One of his other films was "Blue Velvet" which was Rossellini's claim to fame. A bit of a stretch, but it's little connections like that which makes me smile.
This may be a good drinking film. When sober, however, it's mind-numbing with not much to speak for it besides a good cast in hollow roles.
2/4
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
On rare occasions there is a producer or director who is able to tap directly into the minds not of any particular demographic, but audiences as a whole and create something that is truly enjoyable for groups of all ages with every sort of pleasure. Who knew that 2003's crowd wanted to see a theme park ride's characters spring to life, or that such a pirate film could be so pleasurable to watch? Apparently Jerry Bruckheimer and Gore Verbinski did for they made something that has become a cultural phenomenon. Bruckheimer is one of those people who makes other producers roll their eyes for his lack of interest at what he throws money to, but here he found something worth while. Laugh on, Mr. Producer.
There seems to be a child in all of us which fancies the notion of being a pirate. There is a sort of black romanticism about having boundless freedom and adventure, about following no rules except those of your captain who only gives them to best lead you to booze, women and all things silver and gold. Every man wants to be more than an everyman and the pirate is like the cowboy or the renegade--he sticks it to the man.
What Disney did fantastically in this film is tap into that idea while removing the cartoonishness of it all. The characters in this movie are not Captain Hook's and Long John Silver's; they are nasty, swashbuckling, lusty, ugly men who are, in fact, pretty awesome. Our main hero, however, is not a pirate (well...), but a blacksmith. Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) works on one of the thousands of islands in the Caribbean and is in love with Elizabeth Swan (Keira Knightly), the governor's daughter. When a group of cutthroats descend on Port Royal, Will must team up with an outcast pirate to save his love.
Johnny Depp plays Capt. Jack Sparrow, in what will probably be known as his most iconic role. With nasty dreads, too much mascara and doing an impression of Keith Richards with sunstroke, he has invented one of the strangest, coolest characters ever to set sail on the high seas. Will and Jack adventure to Isle de Muerta in chase of the Black Pearl to recapture Elizabeth who has been stolen for very dark purposes.
Unbeknownst to them all the crew of the Black Pearl is plagued with a terrible Aztec curse, damning them to live as the undead. Captained by the fearsome, yet strangely poetic Barbossa (a fantastically cast Geoffrey Rush), the band of pirates seeks to appease the heathen gods with gold and blood.
This movie is fast paced, beautifully shot, and immensely fun. There is so much that could have gone wrong with it--which did happen in its successors--but for this one it doesn't take itself seriously and the entire cast seems to be enjoying themselves so much. Depp, as always, seems to create a world all to himself, stumbling and squinting with a physicality hilariously unique and an accent which sounds as though he has a mouth full of mushed bananas. Rush is also wonderful. He is the bad guy, but he's pitiable and almost likable, and he gives me chills the way he relishes the lines he hisses.
Unlike the unfortunate sequels the plot is engaging, full of surprises, but never more than the audience can handle. It is all done with purpose, but it's manageable, simply with the goal of making something enjoyable for the family. It shall endure. Like "Star Wars", "Jaws" or "Jurassic Park" this is one of those supreme blockbuster entertainments that will live on as a family classic. The effects, though good now, will age appallingly, but even so the zippy writing, colorful characters, terrific battle sequences and its roguish spirit guide it to distant and welcoming shores.
3.5/4
There seems to be a child in all of us which fancies the notion of being a pirate. There is a sort of black romanticism about having boundless freedom and adventure, about following no rules except those of your captain who only gives them to best lead you to booze, women and all things silver and gold. Every man wants to be more than an everyman and the pirate is like the cowboy or the renegade--he sticks it to the man.
What Disney did fantastically in this film is tap into that idea while removing the cartoonishness of it all. The characters in this movie are not Captain Hook's and Long John Silver's; they are nasty, swashbuckling, lusty, ugly men who are, in fact, pretty awesome. Our main hero, however, is not a pirate (well...), but a blacksmith. Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) works on one of the thousands of islands in the Caribbean and is in love with Elizabeth Swan (Keira Knightly), the governor's daughter. When a group of cutthroats descend on Port Royal, Will must team up with an outcast pirate to save his love.
Johnny Depp plays Capt. Jack Sparrow, in what will probably be known as his most iconic role. With nasty dreads, too much mascara and doing an impression of Keith Richards with sunstroke, he has invented one of the strangest, coolest characters ever to set sail on the high seas. Will and Jack adventure to Isle de Muerta in chase of the Black Pearl to recapture Elizabeth who has been stolen for very dark purposes.
Unbeknownst to them all the crew of the Black Pearl is plagued with a terrible Aztec curse, damning them to live as the undead. Captained by the fearsome, yet strangely poetic Barbossa (a fantastically cast Geoffrey Rush), the band of pirates seeks to appease the heathen gods with gold and blood.
This movie is fast paced, beautifully shot, and immensely fun. There is so much that could have gone wrong with it--which did happen in its successors--but for this one it doesn't take itself seriously and the entire cast seems to be enjoying themselves so much. Depp, as always, seems to create a world all to himself, stumbling and squinting with a physicality hilariously unique and an accent which sounds as though he has a mouth full of mushed bananas. Rush is also wonderful. He is the bad guy, but he's pitiable and almost likable, and he gives me chills the way he relishes the lines he hisses.
Unlike the unfortunate sequels the plot is engaging, full of surprises, but never more than the audience can handle. It is all done with purpose, but it's manageable, simply with the goal of making something enjoyable for the family. It shall endure. Like "Star Wars", "Jaws" or "Jurassic Park" this is one of those supreme blockbuster entertainments that will live on as a family classic. The effects, though good now, will age appallingly, but even so the zippy writing, colorful characters, terrific battle sequences and its roguish spirit guide it to distant and welcoming shores.
3.5/4
Friday, May 25, 2012
The Hills Have Eyes (1977)
There is something enigmatic about the desert. Few places on Earth are as wild and unforgiving as open dunes with nothing but snakes and heat. Wes Craven, the face of horror, has increased the danger and turned from something vast and monstrous into a place that is downright terrifying. Far off the beaten track with the old gas station and the older crazed man giving strange warnings, there is an evil far more sinister than the vast unknown. It comes from the womb and neglects what we call "humanity".
A family of seven are stranded in the middle of this desert somewhere in the southwest United States on their way to California. Gas Station Man told them not to go to the silver mine, it's been cleared out for years. Brenda told them they should press on to L.A., full of fast cars and movie stars. Ethel should not have been put in charge of the maps. Now with a shot axle the group is stuck with nothing but their camper between them and...the desert. My opinion would be to split up to try and find people--that was their's too.
The first half of Craven's "Hills" is satisfying and frightening. A child born wrong became a beast of a man, living in the desert and populating his own clan of misshapen cave dwellers with a prostitute he snatched. They forage and scrounge from the wilderness and trade what they can find from the discards of the nearby military base. But times are tough. Dogs are good to eat, but not nearly as tasty as a fat, little mid-west baby.
The film starts out so strong because we don't know what's lurking in the hills. They seem to be human and we even meet one of the more docile of the bunch, Ruby. But peering into the darkness and seeing nothing but bushes and cacti, hearing strange animal cries, and having your two pet German Shepard's whimpering is rather disconcerting. The first attacks on the trailer are very scary until we see what it is we are up against. There are killings, of course, and a couple of them are very unsettling; Cravens anti-religious themes are strong.
The second half is as weak as the first was strong, however. The film begs the question at what point do "civilized" people become monsters themselves? It answers that the switch is almost immediate, which is not a novel idea. There are films, though, that tackle the repercussions of what that switch means which this film certainly does not. It devolves from a good, scary horror flick into something more of a thriller and a revenge film which became dull.
Also, the people living in the mountains are not that scary at all. To be fair, I would be scared shit-less if I met one of them walking down the street, but this ended up feeling like more of a "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" ripoff, and a far less effective one at that. I hate comparing films to remakes or originals if I can help it, but I have to say that I prefer the 2006 adaptation much more. Of course, it had a far larger budget than this shoe-string, pulp favorite, but there was something so carnally gruesome about the idea of people mutated by the effects of fallout in New Mexico (though maybe it just made me uneasy as I used to live about twenty minutes away from where they filmed). Certainly, it does seem a bit tactless to turn something like the atomic bomb tests into a horror film--though not nearly as much so as the new film "Chernobyl Diaries"--but then at least the story seemed to make a bit more sense.
As a classic horror film I feel compelled to say that it's worth a view, but as far as if it is any good I can list you half a dozen films made at the same time that deserve your attention much more.
1.5/4
A family of seven are stranded in the middle of this desert somewhere in the southwest United States on their way to California. Gas Station Man told them not to go to the silver mine, it's been cleared out for years. Brenda told them they should press on to L.A., full of fast cars and movie stars. Ethel should not have been put in charge of the maps. Now with a shot axle the group is stuck with nothing but their camper between them and...the desert. My opinion would be to split up to try and find people--that was their's too.
The first half of Craven's "Hills" is satisfying and frightening. A child born wrong became a beast of a man, living in the desert and populating his own clan of misshapen cave dwellers with a prostitute he snatched. They forage and scrounge from the wilderness and trade what they can find from the discards of the nearby military base. But times are tough. Dogs are good to eat, but not nearly as tasty as a fat, little mid-west baby.
The film starts out so strong because we don't know what's lurking in the hills. They seem to be human and we even meet one of the more docile of the bunch, Ruby. But peering into the darkness and seeing nothing but bushes and cacti, hearing strange animal cries, and having your two pet German Shepard's whimpering is rather disconcerting. The first attacks on the trailer are very scary until we see what it is we are up against. There are killings, of course, and a couple of them are very unsettling; Cravens anti-religious themes are strong.
The second half is as weak as the first was strong, however. The film begs the question at what point do "civilized" people become monsters themselves? It answers that the switch is almost immediate, which is not a novel idea. There are films, though, that tackle the repercussions of what that switch means which this film certainly does not. It devolves from a good, scary horror flick into something more of a thriller and a revenge film which became dull.
Also, the people living in the mountains are not that scary at all. To be fair, I would be scared shit-less if I met one of them walking down the street, but this ended up feeling like more of a "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" ripoff, and a far less effective one at that. I hate comparing films to remakes or originals if I can help it, but I have to say that I prefer the 2006 adaptation much more. Of course, it had a far larger budget than this shoe-string, pulp favorite, but there was something so carnally gruesome about the idea of people mutated by the effects of fallout in New Mexico (though maybe it just made me uneasy as I used to live about twenty minutes away from where they filmed). Certainly, it does seem a bit tactless to turn something like the atomic bomb tests into a horror film--though not nearly as much so as the new film "Chernobyl Diaries"--but then at least the story seemed to make a bit more sense.
As a classic horror film I feel compelled to say that it's worth a view, but as far as if it is any good I can list you half a dozen films made at the same time that deserve your attention much more.
1.5/4
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Charade (1963)
There is something about Technicolor that makes any comedy all that much funnier and any mystery all the more intriguing. It's campy, old fashioned, but delectably fresh in a proper retro style. "Charade" is both and equally good being funny and sharp, making it a simple pleasure to watch. There is nothing special about it, but it certainly doesn't try to stand apart, and falls somewhere in between a Bond film without the gadgets and a Hitchcock thriller without the subtlety.
What it does have, however, is one of the greatest match ups Hollywood could offer in the early 60's: Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant. There's is the compulsory love me, love me not story in the mystery and it's charming. But then Hepburn and Grant are both wizards at being charming so putting them together makes almost too much charm. It made the actual plot seem rather superfluous really when faced with the amour. A lovely romantic comedy like "Roman Holiday" might have been better suited to the pairing. But that's irrelevant.
Hepburn plays the Regina Lambert, wife of a wealthy, mysterious gentleman who she suddenly learns has been killed not long before she planned to divorce him. Returning home to Paris, Regina finds her house cleared out and an inspector to meet her with nothing more than bad news and a bag of secrets. Her husband was not what he was thought to be, having four passports and a warrant on his head by the CIA. Found dead at a train station in his pajamas with a small suitcase filled with nothing in particular, Regina is told that he had $250,000 of US Government money with him, but that it was nowhere to be found.
Suspicion turns to Regina as the inspector and three shady, dangerous men begin turning up pressing her to find the money lest something should happen to her. Confused and terrified, Regina turns to the only person she feels she can trust, a stranger she met on holiday named Peter Joshua (Grant). He is suave, funny and sincere in his helpful offerings, but things go awry and suddenly Regina can trust no one.
As a thriller it had its fits and starts. Sometimes the suspense was palpable, and it is a horrible thought being trapped in a close vicinity with people out to kill you. She is, in fact, sharing a wall with her potential killers in a hotel, but is told there would really be no use in her moving. However, advice like this, given by the American Embassy made the end of the story a bit too easy to solve. It tries very hard to steer its audience to two general conclusions, but as Regina explains--and as Scooby Doo always informs us--it's always the person you least suspect. I solved the mystery about ten minutes into the film.
That doesn't make the ride any less fun, though. The final chase and standoff is not as thrilling as they might have thought, but there are plenty of twists and turns (some more obvious than others) to keep you on your feet. I must admit that the hiding place of the money was somewhere spectacularly clever, and for that I tip my hat.
What I loved most about this film is the simple chemistry between two great alchemists of love. Grant and Hepburn shine as always, and set on a Parisian backdrop how could one possibly resist her doe eyes and his sleek, silver-haired smoothness? Her performance has some awkward moments, his is perfect with his pinpoint humor and easy navigation through hero and villain. In the end the two won me over and affirm my belief that this is something worth watching.
3/4
What it does have, however, is one of the greatest match ups Hollywood could offer in the early 60's: Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant. There's is the compulsory love me, love me not story in the mystery and it's charming. But then Hepburn and Grant are both wizards at being charming so putting them together makes almost too much charm. It made the actual plot seem rather superfluous really when faced with the amour. A lovely romantic comedy like "Roman Holiday" might have been better suited to the pairing. But that's irrelevant.
Hepburn plays the Regina Lambert, wife of a wealthy, mysterious gentleman who she suddenly learns has been killed not long before she planned to divorce him. Returning home to Paris, Regina finds her house cleared out and an inspector to meet her with nothing more than bad news and a bag of secrets. Her husband was not what he was thought to be, having four passports and a warrant on his head by the CIA. Found dead at a train station in his pajamas with a small suitcase filled with nothing in particular, Regina is told that he had $250,000 of US Government money with him, but that it was nowhere to be found.
Suspicion turns to Regina as the inspector and three shady, dangerous men begin turning up pressing her to find the money lest something should happen to her. Confused and terrified, Regina turns to the only person she feels she can trust, a stranger she met on holiday named Peter Joshua (Grant). He is suave, funny and sincere in his helpful offerings, but things go awry and suddenly Regina can trust no one.
As a thriller it had its fits and starts. Sometimes the suspense was palpable, and it is a horrible thought being trapped in a close vicinity with people out to kill you. She is, in fact, sharing a wall with her potential killers in a hotel, but is told there would really be no use in her moving. However, advice like this, given by the American Embassy made the end of the story a bit too easy to solve. It tries very hard to steer its audience to two general conclusions, but as Regina explains--and as Scooby Doo always informs us--it's always the person you least suspect. I solved the mystery about ten minutes into the film.
That doesn't make the ride any less fun, though. The final chase and standoff is not as thrilling as they might have thought, but there are plenty of twists and turns (some more obvious than others) to keep you on your feet. I must admit that the hiding place of the money was somewhere spectacularly clever, and for that I tip my hat.
What I loved most about this film is the simple chemistry between two great alchemists of love. Grant and Hepburn shine as always, and set on a Parisian backdrop how could one possibly resist her doe eyes and his sleek, silver-haired smoothness? Her performance has some awkward moments, his is perfect with his pinpoint humor and easy navigation through hero and villain. In the end the two won me over and affirm my belief that this is something worth watching.
3/4
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Sugar (2008)
It is difficult to imagine the hardships faced when one moves to another part of the world, especially when they know nothing about the culture or the language. By 2008, over a quarter of all professional baseball players in America were recruited from South America. "Sugar" tells the story of one young man from the Dominican Republic brought to play for the minor leagues in a small farming community in Kansas.
Miguel "Sugar" Santos is not even 21 when he is asked to leave his family, friends and entire way of living to play baseball. His notoriety at home spread abroad and he is offered a substantial sum, for a person living in the Third World, to do what he does best. Along with several other friends he embarks on his journey to the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave to play the great American pass time. This is not a traditional sports flick though. The game is important, after all it's why he is in the States, but this film is geared more towards exposing the ways in which people from the Spanish-speaking world are picked up, chewed around and spat back out in the world of sport.
It is about home runs, strike outs and ground balls, but only to illustrate the importance of the opportunity for this young man. He is quiet, contemplative and a hard worker. This is not just a chance for him to make it big, but also to help his family in the DR rise above their life of poverty. Every strike out is one step closer to the major leagues, every player walked one closer to a return ticket home.
As much as this movie is about sport it is primarily the story of an immigrant, albeit one of the rarer types. The cultural barriers are big, though not fully explored, but what is bigger is the language block. In Santo Domingo the recruits were taught enough English to play baseball, but all there were given was enough instruction to play the game. Day to day phrases were neglected leaving all of these young to flounder on their own, desperate for something to cling on to. There is a brilliant little scene where Sugar is in an Denny's where he has gone for days on end to eat, always ordering french toast because he doesn't know the words for anything else. One day he takes a leap and orders some eggs, only to be thwarted by the dreaded question "How would you like them?" It's french toast again.
His saga is presented as one of many. Love comes into play though it is never followed through and religious differences keep them apart. He has to get a job as a dishwasher as none of his other skills have set him up for actual employment. What he does is hinged on perfection, so much so that a hurt foot or the benefits of a simple pill could mean the difference between stardom and failure.
This is a lovely little film about new beginnings and finding hope in bad situations. Its a story about maintaining your roots while broadening horizons, being passionate in love and being open to renewal. Many of the various plots go nowhere, but then this is not an A-B type of plot. This is about a man lost in the confusion of a nation more massive then he can wrap his mind around with baseball being that last connection he has to the familiar. It is simultaneously the story of dozens and the story of millions, as the final scene makes painfully clear.
3/4
Miguel "Sugar" Santos is not even 21 when he is asked to leave his family, friends and entire way of living to play baseball. His notoriety at home spread abroad and he is offered a substantial sum, for a person living in the Third World, to do what he does best. Along with several other friends he embarks on his journey to the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave to play the great American pass time. This is not a traditional sports flick though. The game is important, after all it's why he is in the States, but this film is geared more towards exposing the ways in which people from the Spanish-speaking world are picked up, chewed around and spat back out in the world of sport.
It is about home runs, strike outs and ground balls, but only to illustrate the importance of the opportunity for this young man. He is quiet, contemplative and a hard worker. This is not just a chance for him to make it big, but also to help his family in the DR rise above their life of poverty. Every strike out is one step closer to the major leagues, every player walked one closer to a return ticket home.
As much as this movie is about sport it is primarily the story of an immigrant, albeit one of the rarer types. The cultural barriers are big, though not fully explored, but what is bigger is the language block. In Santo Domingo the recruits were taught enough English to play baseball, but all there were given was enough instruction to play the game. Day to day phrases were neglected leaving all of these young to flounder on their own, desperate for something to cling on to. There is a brilliant little scene where Sugar is in an Denny's where he has gone for days on end to eat, always ordering french toast because he doesn't know the words for anything else. One day he takes a leap and orders some eggs, only to be thwarted by the dreaded question "How would you like them?" It's french toast again.
His saga is presented as one of many. Love comes into play though it is never followed through and religious differences keep them apart. He has to get a job as a dishwasher as none of his other skills have set him up for actual employment. What he does is hinged on perfection, so much so that a hurt foot or the benefits of a simple pill could mean the difference between stardom and failure.
This is a lovely little film about new beginnings and finding hope in bad situations. Its a story about maintaining your roots while broadening horizons, being passionate in love and being open to renewal. Many of the various plots go nowhere, but then this is not an A-B type of plot. This is about a man lost in the confusion of a nation more massive then he can wrap his mind around with baseball being that last connection he has to the familiar. It is simultaneously the story of dozens and the story of millions, as the final scene makes painfully clear.
3/4
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Mongol: The Rise to Power of Genghis Khan (2007)
An everyday person knows the same basic facts about Genghis Khan. I myself knew nothing more. He was a fearsome leader of the Mongols who united the nomadic tribes and created the foundation for an empire which, after his death, became the largest in history. In its formation over 40 million people were massacred, but the Mongol Empire stretched from China to Eastern Europe. One of the most fearsome and ruthless leaders of all time conquered the known world.
This stunning film from Kazakhstan does not show this portion of his life. As the title suggests, it is a movie about his ascent to power and presents a detailed, if still highly enigmatic, portrait of the early years of the man who surely has one of the most interesting lives ever recorded. It follows the boy, age 9, until he conquers all other khans on the steppes of Mongolia to become the supreme leader in an attempt to bring law and reason to tribes whose morals and honor have died.
Born to a khan himself as Temujin, the leader in waiting looses his father to an assassin and is chained into slavery. As a child his formative years were marked by a series of events that instilled a sense of composure and vengeance in him that would continue throughout his life. Temujin's child self is played by Odnyam Odsuren with the clear, calm, fixed eyes of a boy beyond his years. Temujin knew his destiny and providence led him to his ultimate prize.
As a man he struggled to form bands of men around him and suffered another stint as a slave. The life of the Mongol is violent and wild with people living in constant fear of rape, abduction, theft and murder. Temujin survived as all others did, through trust in the friends he made. The beautiful woman he married, Borte (Khulan Chuluun), remained faithfully by his side and his childhood friend Jamukha (Honglei Sun) helped him until it was no longer possible.
The epic tale of this man, acted flawlessly by Tadanobu Asano, is structured around the love story between him and Borte. The upheavals in his life brought him to far off places full of danger and blood, but it was their love that always brought him home, and on several encounters saved his life.
This film requires a certain suspension of disbelief. The historical records surrounding Genghis Khan, especially in his early life, are certainly full of gaps. Our viewing of Temujin seems to be structured largely around mysticism and folklore, a persona larger than the man is built in a local attempt to explain the wondrous might of one individual. Many of his escapes go unseen and unexplained leaving us to wonder how, and we are presented with only the slightest explanation. Throughout the movie it is argued that his rise to glory was the work of the god Tengri, who brought storms and winds when he was displeased, but always sought to make Temujin the greatest of the khans.
This great god, we are asked to believe, freed him from shackles, brought him to those he needed, and gifted him with victory in great battles. Indeed, his strength seemed superhuman and occurrences seemed more than happenstance. But I suppose many leaders--Hitler, for example--used religion to support their rule--divine right. At first, untold explanations for things like a 9 year old boy escaping from beneath and ice-covered pond were frustrating, but by the end it must be accepted that this is a biography mixed with legend. Or perhaps it is legend mixed with truths.
As a film this puts many, bigger Hollywood epics to shame. The fight scenes are rousing and deliciously gruesome. The romance and the conquest is poetically handled and has risen above a simple story of a great man to become art. Each scene was shot to look like some early 20th century American painting or the cover of a National Geographic issue. The colors were saturated but crisp, painting beauty around someone we ignorantly brand as brutal.
That does beg the question as to why he portrayed in such a positive way. He did bring stability, religious tolerance and education to the country, but at such a high body count does he deserve to be considered the founding father of Mongolia? But that's largely irrelevant. He is a wolf and the thunder that all Mongols fear, and with an image larger than himself he deserved a film larger than his story.
3.5/4
This stunning film from Kazakhstan does not show this portion of his life. As the title suggests, it is a movie about his ascent to power and presents a detailed, if still highly enigmatic, portrait of the early years of the man who surely has one of the most interesting lives ever recorded. It follows the boy, age 9, until he conquers all other khans on the steppes of Mongolia to become the supreme leader in an attempt to bring law and reason to tribes whose morals and honor have died.
Born to a khan himself as Temujin, the leader in waiting looses his father to an assassin and is chained into slavery. As a child his formative years were marked by a series of events that instilled a sense of composure and vengeance in him that would continue throughout his life. Temujin's child self is played by Odnyam Odsuren with the clear, calm, fixed eyes of a boy beyond his years. Temujin knew his destiny and providence led him to his ultimate prize.
As a man he struggled to form bands of men around him and suffered another stint as a slave. The life of the Mongol is violent and wild with people living in constant fear of rape, abduction, theft and murder. Temujin survived as all others did, through trust in the friends he made. The beautiful woman he married, Borte (Khulan Chuluun), remained faithfully by his side and his childhood friend Jamukha (Honglei Sun) helped him until it was no longer possible.
The epic tale of this man, acted flawlessly by Tadanobu Asano, is structured around the love story between him and Borte. The upheavals in his life brought him to far off places full of danger and blood, but it was their love that always brought him home, and on several encounters saved his life.
This film requires a certain suspension of disbelief. The historical records surrounding Genghis Khan, especially in his early life, are certainly full of gaps. Our viewing of Temujin seems to be structured largely around mysticism and folklore, a persona larger than the man is built in a local attempt to explain the wondrous might of one individual. Many of his escapes go unseen and unexplained leaving us to wonder how, and we are presented with only the slightest explanation. Throughout the movie it is argued that his rise to glory was the work of the god Tengri, who brought storms and winds when he was displeased, but always sought to make Temujin the greatest of the khans.
This great god, we are asked to believe, freed him from shackles, brought him to those he needed, and gifted him with victory in great battles. Indeed, his strength seemed superhuman and occurrences seemed more than happenstance. But I suppose many leaders--Hitler, for example--used religion to support their rule--divine right. At first, untold explanations for things like a 9 year old boy escaping from beneath and ice-covered pond were frustrating, but by the end it must be accepted that this is a biography mixed with legend. Or perhaps it is legend mixed with truths.
As a film this puts many, bigger Hollywood epics to shame. The fight scenes are rousing and deliciously gruesome. The romance and the conquest is poetically handled and has risen above a simple story of a great man to become art. Each scene was shot to look like some early 20th century American painting or the cover of a National Geographic issue. The colors were saturated but crisp, painting beauty around someone we ignorantly brand as brutal.
That does beg the question as to why he portrayed in such a positive way. He did bring stability, religious tolerance and education to the country, but at such a high body count does he deserve to be considered the founding father of Mongolia? But that's largely irrelevant. He is a wolf and the thunder that all Mongols fear, and with an image larger than himself he deserved a film larger than his story.
3.5/4
Sunday, May 20, 2012
The Dictator (2012)
Sacha Baron Cohen has proven himself to be one of the most versatile and controversial comedic actors working with his characters Ali G, Borat and Bruno. Now he takes on one of the touchiest subjects in the Western World at the moment in a time when perhaps it is needed most. Although production for "The Dictator" began before what we are calling the Arab Spring, its release could not come at a more interesting moment. This film does not live up to the expectations that his past work--particularly "Borat"--has led us to expect, but Cohen's eye for the absurd and the cynical is undiminished.
Set in the fictional North African nation of Wadiya, General Haffaz Alladeen rules his nation with unbridled power and a passionate love of his dictatorial strength. Although not the rightful heir to the thrown, his ascension to power at age seven has left him with limitless oil money, a nation at his feet and a hatred of the democratic states of Europe and America. When his new nuclear program causes unease, the UN summons him to New York for talks lest his precious homeland be subject to air raids.
Cohen has done what we believed unthinkable and has created a film with a linear plot and little, if any, jokes on unsuspecting non-professionals. The troubles with the film are apparent and have come precisely from the inability for this great comedian to flex his improv muscles, but as always he has created an outrageous character who often makes clear and biting remarks about the world we live in. Like "Dr. Strangelove" this is a film facing topics too serious to be presented seriously. With comedy, Cohen is able to make the audience laugh and at the same time leave a sting that lingers with the viewers.
After arrive in the US, Alladeen's American bodyguard (John C. Reilly) betrays him and tortures him by cutting off his beard. The general has been betrayed by the rightful heir to his father's thrown, Tamir (Ben Kingsley), and has been replaced by his hapless body-double, a person not much dumber than Alladeen himself. Tamir's goal is to democratize the nation and open up the Wadiyan oil markets to the Chinese to make a hefty profit. Alladeen must reenter the UN to stop the signing of a new constitution before his precious dictatorship is destroyed.
Cohen blends his traditional mixture of outrageous social commentary about cultural differences with slapstick, sex, crude language and gross-out humor in plentiful amounts to keep his target audience coming back, but in his...well, what we might call his most conventional plot (I'm not sure of a better word to describe it), as many of his jokes fall flat on their face as the ones that succeed. However, those that are funny are hilarious and reaffirm his standing as one of the smartest and most interesting political commentators that we have reaching the public. For that reason I hope he feels a certain amount of responsibility to his faithful audiences to make sure that it simply isn't humor for the sake of humor. It isn't here, but I would hate for him to get sloppy.
Some of his best jokes come from his relationship with an ultra-liberal girl named Zoey (Anna Faris) who works at an all vegan, free-range, lesbian-run co-op, staffed by international refugees. Alladeen gets a job there for his own purposes, but this man who is used to riding camels and being put to bed by insanely sexy female guards is absolutely hilarious in that sort of setting. Some of the American jokes are not so great, but that was where the comedy was most Borat in nature which is what Cohen excels at.
As stated earlier, however, lots of jokes fail and did nothing more than make me lift an eyebrow or turn from the scene in disgust. One particularly bad moment came in the most distastefully graphic birthing scene I have ever witnessed; I don't think that secured any new fans of the star. But that was not really the point of the movie. In a recent interview with the BBC which Cohen surprisingly gave as himself, he stated that this was not a commentary on the Arab Spring or the Islamic people in general. This was an attack on dictators and those in favor of dictatorships. He said he found the late Col. Gaddafi hilarious, and his send up of these ridiculous men with all of their pomp, glamour and false ideologies is brilliant.
The good jokes are wildly funny, but they are too far and few in between. This is a fun film on a night out, but don't expect anything as clever or sharp as "Borat". Unfortunately, people now know Cohen too well for him to go in disguise for future films and that makes this endeavor with a proper story line all the more disappointing. He is going to have to work twice as hard in the future to make the jokes stick.
2/4
Set in the fictional North African nation of Wadiya, General Haffaz Alladeen rules his nation with unbridled power and a passionate love of his dictatorial strength. Although not the rightful heir to the thrown, his ascension to power at age seven has left him with limitless oil money, a nation at his feet and a hatred of the democratic states of Europe and America. When his new nuclear program causes unease, the UN summons him to New York for talks lest his precious homeland be subject to air raids.
Cohen has done what we believed unthinkable and has created a film with a linear plot and little, if any, jokes on unsuspecting non-professionals. The troubles with the film are apparent and have come precisely from the inability for this great comedian to flex his improv muscles, but as always he has created an outrageous character who often makes clear and biting remarks about the world we live in. Like "Dr. Strangelove" this is a film facing topics too serious to be presented seriously. With comedy, Cohen is able to make the audience laugh and at the same time leave a sting that lingers with the viewers.
After arrive in the US, Alladeen's American bodyguard (John C. Reilly) betrays him and tortures him by cutting off his beard. The general has been betrayed by the rightful heir to his father's thrown, Tamir (Ben Kingsley), and has been replaced by his hapless body-double, a person not much dumber than Alladeen himself. Tamir's goal is to democratize the nation and open up the Wadiyan oil markets to the Chinese to make a hefty profit. Alladeen must reenter the UN to stop the signing of a new constitution before his precious dictatorship is destroyed.
Cohen blends his traditional mixture of outrageous social commentary about cultural differences with slapstick, sex, crude language and gross-out humor in plentiful amounts to keep his target audience coming back, but in his...well, what we might call his most conventional plot (I'm not sure of a better word to describe it), as many of his jokes fall flat on their face as the ones that succeed. However, those that are funny are hilarious and reaffirm his standing as one of the smartest and most interesting political commentators that we have reaching the public. For that reason I hope he feels a certain amount of responsibility to his faithful audiences to make sure that it simply isn't humor for the sake of humor. It isn't here, but I would hate for him to get sloppy.
Some of his best jokes come from his relationship with an ultra-liberal girl named Zoey (Anna Faris) who works at an all vegan, free-range, lesbian-run co-op, staffed by international refugees. Alladeen gets a job there for his own purposes, but this man who is used to riding camels and being put to bed by insanely sexy female guards is absolutely hilarious in that sort of setting. Some of the American jokes are not so great, but that was where the comedy was most Borat in nature which is what Cohen excels at.
As stated earlier, however, lots of jokes fail and did nothing more than make me lift an eyebrow or turn from the scene in disgust. One particularly bad moment came in the most distastefully graphic birthing scene I have ever witnessed; I don't think that secured any new fans of the star. But that was not really the point of the movie. In a recent interview with the BBC which Cohen surprisingly gave as himself, he stated that this was not a commentary on the Arab Spring or the Islamic people in general. This was an attack on dictators and those in favor of dictatorships. He said he found the late Col. Gaddafi hilarious, and his send up of these ridiculous men with all of their pomp, glamour and false ideologies is brilliant.
The good jokes are wildly funny, but they are too far and few in between. This is a fun film on a night out, but don't expect anything as clever or sharp as "Borat". Unfortunately, people now know Cohen too well for him to go in disguise for future films and that makes this endeavor with a proper story line all the more disappointing. He is going to have to work twice as hard in the future to make the jokes stick.
2/4
Friday, May 18, 2012
The Third Man (1949)
What is possibly my favorite movie of all time is also the film which most fully encapsulates not only the noir genre, but also the sheer romanticism of what cinema is about. It is dark, atmospheric and gloriously passionate. The strange tale of post-war Vienna is compelling, slightly macabre and never less than a beautiful spectacle to behold. Every time I watch it I learn something new and my love for it, and film-making, grows.
In the ruins of the historic European city the American pulp fiction writer, Holly Martins, arrives on a train to meet his childhood friend, Harry Lime. Entering Harry's flat the porter informs him that he has been killed, run over by a truck while crossing the street to meet a friend. Holly arrives at the cemetery in time to see the coffin being lowered into the plot.
A man who Holly later learns is an army inspector of the British district invites him for drinks and gives Holly information about his friend that no man would want to hear. After the War Vienna was in a state of disarray, occupied by four outside powers, but with no real law and order. Smuggling and racketeering became rampant and Harry seized the opportunity to make some easy money through means one can only describe as monstrous. The good friend that Holly is, he seeks to show the inspector wrong and prove Harry's innocence.
Things are not all they seem, however, as Holly enters an underground world of intrigue, full of hushed whispers, thunderous echoes and deep shadows. When Harry's death begins to look less and less like a accident his would-be detective skills, honed in from years of writing cheap Western novels, bring him in contact with duplicitous characters that delve him further into a dangerous world for which he is not prepared to cope.
The mystery unfolds slowly and suspensefully, never giving away more than it needs to and sometimes less than that. The amazing, rubble-strewn locations set the backdrop upon which a praised man is painted ugly and the lengths that a friend and a lover will go to wipe the smudges clean. There are some stains, however, that simply won't erase. Holly meets Harry's love interest, the Czech beauty Anna Schmidt, and the two must deal with the disillusionment of their perfect image of their mutual friend while also dealing with attraction forming between the two of them.
This film is one of the touch-stones of cinema. It is told so carefully, with its incredibly full, rich script from Graham Greene which is presented expertly by director Carol Reed. There are so many subtleties missed on a first viewing which make it all the more interesting as time goes on. Motifs of animals, fingers creeping out of storm drains, the complexity of several of Anna's lines fold layer after layer of puzzling mystery into an already mysterious puzzle.
It features an amazing cast to fill in what would already have been a superb film without them. Joseph Cotton is Holly Martins, Alida Valli as Anna, Trevor Howard plays Maj. Calloway and Orson Welles, though having minimal screen-time, gives what I believe his iconic and most interesting performance as the third man (not least of all because he ad-libbed the ridiculously clever "cuckoo clock" line).
The silly, yet unique zither score, the art direction and most especially the cinematography is what is most well known about this film. The classic scenes on the boulevard, in the sewers, on the Ferris wheel are so well recognized due to the technical achievements that went into capturing their magic. There is always a constant battle in this movie with the terrible and the humorous, and with delicious tongue-and-cheek these elements enhance Reed's statements about the lasting effects of war and the dichotomies of the human mind.
"The Third Man" is one of those enduring classics which has been ripped off endlessly by inferior films. Never have I watched a film which has harnessed the very essence of the noir genre so completely (albeit unintentionally as the term was not yet coined). I envy the person who gets to watch this film for the first time, but I take solace in the fact that it does not diminish with age, it simply finds some new, black corridor to lead me down.
4/4
In the ruins of the historic European city the American pulp fiction writer, Holly Martins, arrives on a train to meet his childhood friend, Harry Lime. Entering Harry's flat the porter informs him that he has been killed, run over by a truck while crossing the street to meet a friend. Holly arrives at the cemetery in time to see the coffin being lowered into the plot.
A man who Holly later learns is an army inspector of the British district invites him for drinks and gives Holly information about his friend that no man would want to hear. After the War Vienna was in a state of disarray, occupied by four outside powers, but with no real law and order. Smuggling and racketeering became rampant and Harry seized the opportunity to make some easy money through means one can only describe as monstrous. The good friend that Holly is, he seeks to show the inspector wrong and prove Harry's innocence.
Things are not all they seem, however, as Holly enters an underground world of intrigue, full of hushed whispers, thunderous echoes and deep shadows. When Harry's death begins to look less and less like a accident his would-be detective skills, honed in from years of writing cheap Western novels, bring him in contact with duplicitous characters that delve him further into a dangerous world for which he is not prepared to cope.
The mystery unfolds slowly and suspensefully, never giving away more than it needs to and sometimes less than that. The amazing, rubble-strewn locations set the backdrop upon which a praised man is painted ugly and the lengths that a friend and a lover will go to wipe the smudges clean. There are some stains, however, that simply won't erase. Holly meets Harry's love interest, the Czech beauty Anna Schmidt, and the two must deal with the disillusionment of their perfect image of their mutual friend while also dealing with attraction forming between the two of them.
This film is one of the touch-stones of cinema. It is told so carefully, with its incredibly full, rich script from Graham Greene which is presented expertly by director Carol Reed. There are so many subtleties missed on a first viewing which make it all the more interesting as time goes on. Motifs of animals, fingers creeping out of storm drains, the complexity of several of Anna's lines fold layer after layer of puzzling mystery into an already mysterious puzzle.
It features an amazing cast to fill in what would already have been a superb film without them. Joseph Cotton is Holly Martins, Alida Valli as Anna, Trevor Howard plays Maj. Calloway and Orson Welles, though having minimal screen-time, gives what I believe his iconic and most interesting performance as the third man (not least of all because he ad-libbed the ridiculously clever "cuckoo clock" line).
The silly, yet unique zither score, the art direction and most especially the cinematography is what is most well known about this film. The classic scenes on the boulevard, in the sewers, on the Ferris wheel are so well recognized due to the technical achievements that went into capturing their magic. There is always a constant battle in this movie with the terrible and the humorous, and with delicious tongue-and-cheek these elements enhance Reed's statements about the lasting effects of war and the dichotomies of the human mind.
"The Third Man" is one of those enduring classics which has been ripped off endlessly by inferior films. Never have I watched a film which has harnessed the very essence of the noir genre so completely (albeit unintentionally as the term was not yet coined). I envy the person who gets to watch this film for the first time, but I take solace in the fact that it does not diminish with age, it simply finds some new, black corridor to lead me down.
4/4
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
North West Frontier (1959)
At the height of the British Empire, just after the turn of the 20th century, a war torn India is on the brink of civil war. A large group of Muslim rebels have killed the maharajah and seek to kill his six year old son to effectively end Hindu rule in the country. Seeking to maintain law and order the British Army is ordered to get the young prince out of the country and safely into British-controlled territory. The only way to do this, however, is with a very old locomotive which barely functions and can't hold much weight. It is up to Capt. Scott (Kenneth More) to see the child and the party to safety.
Also on board is the child's American governess (Lauren Bacall), two English aristocrats, an arms merchant and a disagreeable journalist named Van Leyden (Herbert Lom). In the style of American cowboy pictures of the time this train journey pits them against all kinds of dangers including the attacking rebels and blown up train tracks. The action is thrilling when it needs to be, very well paced and full of fun, but it is the political implications of the film which make it shine.
The film is chalked full of great actors and each of them plays their role expertly, deftly navigating through dangerous territory of race, religion and the usefulness of the British Empire. The first half of the film is good when it is simply nothing more than dime-a-dozen action flick on the great frontier, but the second half becomes that much more intriguing once personal motives begin to reveal themselves inside the quarters.
This film is amazing in its relevance today. I was struck by parallels between the issues presented here and those in Israel, Afghanistan and the debates surrounding the United States' and China's role in our globalized world. This film did an good job of choosing sides and being heavy-handed about it, but still presenting solid alternative views. These, of course, happened to come from the enemies of the British and the prince, but they were still thought out and logical making this film all too short to address necessary questions.
The movie was at once pro-monarchist, anti-imperialist, multiculturalist and humanitarianist. Even in an odd way the actions of the villains were done out of a pursuit of peace. I suppose, though, that one could argue that Al Qaeda wages their holy wars against the Western World in order to establish a peaceful Muslim world. This film does not condone violence and nor do I, but the film does make the clear message that these sorts of events don't take place because people are ruthless and bloodthirsty. In their own way they fight for a goal for the greater good, however warped that good may be.
At the same time, "North West Frontier" is very dated in its views towards race, making the actions of some characters a bit more difficult to make sense of. The rebels--and by extension the Muslims--are referred to as "uneducated children". One lady scoffs at that statement and that is supposed to alleviate the tension for the viewers. However, the engineer of the train is an affable but ignorant Indian man who plays the character we would have as a black man in current films, the lovable buffoon. He is a main character and a sympathetic one, but we care for him because of his childlike geniality.
The list goes on in this film about all of the problems of class and politics of the time which makes for a necessary second viewing. Issues of the nature of war, women in politics, free-thinking and intermarriage are all addressed, which presents us with so much to discuss. But through what some might consider to be dry material this film remains exciting and well shot. This motley crew of upper-class characters takes the adventure and the hardships that go with it with a concrete, stiff upper lip. It is always in their favor--not a single "good" character is killed, but I think that made it all the more enjoyable. It wasn't a challenging film in that sense, it left all of the drama for the kitchen table.
3/4
Also on board is the child's American governess (Lauren Bacall), two English aristocrats, an arms merchant and a disagreeable journalist named Van Leyden (Herbert Lom). In the style of American cowboy pictures of the time this train journey pits them against all kinds of dangers including the attacking rebels and blown up train tracks. The action is thrilling when it needs to be, very well paced and full of fun, but it is the political implications of the film which make it shine.
The film is chalked full of great actors and each of them plays their role expertly, deftly navigating through dangerous territory of race, religion and the usefulness of the British Empire. The first half of the film is good when it is simply nothing more than dime-a-dozen action flick on the great frontier, but the second half becomes that much more intriguing once personal motives begin to reveal themselves inside the quarters.
This film is amazing in its relevance today. I was struck by parallels between the issues presented here and those in Israel, Afghanistan and the debates surrounding the United States' and China's role in our globalized world. This film did an good job of choosing sides and being heavy-handed about it, but still presenting solid alternative views. These, of course, happened to come from the enemies of the British and the prince, but they were still thought out and logical making this film all too short to address necessary questions.
The movie was at once pro-monarchist, anti-imperialist, multiculturalist and humanitarianist. Even in an odd way the actions of the villains were done out of a pursuit of peace. I suppose, though, that one could argue that Al Qaeda wages their holy wars against the Western World in order to establish a peaceful Muslim world. This film does not condone violence and nor do I, but the film does make the clear message that these sorts of events don't take place because people are ruthless and bloodthirsty. In their own way they fight for a goal for the greater good, however warped that good may be.
At the same time, "North West Frontier" is very dated in its views towards race, making the actions of some characters a bit more difficult to make sense of. The rebels--and by extension the Muslims--are referred to as "uneducated children". One lady scoffs at that statement and that is supposed to alleviate the tension for the viewers. However, the engineer of the train is an affable but ignorant Indian man who plays the character we would have as a black man in current films, the lovable buffoon. He is a main character and a sympathetic one, but we care for him because of his childlike geniality.
The list goes on in this film about all of the problems of class and politics of the time which makes for a necessary second viewing. Issues of the nature of war, women in politics, free-thinking and intermarriage are all addressed, which presents us with so much to discuss. But through what some might consider to be dry material this film remains exciting and well shot. This motley crew of upper-class characters takes the adventure and the hardships that go with it with a concrete, stiff upper lip. It is always in their favor--not a single "good" character is killed, but I think that made it all the more enjoyable. It wasn't a challenging film in that sense, it left all of the drama for the kitchen table.
3/4
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Apocalypto (2006)
The mystery of the tropical unknown, a second Dark Continent, is exploited in Mel Gibson's brutal and beautiful "Apocalypto". A quote at the beginning of the film states that before a mighty civilization can be destroyed from without, it must first destroy itself from within. Based on the journals of Spanish explorers of their findings on the Yucatan Peninsula, we are presented with the grand and horrible Mayan civilization on the brink of collapse. Famine and pestilence have brought the people to their knees and the only way to appease the gods is with human sacrifice.
Rudy Youngblood plays Jaguar Paw, a warrior in a small tribe. He is strong, well liked, the epitome of a hero, but he is afraid. An encounter with another tribe who describe their lands as having been ravaged sets him on edge until his own group is massacred by the encroaching Mayans. Men are bludgeoned and speared to death, women raped, children abandoned, but Jaguar Paw and his agile mind hides his wife and child in a stone pit. Taken prisoner to be sacrificed in the capital, however, his family is left is left to die. Jaguar Paw must make his escape and return to save those he loves.
Gibson has received a lot of criticism for the sadistic nature of the stories he presents and this is no exception. There is a raw, forceful eloquence to the picture he paints, but it is barbarous, unfeeling and needlessly gory. I cannot say whether or not the story is an accurate depiction of the life of one of these tribes; I doubt that there are many who could say with confidence, but I do know what I feel and I feel he was patronizing these people. There seemed a sick fascination with contorted faces and emaciated bodies clothed in bones and pelts, smeared in blood.
Shot in the forest but with no small amount of CGI landscapes, Gibson also used many Mayan people, mostly untrained actors, to fill his roles. There is a certain quality to the filming of these people that gives the illusion of authenticity, but it probably goes no further than just that--illusion. Everyone in the film is tattooed with self inflicted scarring on their faces and bodies, all donning gauged noses and ears and lips. They look fearsome in their headdresses and loin cloths, but I felt uncomfortable with the spectacle.
It is stunning and nobody can critique Gibson's storytelling ability. Technically, he knows how to make a film. It is simply uncertain to me whether this film is a story worth telling. The establishing sequences of the little village seem forced, there to tease us into sympathize with false camaraderie and familial bonds of love in order to juxtapose it to the ruthless and one-dimensional savagery of the Mayans. There was no real sense of what these two cultures were about and what made them different. The Mayans were caricaturish in the bloodthirsty spirituality and Jaguar Paw's village was a defensible good.
Gibson seems to enjoy stories about inhumanity for the sake of their dark morbidity. There was no real compassion here, it was glorified violence. His pre-modern Christ figure is an infallible and seemingly immortal earthen god, reborn from the mud to purge the world of evil and save those worth saving. The film took a condescending approach to its examination of an entire group of desperate people seeking their religion to save them, and I found that hypocrisy infuriating. The director has sacrificed genuine human compassion and a balanced approach for spectacle to purport his own beliefs.
The film is certainly a fully realized vision of a world entirely foreign. Much credit must be given to scenic designers and costumers for their exquisitely detailed execution of this immense thriller. Gibson's messages are suspect, however, and it is for this reason I do not approve of this blatant and violent film.
2/4
Rudy Youngblood plays Jaguar Paw, a warrior in a small tribe. He is strong, well liked, the epitome of a hero, but he is afraid. An encounter with another tribe who describe their lands as having been ravaged sets him on edge until his own group is massacred by the encroaching Mayans. Men are bludgeoned and speared to death, women raped, children abandoned, but Jaguar Paw and his agile mind hides his wife and child in a stone pit. Taken prisoner to be sacrificed in the capital, however, his family is left is left to die. Jaguar Paw must make his escape and return to save those he loves.
Gibson has received a lot of criticism for the sadistic nature of the stories he presents and this is no exception. There is a raw, forceful eloquence to the picture he paints, but it is barbarous, unfeeling and needlessly gory. I cannot say whether or not the story is an accurate depiction of the life of one of these tribes; I doubt that there are many who could say with confidence, but I do know what I feel and I feel he was patronizing these people. There seemed a sick fascination with contorted faces and emaciated bodies clothed in bones and pelts, smeared in blood.
Shot in the forest but with no small amount of CGI landscapes, Gibson also used many Mayan people, mostly untrained actors, to fill his roles. There is a certain quality to the filming of these people that gives the illusion of authenticity, but it probably goes no further than just that--illusion. Everyone in the film is tattooed with self inflicted scarring on their faces and bodies, all donning gauged noses and ears and lips. They look fearsome in their headdresses and loin cloths, but I felt uncomfortable with the spectacle.
It is stunning and nobody can critique Gibson's storytelling ability. Technically, he knows how to make a film. It is simply uncertain to me whether this film is a story worth telling. The establishing sequences of the little village seem forced, there to tease us into sympathize with false camaraderie and familial bonds of love in order to juxtapose it to the ruthless and one-dimensional savagery of the Mayans. There was no real sense of what these two cultures were about and what made them different. The Mayans were caricaturish in the bloodthirsty spirituality and Jaguar Paw's village was a defensible good.
Gibson seems to enjoy stories about inhumanity for the sake of their dark morbidity. There was no real compassion here, it was glorified violence. His pre-modern Christ figure is an infallible and seemingly immortal earthen god, reborn from the mud to purge the world of evil and save those worth saving. The film took a condescending approach to its examination of an entire group of desperate people seeking their religion to save them, and I found that hypocrisy infuriating. The director has sacrificed genuine human compassion and a balanced approach for spectacle to purport his own beliefs.
The film is certainly a fully realized vision of a world entirely foreign. Much credit must be given to scenic designers and costumers for their exquisitely detailed execution of this immense thriller. Gibson's messages are suspect, however, and it is for this reason I do not approve of this blatant and violent film.
2/4
Monday, May 14, 2012
101 Dalmatians (1996)
The Golden Age of Disney is dead and gone. Hell, even its Second Golden Age was puttering out by the time the live adaptation of the1963 cartoon was made. Regardless, of all of the films that one could have adapted, the rather lifeless animated film about a large group of dogs and hapless villains would not be on the top of my list.
Based on the 1956 children's novel by Dodie Smith, we have the story of Pongo and Perdita and their pet humans, Roger and Anita. When the two star-crossed canines birth 15 puppies, Anita's psychopathic boss, the fashionista and megalomaniac Cruella De Vil tries to buy them off of her after becoming obsessed with the idea of a dog-skin coat. When the two humans refuse, her fit of rage leads Cruella to take drastic and criminal actions.
With the help of her two cronies, Horace and Jasper, Cruella steals the puppies and brings them to her family estate, a rundown mansion outside of London, and adds them to the collection of 84 dalmatian pups already snatched. When Roger, Anita and a whole squadron of inexplicably involved police officers are not able to save the dogs it is up to Pongo, Perdita and the Twilight Bark to gain the help of the animal kingdom to save the little ones.
As a child I remember being amused by the cartoon story of a bunch of talking dogs and their dimwitted "pets", as the humans were always referred to, outmatching one of the strangest villains in the world of Disney. Watching this version, however, I cannot possibly imagine how it could be interesting for anyone under the age of eight. This is such a lackluster story told without any real zeal, without much comedy and is so full of unjustifiable actions from the human characters that the entire thing just becomes a zany, pointless mess.
Even though the film boasts a strong cast including Jeff Daniels, Joely Richardson, Hugh Laurie and Mark Williams, the film is never anything more than a showcase for the amazing talents of the animal trainers. I love a good dog film as there is something oddly rewarding about seeing an animal being taught to be more human. The dogs here are incredibly cute and that nearly kept my attention diverted from the fact that this is nothing more than a poorly edited search-and-rescue film with some very unimaginative slapstick thrown in to fill in the short running time.
Apart from the animals one does have to commend Glenn Close for her committed and outrageously fun work as Cruella. A skeleton of woman with her frazzled black and white hail, talon-like nails, and expensive furs, she gives the title of "fashion-editor" venom enough to make Meryl Streep's Miranda Priestly in "The Devil Wears Prada" pale in comparison. Her delicious cackle and insane eyes give her a force that fills the screen with such intensity that when she is on it seemed as though I were watching a second film. Here is a woman who suffers from her craft. It is one thing for a seasoned actress to simply do what she does in any film (referring back to Streep, just look at what she did in "The Iron Lady"), but it is another for an six time Oscar-nominated actress to wallow in molasses and pig-filth. I certainly hope she got paid what she deserves.
This film is not worth the time of anyone. It's slow, uninteresting and the comedy flops in almost all scenarios. Even with its cast I would choose to watch the slightly more believable animated version which felt like it was actually made with some love.
1/4
Based on the 1956 children's novel by Dodie Smith, we have the story of Pongo and Perdita and their pet humans, Roger and Anita. When the two star-crossed canines birth 15 puppies, Anita's psychopathic boss, the fashionista and megalomaniac Cruella De Vil tries to buy them off of her after becoming obsessed with the idea of a dog-skin coat. When the two humans refuse, her fit of rage leads Cruella to take drastic and criminal actions.
With the help of her two cronies, Horace and Jasper, Cruella steals the puppies and brings them to her family estate, a rundown mansion outside of London, and adds them to the collection of 84 dalmatian pups already snatched. When Roger, Anita and a whole squadron of inexplicably involved police officers are not able to save the dogs it is up to Pongo, Perdita and the Twilight Bark to gain the help of the animal kingdom to save the little ones.
As a child I remember being amused by the cartoon story of a bunch of talking dogs and their dimwitted "pets", as the humans were always referred to, outmatching one of the strangest villains in the world of Disney. Watching this version, however, I cannot possibly imagine how it could be interesting for anyone under the age of eight. This is such a lackluster story told without any real zeal, without much comedy and is so full of unjustifiable actions from the human characters that the entire thing just becomes a zany, pointless mess.
Even though the film boasts a strong cast including Jeff Daniels, Joely Richardson, Hugh Laurie and Mark Williams, the film is never anything more than a showcase for the amazing talents of the animal trainers. I love a good dog film as there is something oddly rewarding about seeing an animal being taught to be more human. The dogs here are incredibly cute and that nearly kept my attention diverted from the fact that this is nothing more than a poorly edited search-and-rescue film with some very unimaginative slapstick thrown in to fill in the short running time.
Apart from the animals one does have to commend Glenn Close for her committed and outrageously fun work as Cruella. A skeleton of woman with her frazzled black and white hail, talon-like nails, and expensive furs, she gives the title of "fashion-editor" venom enough to make Meryl Streep's Miranda Priestly in "The Devil Wears Prada" pale in comparison. Her delicious cackle and insane eyes give her a force that fills the screen with such intensity that when she is on it seemed as though I were watching a second film. Here is a woman who suffers from her craft. It is one thing for a seasoned actress to simply do what she does in any film (referring back to Streep, just look at what she did in "The Iron Lady"), but it is another for an six time Oscar-nominated actress to wallow in molasses and pig-filth. I certainly hope she got paid what she deserves.
This film is not worth the time of anyone. It's slow, uninteresting and the comedy flops in almost all scenarios. Even with its cast I would choose to watch the slightly more believable animated version which felt like it was actually made with some love.
1/4
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Tsotsi (2005)
In a shantytown in South Africa having a gang means your survival as a young man. Tsotsi, meaning "thug", is the leader of his group of four who spend their nights pickpocketing their victims at gun or needlepoint. He is aggressive, reckless and unfeeling, often badgering his other members including the scholarly Boston. One night, after a fight, Tsotsi storms off into the rich end of town where he sees woman caught in the rain, unable to open the gate protecting her house. Tsotsi shoots the woman and steals her car, driving off into the darkness.
Unbeknownst to him the woman was a mother and the car he stole had the baby in the backseat. Unable to bring the child back for fear of being arrested and, to the audience, confusingly unable to abandon it, Tsotsi takes the baby back to his tin hut and tries to care for it. The baby's mother lives and a manhunt begins for this nobody in an area housing over a million.
"Tsotsi" is a simple, but very powerful story of redemption. Shot on location, it presents an unsympathetic view of a mysterious country and their social dynamics. Within the vibrant life and atmosphere of the people these streets are kept mean by boys growing up in a perpetuating cycle of violence and death by disease.
As Tsotsi inexplicably tries to care for the boy we learn through flashback about his past and possibly his current motives. As a child, Tsosti's mother died of AIDS in front of him and his alcoholic father drove him away to be raised by and with other orphaned children living in concrete drainage pipes. Tsotsi was a dog with his spine broken from an early age, limping to find comfort and family. As the story progresses we see him turn from his surrogate gang family to try and form an actual one.
Desperate to find proper food for the baby, whom he has named David, Tsotsi forces a young mother to breastfeed him. This evolves into something more, but the nature of relationship it becomes remains enigmatic. He himself attempts to become a father figure for David, and by the end it seems as though he may even succeed. And then there is Boston. Although Boston, Aap and Butcher were all called brother by Tsotsi, the look in his eye when he said it to the teacher was special.
The film is not happy, it is not easy. How could it be? This is difficult material filled with difficult and completely foreign characters. We, in our Western world, cannot imagine the hardships of being rationed a bucket of water for the day, fearing being stabbed quietly on a train full of people, being raised by eight year olds when you yourself are no older. It seems a mystery to us that this place where people live in abject poverty spawns unending violence, rape and theft, but the pieces are laid there plainly for us to see.
Presley Chweneyagae carries the film with a masterful performance as the thug. Even with the film's melodramatic ending his eyes seer into your skull with the knowledge that although he has done good and has become good there is no way for him to undo what he did, and he will be punished for his actions. Rightly so, but his rebirth is powerful. Masterfully shot and with superb pacing this is a quality film that touches cliches, but never enforces them.
3/4
Unbeknownst to him the woman was a mother and the car he stole had the baby in the backseat. Unable to bring the child back for fear of being arrested and, to the audience, confusingly unable to abandon it, Tsotsi takes the baby back to his tin hut and tries to care for it. The baby's mother lives and a manhunt begins for this nobody in an area housing over a million.
"Tsotsi" is a simple, but very powerful story of redemption. Shot on location, it presents an unsympathetic view of a mysterious country and their social dynamics. Within the vibrant life and atmosphere of the people these streets are kept mean by boys growing up in a perpetuating cycle of violence and death by disease.
As Tsotsi inexplicably tries to care for the boy we learn through flashback about his past and possibly his current motives. As a child, Tsosti's mother died of AIDS in front of him and his alcoholic father drove him away to be raised by and with other orphaned children living in concrete drainage pipes. Tsotsi was a dog with his spine broken from an early age, limping to find comfort and family. As the story progresses we see him turn from his surrogate gang family to try and form an actual one.
Desperate to find proper food for the baby, whom he has named David, Tsotsi forces a young mother to breastfeed him. This evolves into something more, but the nature of relationship it becomes remains enigmatic. He himself attempts to become a father figure for David, and by the end it seems as though he may even succeed. And then there is Boston. Although Boston, Aap and Butcher were all called brother by Tsotsi, the look in his eye when he said it to the teacher was special.
The film is not happy, it is not easy. How could it be? This is difficult material filled with difficult and completely foreign characters. We, in our Western world, cannot imagine the hardships of being rationed a bucket of water for the day, fearing being stabbed quietly on a train full of people, being raised by eight year olds when you yourself are no older. It seems a mystery to us that this place where people live in abject poverty spawns unending violence, rape and theft, but the pieces are laid there plainly for us to see.
Presley Chweneyagae carries the film with a masterful performance as the thug. Even with the film's melodramatic ending his eyes seer into your skull with the knowledge that although he has done good and has become good there is no way for him to undo what he did, and he will be punished for his actions. Rightly so, but his rebirth is powerful. Masterfully shot and with superb pacing this is a quality film that touches cliches, but never enforces them.
3/4
Friday, May 11, 2012
Dark Shadows (2012)
1764: A young man named Barnabas Collins, wealthy heir to a New England fishing company, is transformed into a hideous vampire by the jealous witch, Angelique. Her lust was met with scorn as the young Barnabas slighted her affections for a young blonde maiden, and when she could not earn his love after killing his parents and his bride-to-be, after his horrible form would not leave him complacent with Angelique, she turned the town against him and buried him in the earth.
1972: An unfortunate group of construction workers dig up Barnabas's coffin and meet an untimely death. The vampire suddenly finds himself in a time of Chevrolet's and troll dolls, but returns to his mansion, Collinwood, to restore his family's honor.
Tim Burton's eighth collaboration with Johnny Depp has the actor sporting pointed ears, chunky spiked hair, a pallid complexion and ghoulish fingers. Depp seems right at home in his new skin, giving one of his trademark, chameleon performances. With an arched posture, perfect deadpan and just the right amount of charm his Barnabas is hilarious is his confused navigations through a modern world. But then Depp has always been the right actor for Burton, or rather Burton has always been the right director for Depp. Creating fantastic worlds for him, Depp always manages to get lost in his cartoonish characters, relishing in their oddities.
Apart from his sparkling performance there is unfortunately not much else being offered in this film.
I must admit to never having seen the 70's soap from which this film was based, but if it was anything like the film then I am glad to have not.
Barnabas comes home to find Collinwood in a state of disrepair, inhabited by the last remaining members of the Collins family, their loyal staff of two and one Dr. Hoffman, there to look after the young David who has been fantasizing about seeing the ghost of his dead mother. Also there is a new employed young governess named Victoria who looks astonishingly like Barnabas's dead love. Equally puzzled by him and he is of them, Barnabas must earn their trust before pledging himself to rebuilding the family business which has been all but destroyed by the immortal Angelique.
After a fantastic opening sequence where Barnabas explains his past, which is equally beautiful and gruesome, I had high hopes for this film. Other than "Sweeney Todd", Burton's last few endeavors have been general misses with aesthetics put ahead of character development and strong narratives. The film seemed ready to take a macabre, moody approach inflected with slight moments of bemusing humor, but about a third of the way in that seemed to putter out.
Even with a terrific cast including Michelle Pfeiffer, Helena Bonham Carter, Chloe Grace Loretz and a great performance by the relatively unknown Eva Green as the witch, this film had incredible troubles trying to determine what it was about. I was left confused through most of it by its careless tones, its large amount of supporting characters who seemed to drift in and out without any real purpose, and by the lack of pathos from any of the actors. The only real force to cling on to was Depp, and his character wasn't even written strong enough to feel secure in doing that.
Again, this was one of those typical Burton films in which a lack of direction is masked by beautiful visuals and campy performances. The film is like Collinwood: grand, gothic, beautifully twisted. But on the inside it's empty, worn down, covered in cobwebs and filled with the same people that there have always been.
It did have its moments. Depp was able to squeeze a few genuine laughs from the audience (my favorite was an encounter with a lava lamp which he equated to a "pulsating blood-urn") and there were times where the effects and the atmosphere made it quite eerie. But on whole--I love and hate myself for writing this--the film had no bite. It felt that Burton wanted to make a gothic horror film, and it also felt he wanted to make a family-friendly vampire flick. Instead he chose the middle path and created a grey, emotionless mess.
1.5/4
1972: An unfortunate group of construction workers dig up Barnabas's coffin and meet an untimely death. The vampire suddenly finds himself in a time of Chevrolet's and troll dolls, but returns to his mansion, Collinwood, to restore his family's honor.
Tim Burton's eighth collaboration with Johnny Depp has the actor sporting pointed ears, chunky spiked hair, a pallid complexion and ghoulish fingers. Depp seems right at home in his new skin, giving one of his trademark, chameleon performances. With an arched posture, perfect deadpan and just the right amount of charm his Barnabas is hilarious is his confused navigations through a modern world. But then Depp has always been the right actor for Burton, or rather Burton has always been the right director for Depp. Creating fantastic worlds for him, Depp always manages to get lost in his cartoonish characters, relishing in their oddities.
Apart from his sparkling performance there is unfortunately not much else being offered in this film.
I must admit to never having seen the 70's soap from which this film was based, but if it was anything like the film then I am glad to have not.
Barnabas comes home to find Collinwood in a state of disrepair, inhabited by the last remaining members of the Collins family, their loyal staff of two and one Dr. Hoffman, there to look after the young David who has been fantasizing about seeing the ghost of his dead mother. Also there is a new employed young governess named Victoria who looks astonishingly like Barnabas's dead love. Equally puzzled by him and he is of them, Barnabas must earn their trust before pledging himself to rebuilding the family business which has been all but destroyed by the immortal Angelique.
After a fantastic opening sequence where Barnabas explains his past, which is equally beautiful and gruesome, I had high hopes for this film. Other than "Sweeney Todd", Burton's last few endeavors have been general misses with aesthetics put ahead of character development and strong narratives. The film seemed ready to take a macabre, moody approach inflected with slight moments of bemusing humor, but about a third of the way in that seemed to putter out.
Even with a terrific cast including Michelle Pfeiffer, Helena Bonham Carter, Chloe Grace Loretz and a great performance by the relatively unknown Eva Green as the witch, this film had incredible troubles trying to determine what it was about. I was left confused through most of it by its careless tones, its large amount of supporting characters who seemed to drift in and out without any real purpose, and by the lack of pathos from any of the actors. The only real force to cling on to was Depp, and his character wasn't even written strong enough to feel secure in doing that.
Again, this was one of those typical Burton films in which a lack of direction is masked by beautiful visuals and campy performances. The film is like Collinwood: grand, gothic, beautifully twisted. But on the inside it's empty, worn down, covered in cobwebs and filled with the same people that there have always been.
It did have its moments. Depp was able to squeeze a few genuine laughs from the audience (my favorite was an encounter with a lava lamp which he equated to a "pulsating blood-urn") and there were times where the effects and the atmosphere made it quite eerie. But on whole--I love and hate myself for writing this--the film had no bite. It felt that Burton wanted to make a gothic horror film, and it also felt he wanted to make a family-friendly vampire flick. Instead he chose the middle path and created a grey, emotionless mess.
1.5/4
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Nights of Cabiria (1957)
Federico Fellini is the greatest director ever to work for the silver screen. His work is unparalleled in terms of creative style and story except maybe by the films of Stanley Kubrick, and even they lack the inventiveness of characters and depth of Fellini's movies. Before shifting into the more surrealist work in "La Dolce Vita" and "8 1/2" which he is most well known for, his work was securely grounded in neo-realist structures and narratives that dominated Italian cinema following the destruction of his country during the Second World War. But even here in "Le notti di Cabiria" we can see the change beginning to occur.
Fellini both loves and hates women as much as he loves and hates himself, so this film, like all his others, is characterized by the ineffectual man and desperate woman. His heroine is also his wife, Giulietta Masina, who plays the impish, spitfire Cabiria, a girl who "lives the life". She is a prostitute who wanders the streets of Rome working for money, but also tries to find genuine warmth and affection from the men she meets. In the process though she is met with nothing hardship and disappointment.
The film opens on Cabiria enjoying a stroll by the river with her current boyfriend, Giorgio. When she gets too close to the water Giorgio pushes her in, steals her purse and leaves her to drown. She is rescued, and the anger and hurt of the experience (one of many we expect she's had by the end of the film) lead her on a quest for reinvention from her lowly life. She hates herself, disgusted by her work and the other hookers who are her only friends and family and despairingly seeks a way out.
Told in Fellini's episodic structure that came to characterize his pieces, Cabiria spends the next few weeks encountering men in bizarre, but not totally unbelievable situations. She has spunk, likes to yell and gesture and that makes her character at once frustrating and completely likable. It is a strange and very inspired character choice for a little prostitute, but we sympathize with this woman who is tough as nails, and each infrequent smile she gives is a little ray of hope. She knows she is nothing, but she looks for opportunities to flaunt that at least she has her own house and her own thermometer--that's something yet!
Cabiria first meets a famous film star who gives her the slightest glimpse of the good life. He is kind, takes her to his mansion on a hill and feeds her lobster. But when his volatile girlfriend shows up unexpectedly Cabiria is shooed into the bathroom and ends of sleeping on the floor. The next "episode", so to speak, has her and her working girl friends at a church going to pray to the Madonna for a miracle. It is a heartbreaking scene of a woman who has lost hope in herself and turns to God for salvation. After, when the girls are picnicking outside she cries out miserably that none of them have changed, that they had not received a miracle. Later, Cabiria walks the streets and stumbles upon a magician's act. He hypnotizes her and instructs her to do something I won't reveal, but she is left emotionally raw and naked in front of a cheering crowd of men, having involuntarily exposed the soft person she is inside. This is the iconic scene of the movie which juxtaposes her life with all of her hopes and dreams. And the audience jeers.
But perhaps all is not bad and the Madonna was taking her time in bringing the miracle to Cabiria. One man in the crowd named Oscar (Francois Perier) saw something beautiful in the girl onstage. He brings her chocolates and flowers and speaks softly to her. Cabiria finally sees a way out of a hostile world.
There is so much beauty in this shameful film. Fellini was a master at finding the good in bad people and the hope in hopeless situations. Bertolt Brecht once wrote that the politically ignorant man, someone who relished in his apathy, was the reason that we have the abandoned child, the bad politician and the prostitute, and here Fellini captures that. When I first saw the film I saw nothing but greedy, awful men. This time, however, I realize that she couldn't find love because they had none to give. Their actions were driven out of desperation, just as her desperation led her into their arms. These people are fighting for survival, and although this is a rather whimsical examination of the underbelly of Rome poverty and shattered dreams are all too visible.
Not everyone is selfish in their day to day lives though. Wandering about at night Cabiria meets a man taking blankets and food to people living in caves. He says he goes every 9 to 10 days to look after the homeless and the hookers, but it simply isn't enough. Cabiria has never known unsolicited kindness it seems, and the look in her eyes is stunning.
This movie overwhelms me in its grace, its eloquence and its shattering plea for help. It is funny, reflective, solemn and furious all at once and the result is a beautiful gem of the cinema. His later works may be considered Fellini's masterpieces, but this one is untouchable to me.
4/4
Fellini both loves and hates women as much as he loves and hates himself, so this film, like all his others, is characterized by the ineffectual man and desperate woman. His heroine is also his wife, Giulietta Masina, who plays the impish, spitfire Cabiria, a girl who "lives the life". She is a prostitute who wanders the streets of Rome working for money, but also tries to find genuine warmth and affection from the men she meets. In the process though she is met with nothing hardship and disappointment.
The film opens on Cabiria enjoying a stroll by the river with her current boyfriend, Giorgio. When she gets too close to the water Giorgio pushes her in, steals her purse and leaves her to drown. She is rescued, and the anger and hurt of the experience (one of many we expect she's had by the end of the film) lead her on a quest for reinvention from her lowly life. She hates herself, disgusted by her work and the other hookers who are her only friends and family and despairingly seeks a way out.
Told in Fellini's episodic structure that came to characterize his pieces, Cabiria spends the next few weeks encountering men in bizarre, but not totally unbelievable situations. She has spunk, likes to yell and gesture and that makes her character at once frustrating and completely likable. It is a strange and very inspired character choice for a little prostitute, but we sympathize with this woman who is tough as nails, and each infrequent smile she gives is a little ray of hope. She knows she is nothing, but she looks for opportunities to flaunt that at least she has her own house and her own thermometer--that's something yet!
Cabiria first meets a famous film star who gives her the slightest glimpse of the good life. He is kind, takes her to his mansion on a hill and feeds her lobster. But when his volatile girlfriend shows up unexpectedly Cabiria is shooed into the bathroom and ends of sleeping on the floor. The next "episode", so to speak, has her and her working girl friends at a church going to pray to the Madonna for a miracle. It is a heartbreaking scene of a woman who has lost hope in herself and turns to God for salvation. After, when the girls are picnicking outside she cries out miserably that none of them have changed, that they had not received a miracle. Later, Cabiria walks the streets and stumbles upon a magician's act. He hypnotizes her and instructs her to do something I won't reveal, but she is left emotionally raw and naked in front of a cheering crowd of men, having involuntarily exposed the soft person she is inside. This is the iconic scene of the movie which juxtaposes her life with all of her hopes and dreams. And the audience jeers.
But perhaps all is not bad and the Madonna was taking her time in bringing the miracle to Cabiria. One man in the crowd named Oscar (Francois Perier) saw something beautiful in the girl onstage. He brings her chocolates and flowers and speaks softly to her. Cabiria finally sees a way out of a hostile world.
There is so much beauty in this shameful film. Fellini was a master at finding the good in bad people and the hope in hopeless situations. Bertolt Brecht once wrote that the politically ignorant man, someone who relished in his apathy, was the reason that we have the abandoned child, the bad politician and the prostitute, and here Fellini captures that. When I first saw the film I saw nothing but greedy, awful men. This time, however, I realize that she couldn't find love because they had none to give. Their actions were driven out of desperation, just as her desperation led her into their arms. These people are fighting for survival, and although this is a rather whimsical examination of the underbelly of Rome poverty and shattered dreams are all too visible.
Not everyone is selfish in their day to day lives though. Wandering about at night Cabiria meets a man taking blankets and food to people living in caves. He says he goes every 9 to 10 days to look after the homeless and the hookers, but it simply isn't enough. Cabiria has never known unsolicited kindness it seems, and the look in her eyes is stunning.
This movie overwhelms me in its grace, its eloquence and its shattering plea for help. It is funny, reflective, solemn and furious all at once and the result is a beautiful gem of the cinema. His later works may be considered Fellini's masterpieces, but this one is untouchable to me.
4/4
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The Avengers (2012)
The world of Marvel is far more fantastic than that of DC, fantastic in terms of fantasy, of space-age sci-fi, gods, magic and the ridiculous ideas of comic book men who create alternate worlds to recreate themselves in images the could never fulfill in reality. Their greatest achievements join forces in the Avengers Initiative to blend all of these fond dreams into one crack team to combat the forces of evil on an epic scale. It is nerdy inadequacy combated and put to the challenge of reaffirming the power of the imagination.
In our story, which has been building up for many past superhero movies from Marvel with super-spy Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) collecting incredible people for his project, the world is threatened by an intergalactic army from Thor's birthplace. In a dazzling opening sequence a power source with the potential to generate unlimited, self-sustaining energy is stolen by the evil Loki (Tom Hiddleson), Thor's brother, with the intent of opening up a portal to his world to unleash his terrible forces. A god, like his brother, his wields a staff able to control the minds of others which he uses to capture nuclear physicists for his goals, including Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner).
In a panic, Fury scourers the globe to collect his somewhat reluctant fighting force including the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) while later taking on Thor (Chris Hemsworth) who seems to tag along on his own. These people, which their special abilities and unique personal attributes are called on to close the portal, which inevitably opens, and fight off the army that wishes to enslave humanity.
Pretty generic plot. But then I don't expect that anyone going to see this film is expecting anything more. Looking at the row of young men sitting in front of me I'm fairly certain that through half of the film they had some sort of adrenaline-induced, homoerotic erection from the amount of head-pounding explosions and muscle men beating each other into a pulp. Frankly, the most exciting battle sequences were not those between the good and bad guys, but amongst each other. And what 17 year old boy doesn't secretly hope that two ripped men in spandex and capes are going to pommel one another and then act as though it never happened?
Looking at the film and really trying to take in the scale of it all I was absolutely stunned by what I was seeing. Logistically this film seems a titanic feat of money, creativity and planning--something that I really feel must have been a monstrous undertaking. Not only were at least six plots being unraveled at once (small though some of them might be), this film was also dealing with some of the biggest names in Hollywood, working on dazzling special effects, a final battle scene that was roughly 40 minutes long and all the while this film works. It works well.
There are some incredible plot holes that I doubt even the most avid fan would be willing to overlook such as the ridiculous way four people of different intellects and skill sets were able to breach S.H.I.E.L.D., and the fact that this apparently very advanced race of alien beings were using their version of war-elephants to fight their "glorious" battle, but as far as shear entertainment value this film cannot be beat.
However, what I could not wrap my mind around was the reasoning for the war. Loki is at times a terrifying villain, and others a wimpy cur. According to him he was jealous for the fact that he was robbed of his rightful throne of Asgard. Therefore he decided to wage war against Earth and enslave humanity to spite Thor. There were hints that the battle began in order to quell human advancement technologically, the theory being that if we have a power source with the capability to open a wormhole then we would use it for just that purpose, right? But why wage war? My thinking is that if these people are gods and they do have unlimited power why not simply steal the power source and return home keeping us on our planet? Or, instead of conquering by force which never works (a nice Nazi reference was made), could these gods not simply do like the aliens in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and demonstrate their power on a global scale while keeping the humans alive? Further, if they did that they would only need to take care of the Avengers in which case they would not need to open a wormhole to begin with and would simply send down the other immortal gods to do the bidding. I doubt that Iron Man's suit of armor could contend with that very well. But these are digressions and unimportant.
The effects in the film are outrageously good. From the colossal fight sequences to the smallest details like the CGI-implanted reflection in Downey Jr.'s eyes were really outstanding. The people developing the sets and props were absolute geniuses. It is one thing to make something a reality with a computer, but the idea behind it is almost equally as important. I would be stunned if this film was not nominated for best art/set design because they are flawlessly slick and cool.
The cast was great. Downey Jr. was the best as he usually is, but Mark Ruffalo in a disarmingly understated performance was able to upstage him. His work, though minor, as Bruce Banner a.k.a. the Hulk was thoughtful and at times very sad, but he didn't play for sympathy which was lovely. Jackson was also very good though Fury wasn't much of a role to play. Still, he looks pretty bad ass with an eye patch and a pistol which is good enough for me.
The film is loud, stupid, exhilarating and tons of fun. As far as getting bang for your buck there is nowhere better to go. This is not some revolutionary comic book movie like "The Dark Knight" or "Spiderman 2", but it aims to please and please it does.
3.5/4
*Note: I saw this film in 3D which I only slightly recommend. The final battle scene was shot outdoors and was done expertly, but through the first half of it the colors were duller and sometimes muddled. I would suggest seeing it on the biggest 2D screen you can find to maintain the vibrancy while achieving the same thrill-ride effect.
In our story, which has been building up for many past superhero movies from Marvel with super-spy Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) collecting incredible people for his project, the world is threatened by an intergalactic army from Thor's birthplace. In a dazzling opening sequence a power source with the potential to generate unlimited, self-sustaining energy is stolen by the evil Loki (Tom Hiddleson), Thor's brother, with the intent of opening up a portal to his world to unleash his terrible forces. A god, like his brother, his wields a staff able to control the minds of others which he uses to capture nuclear physicists for his goals, including Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner).
In a panic, Fury scourers the globe to collect his somewhat reluctant fighting force including the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) while later taking on Thor (Chris Hemsworth) who seems to tag along on his own. These people, which their special abilities and unique personal attributes are called on to close the portal, which inevitably opens, and fight off the army that wishes to enslave humanity.
Pretty generic plot. But then I don't expect that anyone going to see this film is expecting anything more. Looking at the row of young men sitting in front of me I'm fairly certain that through half of the film they had some sort of adrenaline-induced, homoerotic erection from the amount of head-pounding explosions and muscle men beating each other into a pulp. Frankly, the most exciting battle sequences were not those between the good and bad guys, but amongst each other. And what 17 year old boy doesn't secretly hope that two ripped men in spandex and capes are going to pommel one another and then act as though it never happened?
Looking at the film and really trying to take in the scale of it all I was absolutely stunned by what I was seeing. Logistically this film seems a titanic feat of money, creativity and planning--something that I really feel must have been a monstrous undertaking. Not only were at least six plots being unraveled at once (small though some of them might be), this film was also dealing with some of the biggest names in Hollywood, working on dazzling special effects, a final battle scene that was roughly 40 minutes long and all the while this film works. It works well.
There are some incredible plot holes that I doubt even the most avid fan would be willing to overlook such as the ridiculous way four people of different intellects and skill sets were able to breach S.H.I.E.L.D., and the fact that this apparently very advanced race of alien beings were using their version of war-elephants to fight their "glorious" battle, but as far as shear entertainment value this film cannot be beat.
However, what I could not wrap my mind around was the reasoning for the war. Loki is at times a terrifying villain, and others a wimpy cur. According to him he was jealous for the fact that he was robbed of his rightful throne of Asgard. Therefore he decided to wage war against Earth and enslave humanity to spite Thor. There were hints that the battle began in order to quell human advancement technologically, the theory being that if we have a power source with the capability to open a wormhole then we would use it for just that purpose, right? But why wage war? My thinking is that if these people are gods and they do have unlimited power why not simply steal the power source and return home keeping us on our planet? Or, instead of conquering by force which never works (a nice Nazi reference was made), could these gods not simply do like the aliens in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and demonstrate their power on a global scale while keeping the humans alive? Further, if they did that they would only need to take care of the Avengers in which case they would not need to open a wormhole to begin with and would simply send down the other immortal gods to do the bidding. I doubt that Iron Man's suit of armor could contend with that very well. But these are digressions and unimportant.
The effects in the film are outrageously good. From the colossal fight sequences to the smallest details like the CGI-implanted reflection in Downey Jr.'s eyes were really outstanding. The people developing the sets and props were absolute geniuses. It is one thing to make something a reality with a computer, but the idea behind it is almost equally as important. I would be stunned if this film was not nominated for best art/set design because they are flawlessly slick and cool.
The cast was great. Downey Jr. was the best as he usually is, but Mark Ruffalo in a disarmingly understated performance was able to upstage him. His work, though minor, as Bruce Banner a.k.a. the Hulk was thoughtful and at times very sad, but he didn't play for sympathy which was lovely. Jackson was also very good though Fury wasn't much of a role to play. Still, he looks pretty bad ass with an eye patch and a pistol which is good enough for me.
The film is loud, stupid, exhilarating and tons of fun. As far as getting bang for your buck there is nowhere better to go. This is not some revolutionary comic book movie like "The Dark Knight" or "Spiderman 2", but it aims to please and please it does.
3.5/4
*Note: I saw this film in 3D which I only slightly recommend. The final battle scene was shot outdoors and was done expertly, but through the first half of it the colors were duller and sometimes muddled. I would suggest seeing it on the biggest 2D screen you can find to maintain the vibrancy while achieving the same thrill-ride effect.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
The Kite Runner (2007)
The novel The Kite Runner was an international success owing, I imagine in large part, to the humanist way that it examined race relations and class struggle in Afghanistan during a period of time when The United States and other Western nations were met with nothing but a barrage of negative images surrounding a nation that they were very ignorant about. Marc Forster's "The Kite Runner" was therefore one of the most anticipated films of the year, but unfortunately one of the biggest disappointments.
I remember reading the novel when it first came out--I was probably too young to have done so, but that can't be changed--and I remember how moved I was by the interactions between two young boys in this unknown wasteland. I was 13, still naive and the book left a profound impact on me and my ideas of punishment and guilt. The characters were rich and alive, the story compelling and its themes, like one of the fables that the young Amir wrote, seemed timeless.
In the heart of Kabul the weak and privileged Amir lives with his father, Baba, who is the epitome of the Afghan man. He is strong, proud, intelligent, well-liked and very tactful. They live in a lovely house and Amir wants for nothing but his father's affection. He has his love but not his respect, and if Afghanistan respect and honor is paramount.
The two have servants, Ali and his son Hassan who, because of their minority status remain as the help though Baba treats them as close to family as society will allow. Amir and Hassan are friends, though how much of that is convenience on Amir's part goes relatively unexplored. Still, they spend their time together seeing American Western flicks and fighting kites with the other boys in the city. Although it is questioned, there is genuine affection in their eyes. Hassan tells Amir that if he asked he would eat dirt for his friend.
But a very brutal act of violence tears the two apart as Amir's shame and cowardice drives him to abandon Hassan who shows nothing but unquestioning loyalty. Then, during the Soviet invasion he and his father make a desperate flee from the city to America where they live, Baba now working at a gas station and Amir going to school to become a writer.
Time passes, Amir gets married and Baba falls ill. It is the general nature of life and it goes unquestioned. A fateful letter, however, awakens Amir to his past and the wrongs he has done, and gives him the chance to return to Kabul to undue the mistakes he made and prove that he is the man his father always hoped he would be.
Structurally the story is magnificent as it came from a beautifully penned book, but there were many flaws that made it impossible for the film to resonate emotionally. What was so essentially needed was the time for the story to breathe and explore the culture that is so vastly different than our own. Much of this story is based on etiquette and the differences in social standing between the Pushtuns and the Hazaras which drive much of the interrelationships of the Afghan people. This movie was incredibly weak at doing anything but speaking lines addressing the conflict. The politics in this film needed to be demonstrated, but instead were alluded to in conversation which was obviously done as the filmmakers' attempts to say to the audience, "This is the conflict and this is why it is important." Doing that, however, does not strike the audience or cause them to think. It makes us aware, but aware in a way that a physics teacher might say "e=mc^2" and expect you to know the significance of what energy means.
I found it both fascinating and incredibly frustrating that Afghan culture was revealed more while the characters were in California than in the Middle East, and even more so that they did this without juxtaposing it to the the Western World. If one wished to talk about the inner-workings of a nation then do it in the country where it feels most natural and most believable to the audience.
Apart from that the performances were mediocre at best. The script felt very forced and unfortunately the actors were not skilled enough to cope with iffy material. The consequences of this meant that true nature of the interactions became ambiguous, driven down to cliches and Acting 101. The lack of believability destroyed any sort of power that one might have felt in the final scenes when Amir returned to the Taliban-controlled Kabul. It was many years ago that I read the book and I do not remember my final thoughts on Amir and his sense of pride, but watching the film I never once saw him as a hero. His actions as an adult were heroic, but his motives never felt like anything more than obligation. This is a story about coming full-circle, about making amends and restoring faith in justice, but to me our "hero" continued on in his shameful line unchanged.
2/4
I remember reading the novel when it first came out--I was probably too young to have done so, but that can't be changed--and I remember how moved I was by the interactions between two young boys in this unknown wasteland. I was 13, still naive and the book left a profound impact on me and my ideas of punishment and guilt. The characters were rich and alive, the story compelling and its themes, like one of the fables that the young Amir wrote, seemed timeless.
In the heart of Kabul the weak and privileged Amir lives with his father, Baba, who is the epitome of the Afghan man. He is strong, proud, intelligent, well-liked and very tactful. They live in a lovely house and Amir wants for nothing but his father's affection. He has his love but not his respect, and if Afghanistan respect and honor is paramount.
The two have servants, Ali and his son Hassan who, because of their minority status remain as the help though Baba treats them as close to family as society will allow. Amir and Hassan are friends, though how much of that is convenience on Amir's part goes relatively unexplored. Still, they spend their time together seeing American Western flicks and fighting kites with the other boys in the city. Although it is questioned, there is genuine affection in their eyes. Hassan tells Amir that if he asked he would eat dirt for his friend.
But a very brutal act of violence tears the two apart as Amir's shame and cowardice drives him to abandon Hassan who shows nothing but unquestioning loyalty. Then, during the Soviet invasion he and his father make a desperate flee from the city to America where they live, Baba now working at a gas station and Amir going to school to become a writer.
Time passes, Amir gets married and Baba falls ill. It is the general nature of life and it goes unquestioned. A fateful letter, however, awakens Amir to his past and the wrongs he has done, and gives him the chance to return to Kabul to undue the mistakes he made and prove that he is the man his father always hoped he would be.
Structurally the story is magnificent as it came from a beautifully penned book, but there were many flaws that made it impossible for the film to resonate emotionally. What was so essentially needed was the time for the story to breathe and explore the culture that is so vastly different than our own. Much of this story is based on etiquette and the differences in social standing between the Pushtuns and the Hazaras which drive much of the interrelationships of the Afghan people. This movie was incredibly weak at doing anything but speaking lines addressing the conflict. The politics in this film needed to be demonstrated, but instead were alluded to in conversation which was obviously done as the filmmakers' attempts to say to the audience, "This is the conflict and this is why it is important." Doing that, however, does not strike the audience or cause them to think. It makes us aware, but aware in a way that a physics teacher might say "e=mc^2" and expect you to know the significance of what energy means.
I found it both fascinating and incredibly frustrating that Afghan culture was revealed more while the characters were in California than in the Middle East, and even more so that they did this without juxtaposing it to the the Western World. If one wished to talk about the inner-workings of a nation then do it in the country where it feels most natural and most believable to the audience.
Apart from that the performances were mediocre at best. The script felt very forced and unfortunately the actors were not skilled enough to cope with iffy material. The consequences of this meant that true nature of the interactions became ambiguous, driven down to cliches and Acting 101. The lack of believability destroyed any sort of power that one might have felt in the final scenes when Amir returned to the Taliban-controlled Kabul. It was many years ago that I read the book and I do not remember my final thoughts on Amir and his sense of pride, but watching the film I never once saw him as a hero. His actions as an adult were heroic, but his motives never felt like anything more than obligation. This is a story about coming full-circle, about making amends and restoring faith in justice, but to me our "hero" continued on in his shameful line unchanged.
2/4
Sunday, May 6, 2012
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
This is my first proper film study:
Arguably the most important film in the development of expressionism
on screen was The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.
Certainly, there are no other films that might be called “Expressionist” that
translated the elements of expressionist theatre onto the screen with the same
ferocity as Caligari, but
stylistically its influence is undeniable. Traces of it can be seen in other
silent horror films to come out of Germany at that same period such as Nosferatu and Der Golem, but its influence can be seen up to a decade later in
the works of Fritz Lang, such as M and
Metropolis. These latter two may not
contain the stylistic quality that Caligari
emanates, but thematically they can still be classified as expressionistic. Along
with being the most influential it is also the first clear example of expressionism
in film. Previously the style had been used to refer to the works of painters
and architects, and later work on the stage in drama and dance. Film was the
last of the mediums to employ expressionist qualities and themes, but like the
others it was an attack on more traditional forms of the medium which used
hyper-stylized sets and concepts to create moods which reflected the nature of
the piece. This greater Expressionist movement was a result of frustrations
towards more naturalistic art which was viewed as bourgeois and passive. Caligari, whose clear theatrical
inspirations are evident throughout, adapted the work of expressionism on stage
and maintained many of the of the important aspects of the goals of the theatre
including its visual attacks on the audience in order to disorient and
emotionally distance its viewers (Brecht 1948).
To best interpret the meaning of the film both aesthetically
and thematically it becomes of the utmost importance to place the creation of
the film in an historical setting. The film was released in 1920, two years
after the end of the First World War and a time in which Germany was suffering
from weak government and economic instability. The interwar period until its
reorganization as a militarized industrial state in the early 1930’s was one of
chaos and considerable violence, especially from the political left. From
1918-1923 the German Communist Party repeatedly attempted to stir revolution in
the country. This was put down with force mainly by NCO’s and ex-officers of
the war—known as the Freikorps—who tended to be radical nationalists. They were
supported by the Social Democrats, and their coalition government gives
evidence that there were sections already forming that would be inclined
towards joining an authoritarian nationalist government as well as a violent
establishment (Eatwell 1995). It is in this turbulent period that we see Caligari emerge, in defiance visually of
the naturalist theatre and film-making of the time, and in defiance of postwar
Germany as well as WWI as shown in its content (Kracaeur 1947, Roberts 2004).
To begin with let us first examine the visual dynamic of the
film, as that is obviously what will be first noticed and last forgotten about Caligari. The set makes no effort in
trying to disguise the fact that it is a set. There is nothing realistic,
natural or relatable to be found in nearly every scene. Instead, there is a
whirring frenzy of zig-zags, diagonal lines, geometric patterns and tilted
walls. As John D. Barlow neatly describes, it is a world “that looks like it is
ready to collapse or explode and fly apart” (1982, p. 36). Every backdrop,
every wall, every window is a painted illusion all merged together to create an
unstable space without a point of reference. Without the use of horizontals and
verticals the audience is left desperately seeking something with which to
stabilize oneself. In this, we can see clear ties to the way expressionism
influenced architecture in the prewar period. Its intention was undoubtedly to
cause the audience discomfort in the tale they were watching and make them more
aware of their own world. As expressionism is about bringing out the emotions
of objects and spaces in order to deliver a message, it can be interpreted that
the goal here was to artistically express the disorder and unease of postwar
Germany—as Hake refers to it: a “crisis of male subjectivity” (1997, cited in
Bergfelder et al. 2002, p. 220).
There are only two locations which have some semblance of
normality to them. The first is the room of Jane. She is a figure whom everyone
is in love with. Francis, Alan, Cesare and possibly even Dr. Caligari are all
attracted to this figure of grace and tranquility. Symbolically she wears a
flowing gown of white, the traditional color of peace. When Cesare defies his
instructions to kill her and instead kidnaps her for himself it becomes evident
that this woman, Peace, is what the German man (as Cesare) wants instead of
chaos and ruthless control. When we see her room there is an automatic
stillness and rest in the scene. Suddenly we have horizontal and vertical
lines, symmetry and a rose-colored hue to the space which starkly contrasts
with the blacks, blues and yellows of other sets.
The other location seems rather contradictory and is far
more difficult to explain. Paradoxically the other space which has logic in its
form is the insane asylum—more precisely the courtyard of the institution.
Caligari’s office and Francis’ cell both contain the jarring shapes and mad
design of other sets, but there is a certain steadiness to the outside area in
which the patients of the asylum are allowed to roam. From the floor shoot
sunbeam-like rays, but the back walls are flat, straight, unpainted and do not
have the randomness which characterize other sets. There is even furniture like
a winged armchair which would look misplaced in other settings. This may be
interpreted that the frame story is one of reality: a postwar Germany that is
mad and oppressive but a Germany whose true nature has not yet been revealed.
It is only in the mind of Francis, in his story about Caligari and Cesare, that
its raw form is presented. Only in the presence of the Caligari/The Doctor—a
dominant figure of authority—does fear become an emotion volatile enough to
project itself in on the backdrops, sets and lighting.
The camera work is oddly stable amongst the rest of the
disjointed pieces of the film. Iris shots are central to the opening and
closing of each act establishing a motif of circles which symbolize chaos, but
other than that a crucial feature of the film is that the cameraman remains
oddly distant. It is simply an observer that does little in the way of engaging
itself with the characters and the material. The purpose of this is elusive.
Perhaps we are meant to see Francis’ hallucinatory memory in the same way that
the head of the mental institution does, as a figure of authority, or perhaps
it is to give the audience some measure of groundedness so they do not think
Francis entirely insane at the end.
The lighting in this film is absolutely crucial to creating
the atmosphere and claustrophobia of what is generally considered to be the
first horror film. Caligari set the
precedence in German expressionism in film to use extra-sharp contrast between
light and dark. Where there is darkness there can be absolutely no light at
all—it is impenetrable black. Where there is light there is color. If
expressionism is about bringing out an object’s “most expressive expression”
then the lighting too must bring about a scenes emotion (Eisner 1969, cited in
Barsacq 1976, p. 25). Therefore, in the scenes where there is Jane there is
also a tint of pink representing love or lust, in the scenes with Cesare and
his murders (which usually coincide with nighttime) the scenes are blue adding
to the chilling atmosphere of the character, and when there is knowledge and
safety there is yellow which is seen as a happy and neutral color.
Artificial lighting is just as important. There are windows in
the buildings and rooms which let in moonlight, but that light is simply
painted on the walls and floors in accordance to the arrow and kite shapes of
the glass. Outside there is no moon; no light reaches the streets beneath the
crooked buildings. In fact, apart from painted light and the mysterious
luminescence of the lights of the actual set the only visible source comes from
an eerie streetlamp at a contorted intersection in the city. The lack of light
from bulbs, the Moon or Sun, from fire or any other source adds to the stifling
effect of oppression which runs throughout. There seems to be nothing available
to ward away the phantom killer. The power of Caligari becomes an inescapable
reality.
The Cabinet of Dr.
Caligari is a framed story of a lunatic’s tale. It opens on Francis, the
hero, who describes a bizarre encounter with the mysterious Dr. Caligari.
Through flashback we find Francis and his friend, Alan, going to a fair. There,
a mysterious, bespectacled old man brings his sideshow act: a somnambulist with
the power to see a man’s future. When Alan dies following a frightening
prophesy from the somnambulist, Cesare, a hunt begins to find the mystery
killer. It is clear to the audience that Caligari is responsible via the
sleepwalking Cesare, but it takes the other characters some time to reach the
same conclusion (though Francis does have his suspicions). When it is finally
determined that Caligari and Cesare are the two culprits a search is set out
for them. The doctor is able to hide away in an insane asylum whilst Cesare
drops dead from exhaustion after trying to carry away Francis’ love, Jane.
Without much warning the past and present merge for the audience and we learn
what we had not before: that Francis is, in fact, a patient at the insane
asylum and that his doctor is none other than Caligari.
What can be seen from the bizarre tale of the somnambulist
as well as the much shorter frame story is a fear and loathing of
authority—especially of its violent nature. This, of course, is most clearly
presented by Caligari’s use of his puppet, Cesare, to carry out his senseless
murders. There was a death before Alan’s which was that of the town clerk who
had disrespected Caligari, but Alan’s killing and the attempted murder of Jane
were arbitrary which clearly reflects the point of view of director Robert
Weine and writers Hans Janowitz and Carl Mayer on the indiscriminate abuses of
power of authority figures. Weine notes that Janowitz, the creator of the
character of Cesare, was a soldier in the war who returned a pacifist. Cesare
was his interpretation of an ordinary man who is “drilled to kill and be
killed” (1972, p. 9). Others, such as Kracauer, have interpreted this film as a
prediction to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis (1972).
Kracauer’s book, From
Caligari to Hitler, tries to make the case that filmmakers of the times
were able to predict—whether consciously or not—the direction of the future of
Germany. This gives them too much credit and ignores the fact that this author
has an agenda of his own. Enormous amounts of writing have been done to try and
make sense of the rise of fascism in Germany and this seems another and more
abstract way of doing so, using the Mass Society and Political Religion
theories to try and extrapolate the psychological precursors to Hitler’s ascent
to power. The writers and director of Caligari
were making a statement about WWI and the postwar years; any parallels after
that are coincidental and Kracauer is taking liberties in his interpretation.
His argument focusing on the importance of Caligari
on other filmmakers is persuasive though. In it, he says that the film inspired
a focus on tyrants which can be seen throughout 1924 in such films as Nosferatu (though Manvell and Fraenkel
contend that influence of the film within Germany was nominal despite its
reputation abroad (1971, p. 18)). This inspiration might have caused other
filmmakers to examine their surroundings in whatever period of time which,
when examining them historically and
collectively, would seem to have an increasing trend in their parallels to what
is seen in Germany in the early to mid-30’s. As far as interpreting Caligari singly, however, his argument
is not convincing. The film is more a comment on the First World War and the
two years following Germany’s defeat. Although Kracauer’s argument is strong if
one argues that historical/cultural influences led Germany to accept a
totalitarian regime it neglects the more persuasive Rational Choice and Political
Religion theories which have supplemented the Historical/Cultural theory.
Perhaps the film has a foreboding nature to it, but as outlined in the argument
of Wiene and Barlow it was an examination of post-war violence (1972, 1982).
Further, other critics of Kracauer have attacked his theory out of interest to
separate “film Expressionism from an association to Nazism” (Petro 1983, p.
48).
Cesare is not meant to be seen as a villain. He is horrific,
to be sure—when he opens his eyes for the first time there is a genuine sense
of dread, and when he slithers down the streets at night the haphazard, insane
walls practically birth him. He is not meant to be mistrusted, though. Instead
he is meant to be pitied as none of his actions are his own. The evil Caligari
who has been studying somnambulism for years hoping to find one encounters
Cesare to his good fortune. There is a glint in Caligari’s eye as he
contemplates the power that his new helpless servant will give him. For the
filmmakers, Cesare is the representation of the German people who are
constantly struggling against their will with the forces of authority who would
seek to manipulate them for their own purposes. This struggle is most clearly shown
in a scene in which Cesare, who is meant to kill Jane, kidnaps the woman and
carries her in an iconic shot across misshapen rooftops. In all other scenes
Cesare is completely obedient to his tyrannical master, but in this one he
rebels. Looming over her sleeping body with a dagger ready to strike, Cesare’s
attraction to her overpowers the will of Caligari and he is able to act on his
own.
Dr. Caligari serves dual roles to this purpose of the
villainous master. The first one has been expressed above: he is power-hungry
controller of the somnambulist. Also in the central story he is the head of the
asylum in which he takes refuge from the police. When Francis arrives at the
institution with the police they stumble upon his work before they find
Caligari himself. The other attendants of the facility inform them that his
fascination of somnambulism had become something of an obsession with the
doctor. Once Caligari is found he goes into hysterics and has to be
straightjacketed and locked in a cell. This shot is later reflected in the end
of Act 6 where the true nature of the story is revealed.
As was mentioned, Caligari
is a framed narrative with the majority of the film a memory or delusion which
is told by Francis in the same asylum which he describes. This secondary plot
is shown at the beginning and end of the film. The audience is not made aware
of the setting of the frame plot until the final scene though, and therefore we
interpret all of what Francis has described as truth. This is challenged with
the twist ending where we learn he is actually a lunatic. When he completes his
story he notices a figure which appears to be the head of the institution. This
man looks surprisingly like Caligari. Pleading for others to recognize the
phony murderer he is driven into a frenzy and is dragged away. As Francis is
being pulled inside we see Jane walking aimlessly with huge, black eyes, and
Cesare dreamily petting a flower. Inside the chamber Francis is locked away in
the same manner Caligari was in his tale. The Doctor, examining him, puts on
his glasses and suddenly he is Caligari the Murderer. Realizing the
implications of his presence with his patient, Francis, the Doctor concludes
the film with the chilling line, “At last I recognize his mania. He believes me
to be the mythical Caligari. Astonishing! But I think I know how to cure him
now.” The frame story is almost more dreamlike than the actual narrative due to
the lack of time used to establish itself for the audience. Regardless, we
accept Francis as the hero in it in spite of his lunacy and see the Doctor as
Francis does, terrifying and confusing. The audience is never exactly sure why they should fear this man if he is
not, in fact, Caligari, but we do nonetheless. He holds power over somebody
helpless and for some reason—though we never learn what it is—the presence of
this authority figure has manifested itself in the mind of Francis as something
horrible. It has been noted by many scholars that the writers were extremely
angry about the construction of the framed narrative as they believed having
Francis a patient in an asylum would glorify rather than condemn the powers of
authority (Kracauer 1947, Barlow 1982, Manvell and Fraenkel 1971). It does not
glorify those in charge, however, as the audience is never explained what the
“cure” is. The cyclical nature of the frame narrative, argues Roberts, creates
a haunting rather than conventional ending. Following the circle motif in the
film the end should be terrifying for the viewer (2004, pp. 179-181). There is
only a brief amount of time in which the audience is able to consider Caligari
as a good figure and at the end of the film he is able to change Francis—now
the common man—into what he thinks to be normal. Therefore he is still the
enemy of free will.
What this essay has set out to explain is the way in which
expressionist technique, passed through various forms of art in Germany before
arriving at film, was utilized to comment on the nature of authority and its
influence on the common man. Through the concepts of abstraction and distortion
in Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari, as
well as the cyclical nature of the plot, the film attacks in a surreal and at times inaccessible way the impact of
war and its repercussions on the German people. Although the aesthetic nature
of the film is meant to contribute most to this interpretation, the plot itself
can also be viewed as playing a vital role to this bitter attitude towards
authority.
4/4
4/4
Saturday, May 5, 2012
The Kid with a Bike (2011)
We open on a young boy desperately trying to call his father. Cyril, we learn, has been left by his dad, Guy, in a state-run youth farm, but that he has only been there for a month. Fixated on the idea that his father will be coming back for him to bring him his bicycle, Cyril gives his counselors unending grief as he tries time and again to reach his dad's apartment. Again and again he is told that his dad no longer lives in the building, that after Cyril was moved into the home he packed up and left. It takes Cyril going inside his father's now empty house to understand that his dad has abandoned him.
In a fit of excitement and anger the counselors chase Cyril into a clinic where he latches on to a young woman named Samantha. Not too long after she contacts Cyril saying that she had found and purchased back the bike that his father had sold. This simple act of kindness turns into something more when Cyril asks her if he can stay with Samantha at her hair salon on weekends. Having no knowledge of Cyril or where he came from, having nothing that should obligate her to accept, she does.
This is an enchanting little film from Belgium that traces the extent that unsolicited human kindness can endure. The main character is Cyril, yes, and his story about his quest to find his father and earn his love is very compelling, but it is the peculiar nature of Samantha that makes this film uniquely touching.
Cyril is devastated when he finally begins to understand that he has been abandoned by his last relative. I wondered what he and his father's relationship was before the boy had been moved into the home, but a mesmerizing shot in a kitchen scene where Cyril stirs sauces for the restaurant Guy works at a look of controlled irritation he receives from his father makes it clear that Cyril was a mistake. What follows is a beautifully paced sequence of events examining a child whose anger and hurt causes him to lash out. He ignores love where it is given and seeks it where there is none to be found. In his quest for a father figure he disrespects Samantha, instead turning towards the shady teenager, Wes.
Cyril's destructive, violent and sly nature is met with inhuman patience from Samantha who suffers his slights and his lack of receptiveness to her willingly given generosity. This film gives an interestingly mild feminist perspective. There are five main male characters that come in contact with Cyril and all of them turn out to be villains in one way or another. It does not present itself immediately, but down to the most minor moments of interaction that Cyril has with other men they end up falling into a spectrum of enemies. The only character that shows him affection is Samantha who does it fully and without ulterior motives.
It is interesting to me that I expected her to have some unsaid reasoning as to why Samantha became his foster parent. It speaks volumes not only about our society, but also about how our culture is presented in film that the word "generous" still connotates that a person does something with the expectation that they will receive something in return. This film has powerful implications and it seems to me that if there were more films like it which had characters simply wanting to help another, it might skew our vision of the world in a positive way. Television and film is pervasive and if we were barraged by images of people doing good deeds for the sake of that goodness perhaps we would feel inclined to do the same.
3.5/4
In a fit of excitement and anger the counselors chase Cyril into a clinic where he latches on to a young woman named Samantha. Not too long after she contacts Cyril saying that she had found and purchased back the bike that his father had sold. This simple act of kindness turns into something more when Cyril asks her if he can stay with Samantha at her hair salon on weekends. Having no knowledge of Cyril or where he came from, having nothing that should obligate her to accept, she does.
This is an enchanting little film from Belgium that traces the extent that unsolicited human kindness can endure. The main character is Cyril, yes, and his story about his quest to find his father and earn his love is very compelling, but it is the peculiar nature of Samantha that makes this film uniquely touching.
Cyril is devastated when he finally begins to understand that he has been abandoned by his last relative. I wondered what he and his father's relationship was before the boy had been moved into the home, but a mesmerizing shot in a kitchen scene where Cyril stirs sauces for the restaurant Guy works at a look of controlled irritation he receives from his father makes it clear that Cyril was a mistake. What follows is a beautifully paced sequence of events examining a child whose anger and hurt causes him to lash out. He ignores love where it is given and seeks it where there is none to be found. In his quest for a father figure he disrespects Samantha, instead turning towards the shady teenager, Wes.
Cyril's destructive, violent and sly nature is met with inhuman patience from Samantha who suffers his slights and his lack of receptiveness to her willingly given generosity. This film gives an interestingly mild feminist perspective. There are five main male characters that come in contact with Cyril and all of them turn out to be villains in one way or another. It does not present itself immediately, but down to the most minor moments of interaction that Cyril has with other men they end up falling into a spectrum of enemies. The only character that shows him affection is Samantha who does it fully and without ulterior motives.
It is interesting to me that I expected her to have some unsaid reasoning as to why Samantha became his foster parent. It speaks volumes not only about our society, but also about how our culture is presented in film that the word "generous" still connotates that a person does something with the expectation that they will receive something in return. This film has powerful implications and it seems to me that if there were more films like it which had characters simply wanting to help another, it might skew our vision of the world in a positive way. Television and film is pervasive and if we were barraged by images of people doing good deeds for the sake of that goodness perhaps we would feel inclined to do the same.
3.5/4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)