Busted Memory

Documentary Bender (Quick Hits)

2011-12-03T15:22:00.000-06:00

Intimidad is small in scope, but I like its intimacy, and I'm moved by the blood, sweat and tears shed by the young couple as they chase their dream.

Devil's Playground offers an interesting glimpse into a rite of passage for young Amish kids, but lacks any real scope, partly due to the secretive nature of the Amish, who don't like to be photographed.

Murder on a Sunday Morning exposes the credibility of our police forces, from the initial racial profiling to the complete lack of any investigation despite innumerable red flags that clearly exonerate the suspect. It also exposes our judicial system for the broken mess that it is.

Intimidad

Score: 65%

Devil's Playground
Score: 60%

Murder on a Sunday Morning
Score: 75%

Attack the Block

2011-11-11T19:34:00.001-06:00

Why can't Hollywood invest some of its trillions of dollars into smart, funny, genre-mixers like Attack the Block? That's pretty much my only real issue with the film: its low budget shows. Not terribly so, but enough to make me think, why can't Hollywood invest in this kind of film? Why are they always throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at laughable sequels (and prequels) and unnecessary remakes? Sadly, it says far more than any of us wants to admit about the movie-going audience. So I guess the real question isn't why won't Hollywood feed these creative projects, but why is the American audience not demanding more? Or the non-PC version: why are American movie-goers a bunch of mouth breathers?

OK, that's off topic and a sore subject (and better left alone). I'd blame the booze, but I haven't had that many beers. Guess I should have gotten properly pissed before I set out to write this review. Certainly would be a good excuse for anyone crying about how I just called American movie-goers stupid. "I was wasted at the time, barely remember a thing...no idea I even said it, really."

And then he remembered he was reviewing Attack the Block, and began typing.... OK, fine, Americans aren't stupid, they know that Hollywood will remake any successful foreign film...oh wait, it's because Americans are too lazy to read sub-titles or piece together a British accent. Damn, I thought I was getting myself out of that one but it seems I've dug myself in a little deeper. But it's true, and I wouldn't doubt it for a second if someone told me that Hollywood was remaking this film. Of course, the Hollywood version would cost $50 million dollars more and be a mere shell of the original, albeit a pretty, shiny expensive shell. Yay for Hollywood!

Anyway, Attack the Block is in simplest terms, an alien invasion movie. But it is filled with elements from many genres: horror, sci-fi, comedy, action and even adds in some social commentary for good measure. And the genres mesh well in a very solid script from writer/director Joe Cornish. The pacing has a quick tempo and keeps the action moving along nicely. The cast of mostly non-professionals do a good job carrying the movie and get a little help from some professional actors, including Nick Frost in a bit role that adds just enough without stealing the thunder from the main characters.

This movie isn't going to scare you much, if at all, (unless you are someone who is frightened easily) but it will make you laugh and it does entertain on multiple levels.

Attack the Block
Score: 75%

Animal Kingdom

2011-10-20T00:28:00.000-05:00

Hell, I'm sitting here drinking--a little buzz blurring the old Gulliver--and having just finished watching Animal Kingdom, I can't help but talk about it. Of course, talking means typing, and I know it's been a long time since I dropped an entry, but sometimes the right film pushes the right buttons...and then there's the alcohol. I think it has more to do with the alcohol to be honest, as I've seen a lot of films since my last entry, although I don't mean to suggest the film lacks punch, or isn't worthy of a late night drunken ramble. It clearly is, and a recommended film for those of discerning tastes.

Yes, I'm immediately giving the finger to all the jackasses out there who will complain about the slow pace, or the lack of action every 2.4 seconds to fuel the 21st Century phenomenon known as cultural ADD. OK, maybe it's not a known phenomenon...perhaps I just made it up. And no, I'm not poking fun at the real ADD (or ADHD) but commenting on the...forget it, if you don't know what I'm talking about, you might be one of them...or dead! So please stop reading if you suffer from cultural ADD or are in fact, dead. (Side note: if you're dead and reading this, I'm A) excited to know zombies exist, B) surprised the undead are accessing the web, and doubly surprised they're reading this blog, which has been deceased perhaps as long as they have, and C) I'm not home, try the neighbors.

Is anyone at this point questioning the legitimacy of my earlier statement that I've been drinking? Sure, it's pretty damn obvious I'm smiling away to the wonderful effects of a choice Pinot Noir, which sadly tapped out an hour ago. Fear not, I've shifted over to an equally robust and tasty...beer; sure it's an entirely different species, but isn't that the whole point of Animal Kingdom? Somehow I made it back around to the movie I watched, which is probably a good thing for anyone reading this blog.

It's great. Check it out. You'll love it.

Seriously speaking, and without spoiling too much (assuming you haven't clicked on the link and viewed the trailer) this is a crime story set in Melbourne. Some critics have likened it to Goodfellas, probably because they're lazy, or because they assume their readers are. Of course there are similarities, but this isn't an Australian Goodfellas, so don't expect Scorsese-style flash...or the Mafia.

Influenced by true crime stories out of Melbourne in the 1980's, writer and first-time director David Michod crafts an ambitious tale of the decline and fall of a criminal family. The film has a gritty realism, with great performances all around. It manages to avoid a lot of the cliches of the genre, but of course, some manage to seep in no matter how hard one tries. But they certainly don't detract, and for most part Michod crafts a well-paced, tense crime story that will stand the test of time...except that damn Air Supply scene. I understand the influences for the story comes from Melbourne in the 1980's, but Air Supply....really? "I"m all out of love, I'm so lost with--ack, gluck, blechhh! Sorry, that song makes me throw up.

Animal Kingdom

Score: 79%

Documentary Films

2011-03-16T10:50:00.001-05:00

Bus 174 is part investigative journalism, part tragic mirror held up to Brazil’s societal illnesses. A must see for fans of documentary films.

Stevie is one of those films that sits on the fence between exploitation and interesting character study. I thoroughly enjoyed it, but am still uncertain as to the director's intentions. It's an engrossing portrait of how one man's childhood of neglect and abuse (mental and physical) creates the ticking time bomb he becomes as an adult.

The Garden is about fighting for justice, and sadly, about how little politicians and our courts care about the rights of impoverished people. It is a living document to the sad reality that justice is not for all. The power, perseverance, and dignity of the farmers is inspiring.

Bus 174

Score: 85%

Stevie

Score: 75%

The Garden

Score: 83%

The Edge of Heaven

2011-03-16T10:25:00.001-05:00

The Edge of Heaven

Score: 72%

Sunset Story

2010-08-07T22:59:00.000-05:00

An emotionally gripping and often funny documentary about the friendship between two elderly women in a retirement community for free-thinking elders. Irja is upbeat and optimistic, Lucille dry and cynical. The documentary humanizes old people--a group that our society seems perfectly content to stow away in retirement centers and ignore--and shows that they still have much to offer.

Sunset Story

Score: 70%

The Vicious Kind

2010-08-02T12:13:00.001-05:00

Sure, it's another indie film about a dysfunctional family. How original, I know. But I like dysfunctional. And I like self-destructive characters. The Vicious Kind is pretty basic, story-wise. Nothing new to see here, I suppose. And there are issues with the script, to be sure. But the movie's magic comes from its characters, the bulk of which can be attributed to Adam Scott’s turn as the "vicious" self-destructive misogynist, Caleb Sinclaire. The rest of the cast is also very good, but this movie is nothing without Scott.

It's not a great film, but the performances make it a good film and definitely worth watching, especially if you enjoy dark comedies.

The Vicious Kind
Score: 62%

The White Diamond

2010-08-01T18:25:00.005-05:00

Visually impressive documentary from the incomparable Herzog, The White Diamond begins as a scientific exploration but then transforms into a spiritual one. Herzog often documents humanity's struggle with nature, sometimes with tragic results. Although the film is a little aimless at times, Herzog's The White Diamond is still a poignant and beautiful film, capturing natural wonders at their most breathtaking, and mining the depths of his subjects' souls.

The White Diamond

Score: 77%

Inglourious Basterds

2010-08-01T18:15:00.002-05:00

I've never been a big fan of Quentin Tarantino, so QT lovers can stop reading now. Not that I plan to tear down your idol, but I will not be hoisting him up high as so many others seem to, regardless of what he makes. Inglourious Basterds is certainly his best film since Jackie Brown, but doesn't say much in my opinion, since those films ranged from crap to slightly entertaining.

Tarantino has a flair for dialogue, but can no longer discern the difference between good and bad anymore. The same can be said of his direction and editing. It's as if the voice(s?) inside his head just keeps saying "that's brilliant," or "yes, more of that." His love for his own dialogue and his self-indulgence drag out the film and are, at times, terribly boring. Case in point is the bloated run time of 2 hours and 32 minutes for what is essentially a B-movie revisionist history action film where Jews get to kick some Nazi ass and take out Hitler.

The movie has some amazing parts, but as a whole isn't all that great. It just doesn't deliver fully; we're left with only moments, some great scenes, but wishing for a whole lot more.

Inglourious Basterds

Score: 60%

Broken Embraces

2010-07-15T12:33:00.001-05:00

Not his best film, but a very enjoyable experience and head and shoulders above most of the films Hollywood craps out. Broken Embraces is visually and aurally stunning, well-acted, and, in typical Almodovar fashion, effuses an enormous love for movies and moviemaking. A film lovers filmmaker.

And then there’s Penelope Cruz. In her Hollywood films, she is merely cute, an inconsequential actress making inconsequential films. But with Almodovar, and most specifically with his last two films, Volver and Broken Embraces, Cruz has been inducted into the pantheon of luminous European actresses.

Broken Embraces
Score: 78%

Ponyo

2010-07-08T10:49:00.000-05:00

Ponyo, like all of Miyazaki's films, is beautifully drawn and visually impressive. But where the animated artwork soars, the script is the anchor tied to its legs, pulling it back down to earth. This is one of his more kid-friendly films, and children will undoubtedly love it. But for adults and fans of Miyazaki, this is a lesser work that could have used a few more rewrites to tighten up the story.

Ponyo

Score: 65%

The Beaches of Agnes

2010-07-01T15:20:00.001-05:00

The Beaches of Agnes
Score: 84%

The Invention of Lying

2010-06-01T10:38:00.003-05:00

The Invention of Lying feels like a (very) rough draft for a potentially funny comedy. There are more plot holes than plot, and very little in the way of humor. Most of the jokes rely on the fact that people can’t lie, but does that mean they have to think out loud? I might think you’re a fat, snub-nosed little man, but would I say it out loud?

The Invention of Lying
Score: 52%

Black Dynamite (2009)

2010-05-07T12:35:00.002-05:00

Black Dynamite is at its best when played as a straight up blaxploitation film, the parody a hit and miss affair. A genre notable for accidental humor, one doesn’t need to overplay the parody to get plenty of laughs; and the good news is, Black Dynamite mostly plays it straight.

The film nails the look and feel of those 70’s grindhouse flicks, complete with cheesy stock footage, boom mics in frame, sloppy edits, porn-style music, etc…. The movie offers up its share of gratuitous nudity and kung fu action, and White as Black Dynamite is spot on, with Billy Dee Williams charm and Richard Roundtree’s badass-itude.

The downside to Black Dynamite is that by being faithful to its influences, it suffers from the flaws of those films. And by the hour mark, most people will have had their fill and will undoubtedly feel the movie is over long way before the credits roll.

With all that said, Black Dynamite is a flawed but funny and entertaining film, that (for good and bad) captures the essence of the blaxploitation films of the 70's.

Black Dynamite
Score: 68%

Dark Days (2000)

2010-05-07T00:44:00.000-05:00

A stylishly shot grainy black and white documentary, Dark Days tells the stories of some of the homeless living in the subway tunnels beneath Manhattan.

The director actually spent two years living in the tunnels. The friendships he formed not only allowed him intimate access to their lives, but also gave him a much needed film crew, as most of the film’s subjects also assisted in the making of the film (one of them even built a dolly for tracking shots).

It is an unsentimental telling, each person sharing their humor and honesty, pain and pride. It is an eye-opening portrait of humanity, of a community formed in the unlikeliest of places, of survival, and of independence.

My only real complaint is the lack of a follow up as to the whereabouts of each person at the conclusion to the film. This information is available in the DVD supplements, but should have been used to end the film. Without the supplemental material, the ending feels inconclusive.

Dark Days
Score: 72%

Tuvalu (1999)

2010-05-06T23:36:00.001-05:00

Tuvalu is not a film that will connect with mainstream viewers. I certainly don’t say this to deter anyone from seeing the picture, but it should be noted that this is (best described as) a black and white silent movie. Yes, in the cinematic era of ADHD-viewership, someone had the stones to make a black and white silent movie. But it’s not entirely silent; it has a small amount of dialogue (sans subtitles), a variety of other non-dialogue utterances, sound effects and music. And it’s not really black and white; the black and white photography is tinted and colorized. The overall visual quality of the world is impressive, the photography and sets creating a wonderful cinematic universe and, in my opinion, the highlight of the film.

Tuvalu wears its influences on its sleeve…and there are many (Chaplin, Keaton, Jeunet and Maddin, to name a few). It is a movie that seems best appreciated for the pieces rather than the whole. For all its bizarre wonder, the film often overreaches and the story never really coalesces. But it certainly warrants seeing if only to experience the fascinating beauty of Tuvalu’s universe.

Tuvalu
Score: 61%

Quick Hits

2010-04-30T22:06:00.008-05:00

Memories of Murder

Score: 78%

Good Hair

Score: 69%

Kick-Ass

2010-04-25T13:22:00.002-05:00

Kick-Ass is pure mindless fun. Sure, it attempts to say something and mucks that all up, but who is looking for deep pools of meaning in such a movie? I don't have a problem enjoying a movie that totally lacks substance. After all, isn't superficial entertainment pretty much the Hollywood paradigm? Of course, most of those films are complete failures in terms of having any value. Kick-Ass at least entertains. And sometimes all we want as moviegoers is good, stupid fun.

Kick-Ass

Score: 66%

Greenberg

2010-04-12T13:57:00.000-05:00

Greenberg, the character, is a narcissistic misanthrope; or to put it crassly, he's an asshole. And yet we come to empathize with this character, a tribute to Baumbach's script and Stiller's performance. The acting all around is very good, especially Gerwig and Ifans. The script and mis en scene are wonderfully detailed, drawing the viewer into a world that seems lived-in and not merely a set piece. Baumbach's films are not mainstream, Hollywood-friendly fare; they are cynical and dark, character-driven comedy of manners films with influences from some of the great directors of the 60's and 70's. And in Greenberg, Baumbach goes one step further with his influences by paying a direct homage to Fellini’s La Dolce Vita, gathering his vapid party-goers around the pool to gaze at a dead, unidentifiable animal floating in the water.

Greenberg
Score: 74%

Ramin Bahrani

2010-04-10T13:06:00.009-05:00

Goodbye Solo

Score: 77%

Chop Shop

Score: 79%

Man Push Cart

Score: 70%

Quick Hits

2010-03-26T14:47:00.007-05:00

The Runaways

The Runaways is not nearly as wild as it should be and lacks depth, its paper thin story leaving the audience wondering far too much about what isn't being told. On a positive note, the film captures the look and feel of the mid-seventies, with solid performances from Stewart, Fanning and Shannon.

The Crazies

A remake of Romero's 1973 film of the same name, Eisner's Crazies never really gets under your skin. It telegraphs most of its scares, and too much of the movie is spent in typical horror movie fashion: running and hiding. It has its moments, and as far as remakes go, it's better than most, if that's really saying much.

Summer Hours

Summer Hours is a hauntingly beautiful and bittersweet film with excellent performances by the leads. This is not a character or plot driven film, but a thematic one, meditative and philosophical and evocatively told.

Harvard Beats Yale 29-29

Effective and simple, this 2008 documentary intersperses game footage with interviews from some of the players and people who lived it, suspense slowly and surprisingly building toward an improbable conclusion, even though we already know the outcome.

The Runaways
Score: 60%

The Crazies
Score: 55%

Summer Hours
Score: 77%

Harvard Beats Yale 29-29
Score: 65%

The Friends of Eddie Coyle

2010-03-17T11:18:00.001-05:00

Click on the titular link and watch the Criterion "trailer." It's a clipped scene from the movie that, among other things, tells the viewer the story behind Eddie's nickname. If this scene doesn't hook you and make you think, "Damn, I need to check this movie out," then what could I possibly say that would change your mind?

The Friends of Eddie Coyle
Score: 72%

Micro Reviews

2010-03-03T14:21:00.048-06:00

Thirst had a lot of promise but fell far short of it, and at an exhausting length. This movie is about 30 minutes too long. Park Chan-Wook tries to mix too many genres; the result is an incoherent mess that only works sometimes and misses as a whole. It begins with the promise of an artistic, intellectual vampire story but sadly devolves into a shock-for-the-sake-of-shock style horror story with farcical humor, that along with the mishmash of genres, just seems incongruous with the earlier tease of something smarter.

Revanche is a movie I was looking forward to seeing, and it didn't disappoint. It is the type of film that made me a lover of cinema in the first place; but sadly, films like this rarely get made anymore. Spielmann directs with great control and economy, drawing wonderfully understated performances from his actors. In the opening scene, something makes a splash in a pond, sending ripples across the still water. Revanche takes a lot from this opening shot, the quiet of the woods disrupted by a loud splash, the stillness of the water broken and the ripples that this creates. But there is also the reflecting nature of the water's surface, and the murkiness beneath. Yes, I'm deliberately being vague; and I (as usual) recommend skipping the trailer and opting for a pure cinematic experience.

Thirst

Score: 52%

Revanche

Score: 79%

Why Oscars Should Be Taken Out Back and Shot: Part 2

2010-02-22T11:58:00.005-06:00

"The whole thing is a goddamn meat parade. I don't want any part of it."

George C. Scott, who refused his award for Best Actor for Patton

OK, after posting on the Academy's ill treatment of some of the greatest directors in film history, I decided to post some great actors who also got shafted by Oscar. Anyone who knows movies knows who these people are, and should be blown away to discover they've never been honored with the statue in an acting category. Once again, I'm not including people working outside of English language films because the Academy is all but blind to their efforts. And to keep it short, I'm just listing names without commentary and limiting each group to 10, in order of the number of nominations. Yes, there are many others who deserve to be listed here, so feel free to point them out if you feel they should have made the short list.

ACTING - MALE

Peter O'Toole - 8 nominations, 0 wins
Richard Burton - 7 nominations, 0 wins
Jeff Bridges - 5 nominations, 0 wins (although I think he will win this year)
Albert Finney - 5 nominations, 0 wins
Montgomery Clift - 4 nominations, 0 wins
Peter Sellers - 2 nominations, 0 wins
Robert Mitchum - 1 nomination, 0 wins
Joseph Cotten - never nominated
Edward G Robinson - never nominated
Gary Oldman - never nominated

ACTING - FEMALE

Deborah Kerr - 6 nominations, 0 wins
Glenn Close - 5 nominations, 0 wins
Barbara Stanwyk - 4 nominations, 0 wins
Rosalind Russell - 4 nominations, 0 wins
Greta Garbo - 4 nominations, 0 wins
Angela Lansbury - 3 nominations, 0 wins
Gena Rowlands - 2 nominations, 0 wins
Jean Simmons - 2 nominations, 0 wins
Lauren Bacall - 1 nomination, 0 wins
Myrna Loy - never nominated

Why Oscar Should Be Taken Out Back and Shot

2010-02-07T14:53:00.022-06:00

"the greatest promotion scheme that any industry ever devised for itself"

Director William Friedkin, on the Academy Awards

I really dislike awards season in general, but with so much emphasis placed on the Academy Awards, I'm aiming my sites on Oscar. Anyone who thinks the Academy gets it right each year is either working for the Academy, been an undeserving recipient of an Oscar, a starstruck idiot, or hopelessly adrift on a sea of stupidity. And yes, I will admit that they occasionally make acceptable and defensible choices with their nominations, and there have even been some deserving winners in the long history of the award. But far too often the Academy misses the mark, and a lot of times the mark is the broad side of a barn.

The problems with the Oscars and its tarnished history of snubs and WTF moments have been written about ad nauseam, which means you're unlikely to find anything new on the subject here. With that in mind, I decided to just focus this post on the Academy's preposterous oversights from the category of Best Direction.

As I've stated in previous posts, I'm a fan of the auteur theory, and most of my favorite directors are auteurs. But a director doesn't have to be an auteur to garner my love, as long as they make great films. So for me, one of the greatest travesties in Oscar history is the Academy's inability to recognize and reward some of the greatest directors in film history. Before I begin, let me just say that many great directors have won the prize, and that this post is less about who won and more about the greats who never won (and mostly for reasons that had nothing to do with their films). I also understand, with regard to foreign film directors, that the likelihood of being nominated is slim at best, and winning is nearly unheard of, so I'm not even going to bother commenting on the snubbing of those amazingly talented directors. But I will list some names, to further emphasize what I consider egregious lapses of judgment on the part of the Academy with regard to their nomination process and voting record. Here is a short list of arguably some of the world's greatest filmmakers that the Academy has failed to award an Oscar for direction: Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, Akira Kurosawa, Luis Bunuel, Francois Truffaut, and Jean Luc Godard.

So without further ado, here are a dozen great directors that the Academy failed to recognize, whether by completely ignoring them, or by nominating them and never rewarding them. I am only including 12 directors in this list, but there certainly are others who should have been honored. In no particular order, the Best Director goes to...

Stanley Kubrick - 4 nomination, 0 wins

Are you kidding me, Academy? Almost every critic and film fan, if asked to name the greatest directors of all time, would undoubtedly include the name, Stanley Kubrick. Unlike many great directors, Kubrick made masterpieces in several genres. Kubrick's oeuvre was not very large, but what he lacked in quantity he more than made up for with quality. Despite creating some of the greatest films of all time, Kubrick's only Oscar was for special effects on 2001: A Space Odyssey. He was nominated 4 times for Best Director ( Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Barry Lyndon and A Clockwork Orange) but never won.

Alfred Hitchcock - 5 nominations, 0 wins

Like Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock's name would, without question, be mentioned when compiling a list of the greatest directors. So why did the Academy fail to recognize his greatness? Well, it's clear to me that being ignored by the Academy has more to say about a director's worth than winning the award. Hitchcock was nominated for Best Director for the following films, and never won: Psycho, Rear Window, Spellbound, Lifeboat, and Rebecca. And he didn't even get the nod for Vertigo, a film widely considered his best, and a film high atop many "Greatest Films of All-Time" lists. We've only covered two directors so far and already it's clear just how irrelevant the Oscars are.

Orson Welles - 1 nomination, 0 wins
Not winning Best Director for Citizen Kane is one of, if not thee biggest mistake in Oscar history. Hailed by most as the greatest film of all time, and certainly one of the most influential and groundbreaking films ever, it is hard to imagine why the Academy didn't vote for it, either for Best Picture or for Best Director. The film was nominated for 9 Oscars, only bringing home gold for best screenplay. Was William Randolph Hearst head of the Academy? Did he buy off the voters? Those seem to be the only excuses for such a monumental failure on the part of the Academy for not recognizing the film. Needless to say, the lack of love for Welles grew; he would never receive another Best Director nomination, despite being considered one of the greatest of all time.

Charlie Chaplin - 0 nominations
I'm actually getting tired of writing about how these directors, considered the greatest of all time, have been ignored by the Academy...and how many times can I write about these flagrant omissions without blowing a gasket? Good question. I guess it should be obvious how much Charlie Chaplin did for cinema, and the level of excellence he achieved in his films, so what can one say when faced with the realization that the Academy never once nominated him for director or for picture? As with almost all of the names on this list, the quality of their work is not being judged so much as how well they are liked by the Academy. I read that Chaplin expressed disdain for the Oscars, and certainly was not looked upon favorably by the Academy after joking about using his 1929 Oscar as a doorstop. And these are two reasons many people believe to be the reason the Academy all but ignored him for the remainder of his career. But shouldn't the work be judged, not the people behind the work?

Howard Hawks -1 nomination, 0 wins
Seriously, do I need to continue? It's mind-boggling, no? Especially when you add Howard Hawks to the list. Hawks directed many great films but only ever received one nomination, for the excellent Sergeant York. In just looking at his films from the 40's, one can only wonder what the Academy was smoking when they failed to nominate Hawks more than once, let alone deny him gold. His films from the 40's include: His Girl Friday, Sergeant York, Ball of Fire, To Have and Have Not, The Big Sleep, and Red River. Unbelievable!

Robert Altman - 5 nominations, 0 wins
Sure he was a renegade and pissed off nearly everyone at some point, but I come back to my comment earlier that we judge the work, not the person...or at least that's how they should be voting. I almost feel like the Academy purposely nominated Altman 5 times (Gosford Park, Short Cuts, The Player, Nashville, and M*A*S*H) just so they could watch him lose. OK, so that's probably not the reason, but still, we're once again talking about one of the great directors, and they couldn't manage to toss the guy one Oscar? I'm starting to believe the Academy voters are really comprised of a panel of monkeys pulling winners out of hats. Sadly, this scenario is probably not nearly as exaggerated as it sounds.

Sidney Lumet - 4 nominations, 0 wins
Next up on the list is yet another great director who has been passed over (a total of 4 times) for The Verdict, Network, Dog Day Afternoon, and 12 Angry Men. Dog Day Afternoon had the misfortune of coming out in one of the most competitive years in Oscar history, up against Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, Spielberg's Jaws, Altman's Nashville and the movie that swept the major awards that year, Forman's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Incredibly, the next year Lumet would lose both Picture and Director to a good but inferior film, John Avildsen's Rocky. Of course, Rocky also beat out All the President's Men and Taxi Driver as well. Not one oversight, but three. Like I said, Rocky is a good movie, but Network, All the President's Men and Taxi Driver are great films. Sure, I understand the Academy has a penchant for feel good movies, but couldn't they have at least honored either Lumet, Pakula or Scorsese with the award for direction?

David Lynch - 3 nominations, 0 wins

Based on all that's been written already, it should be no surprise that Lynch has never won for direction. Hell, I'm even surprised they managed to recognize him with 3 nominations, for Mulholland Dr, Blue Velvet and The Elephant Man. I guess like so many other great directors on this list, there's always the prospect of some conciliatory "honorary" award, perhaps even in his lifetime. Maybe, but probably not.

Ernst Lubitsch - 3 nominations, 0 wins

Alfred Hitchcock called Lubitsch, "a man of pure Cinema," Truffaut referred to him as a "prince" and Orson Welles called him "a giant;" and yet he never won a gold statue for direction. His directional style was so deft that the term "Lubitsch touch" came into existence to describe it. This certainly doesn't sound like someone worthy of an Oscar, right Academy voters? Idiots! Lubitsch was nominated for Heaven Can Wait, The Love Parade, and The Patriot.

King Vidor - 5 nominations, 0 wins

Like Lubitsch, King Vidor was huge in his day. One of the most influential directors of his time, Vidor was nominated Best Director 5 times for War and Peace, The Citadel, The Champ, Hallelujah!, and The Crowd.

John Cassavetes - 1 nomination, 0 wins
Considered by most to be the pioneer of American independent film, Cassavetes was acknowledged once by the Academy for his direction, with a nomination for his film, A Woman Under the Influence. Of course, pioneering the independent movement might just be the answer to Cassavetes' woeful Oscar record. He was, after all, showing directors how to get out from under Hollywood control through self-financing and self-distributing.

Sam Peckinpah - 0 nominations

What can one say when looking up at that big "0" listed before the word, nominations? And I know, he didn't have a large oeuvre and most of his films are the type that the Academy has a history of not recognizing. He was a hard living, hard working, hard as nails kind of guy that regularly pissed off everyone he worked with, but the man made some incredible films that should have at least warranted a nomination or two for direction. His only nomination from the Academy was for best screenplay, for The Wild Bunch. Just another shameful example of the Academy missing the obvious when nominating; or more accurately, another example of the work going ignored because the director didn't play by "the rules."

Three Micro Reviews

2010-01-30T02:09:00.002-06:00

Moon, an intelligent sci-fi film with a great performance by Sam Rockwell, doesn't shy from its influences, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Solaris (not to mention a few other 70's and 80's sci-fi films). It is far from perfect, but a good movie and one that deserves a larger audience. Note to first time director (and son of David Bowie) Duncan Jones: when stationed on the dark side of the moon, the earth is not visible. But I understand the power of that shot.

Where the Wild Things Are is not a movie for kids, but for adults reflecting on what it was like to be a kid...especially those adults who read Maurice Sendak's amazing book. The movie captures the tone of its source wonderfully, and is visually impressive. But the movie does suffer some from a middle that drags: the very part of the story where Jonze and Eggers had the most freedom to expand on the original material, to show us the wild side of their imaginations. Overall, an enjoyable film, albeit for a specifically-targeted audience...thankfully one that includes me.

A Christmas Tale is a wonderful display of controlled chaos with a great ensemble cast. It is a dark comedy about a dysfunctional family that comes together at Christmas. Despite a running time of 150 minutes, I never tired of watching as the family clashes and comes together and clashes some more. The director clearly loves his characters, and not despite their imperfections, but because of them. After all, humans are nothing but imperfect. Why not embrace the flaws?

Moon

Score: 68%

Where the Wild Things Are

Score: 65%

A Christmas Tale

Score: 75%

The Headless Woman

2010-01-15T16:15:00.003-06:00

An enigmatic and brilliant film from Argentinian auteur, Lucrecia Martel, The Headless Woman invokes Bunuel, Antonioni and Lynch, yet remains unquestionably the work of its creator. But to be fair, this is not a film for everyone. Average moviegoers will not enjoy this film. Even at the Cannes Film Festival, the audience booed and/or walked out.

I can't argue with someone who doesn't enjoy this film from a subjective point of view, but anyone who dismisses the film entirely is without justifiable evidence. Nobody can say this movie is not visually and aurally stunning and masterfully executed. Martel creates more with just sound than a lot of directors can visually. Shot in wide screen and with a soft focus that blurs the background and periphery, the viewer is forced to share the point of view of Vero, a bourgeois dentist, as she meanders through her daily routines in a state of shock following a hit-and-run accident, where she may or may not have killed a young boy. The soft focus works wonderfully in this film, not only to create the hazy confusion that is Vero's mental state, but also as a subtle visual divider. Adding to the confusion is the lack of establishing or transition shots, leaving the viewer to piece the puzzle together as the film unfolds. And Maria Onetto is excellent as Vero, in a role with very little dialogue.

Martel tosses the audience into the film without any knowledge of who Vero is, or more importantly, who she was prior to the accident. This is a complaint by some critics who feel we should know who she was in order to understand how she has changed post-accident. Despite the fact that there are subtle (and not so subtle) hints about who she was, it is also quite clear she is not herself. She seems almost amnesiac, walking through life as if in a waking dream. She doesn't seem to even recognize the most familiar of things, such as the names of her family, or even that they are her family.

The lack of a resolution to the mystery of whether she killed a young boy is probably the reason why many people reacted negatively to this film; but the film is not about finding a resolution to the mystery. It is about examining Vero and her family's reactions to it and the choices they make when dealing with the consequences of her actions. Most viewers want their films to wrap up neatly at the end, to have all the questions answered for them; but this film provokes us to seek our own answers, to confront the ugly truths about our world and ourselves.

The Headless Woman
Score: 80%

A Decade Spent: Part Two

2010-01-03T16:53:00.005-06:00

OK, here it is, my top films of the decade (even if the decade technically comes to a close at the end of 2010). I wanted to include comments for each film, but ran out of time. Perhaps when the decade really ends in 2010, I'll rewrite this list to not only include commentary, but also to adjust to (potentially) new entries based on the films I will have seen in the interim. I still have a long list of films I want to see from this decade, not to mention those films that haven't come out yet. So many films, so little time.

Feel free to disagree (or agree) with any of the selections I've made. Or share your own favorites. And for anyone who thinks this list has too many foreign films....blame Hollywood, not me.

50. Battle Royale

49. Let The Right One In

48. I've Loved You So Long

47. Chicken Run

46. Proposition

45. Best In Show

44. Beat That My Heart Skipped

43. Persepolis

42. Memento

41. Hurt Locker

40. Diving Bell And The Butterfly

39. Cache

38. Man On Wire

37. Together

36. Y Tu Mama, Tambien

35. Man Without A Past

34. Squid And The Whale

33. No Country For Old Men

32. Piano Teacher

31. Alexandra

30. City Of God

29. Finding Nemo

28. A Serious Man

27. Grizzly Man

26. Child (L'Enfant)

25. Amelie

24. Lives Of Others

23. Royal Tenenbaums

22. Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind

21. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

20. Children Of Men

19. Gosford Park

18. In The Mood For Love

17. Lord Of The Rings Trilogy

16. World

15. Death Of Mr. Lazarescu

14. Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner

13. Saraband

12. New World

11. Son (Le Fils)

10. Kings And Queen

Kings and Queen - Theatrical Trailer | Movies & TV | SPIKE.com

09. Russian Ark

08. Spirited Away

07. Talk To Her

06. Werckmeister Harmonies

05. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days

04. Yi Yi

03. There Will Be Blood

02. Syndromes And A Century

01. Mulholland Dr.

A Decade Spent: Part One

2009-12-19T13:53:00.008-06:00

Very soon we will bid adieu to the first decade of the 21st Century. Yes, a full 10 years gone and what do we have to show for it? Well, for the purposes of this blog, we have the best films of the decade! Yes, I know, EVERYONE has a best of decade list and who really gives a hoot...but, this is a film blog and I'm contractually obligated to post one.

But before we get to my list (which is taking me forever to compile) I decided to post some other Best Films of the Decade lists, some that might be similar to my own, some that will be completely different and some that will make you scream, WTF! But to be fair (which I never am when I see these lists) these are, when all is said and done, subjective lists. Sure, objectivity is used to determine the quality of the films (in most cases) and from that point...it's a matter of taste, right? Well, let's leave it at that, shall we. Especially with my list coming up sometime soon, I should be focusing on respect for people's opinions. For the following, I have provided links to the full lists, but assume most of you do not want to plod through them, so I added the Top Ten from each site.

Paste Magazine: 50 Best Movies of the Decade
Paste Magazine's Top 10
10. The Royal Tenenbaums 9. No Country For Old Men 8. The Son 7. Lost In Translation 6. Beau Travail 5. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 4. The Lord of the Rings trilogy 3. Almost Famous 2. Amelie 1. City of God

Times Online Top 100 Films of the Decade
Times Online's Top 10
10. Hunger 9. The Queen 8. Casino Royale 7. The Last King of Scotland 6. Slumdog Millionaire 5. Team America: World Police 4. Grizzly Man 3. No Country for Old Men 2. The Bourne Supremacy/The Bourne Ultimatum 1. Cache

The Onion's AV Club Top 50
AV Club's Top 10
10. Children of Men 9. The New World 8. Capturing the Friedmans 7. Kill Bill Vol. 1 6. Spirited Away 5. Memento 4. No Country for Old Men 3. There Will Be Blood 2. 25th Hour 1. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Entertainment Weekly Top 10 Films of the Decade
EW's Top 10
10. Almost Famous 9. Lost in Translation 8. The 40-Year Old Virgin 7. Children of Men 6. Moulin Rouge! 5. Wall-E 4. The Dark Knight 3. Gladiator 2. Brokeback Mountain 1. The Lord of the Rings trilogy

Rolling Stone
Peter Travers' Top 10
10. The Lord of the Rings trilogy 9. Mystic River 8. The Departed 7. Brokeback Mountain 6. The Incredibles 5. No Country for Old Men 4. A History of Violence 3. Mulholland Dr 2. Children of Men 1. There Will Be Blood

Tis the Season Pt. 2

2009-11-19T10:21:00.008-06:00

OK, for some reason, I thought these two films had already opened here, so I left them off the original post. I am interested in these two films, but skeptical. Nonetheless, they are worth adding to the list.

Antichrist
Lars Von Trier is a controversial director, and this film certainly falls into that category. It seems those who have seen it are of two camps (love it/hate it) with few if any in the middle ground. Curiosity will probably prevail.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox
The trailer for this film didn't do much for me, and with Wes Anderson's last two films being nothing more than mediocre, I'm not 100% sold on seeing it. However, it has reviewed very well, for what that's worth. I think a lot of critics are so inundated with trite, mindless rubbish that when something with a little originality comes along, they overvalue it. For now, it's on my "might see it" list.

Tis the Season

2009-11-18T11:51:00.009-06:00

Tis the season when films vie for a golden ticket to the Banality Awards show. Of course, they wait this long in order to capitalize on the short attention span of the voters at the Academy, who (in my opinion) rarely ever get it right. Hell, more often than not they omit the best movies, best performances, etc.... I'm sure some of the films listed below will go unnoticed by the Academy.

Anyway, I was going to list all the films coming out between now and the end of the year (and those who "qualify" but won't get released till early 2010) but decided that would be too many films, most of which I have no desire to see anyway. Rather, I decided to just list the films that I definitely want to see, or films that have piqued my interest but I don't know enough about them just yet. Of course, there are probably some films coming out that I haven't heard about, or forgot when putting this list together. If it's not here and you think it's a must see, definitely let me know about it. I'm not including movies that have already been screened or are currently screening.

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
Werner Herzog is enough to get me in the seat, but can he resurrect Nicholas Cage's career? Cage has fallen mightily over the years. For someone seemingly making movies to only cash the checks, it surprises me (a little) that he's broke.

Broken Embraces
Nobody does melodrama like Almodovar. And I love the women in his films.

The Road
I'm not 100% sold on this one, but it has piqued my interest. After all, who doesn't love post-apocalyptic films? And Viggo!

Fish Tank
I enjoyed Andrea Arnold's short film Wasp and her feature film, Red Road. Here's hoping she delivers again.

A Prophet
The film won the Grand Prix at Cannes, among other awards. Of course, that's not my reason for being interested. I also enjoyed Jacques Audiard's other films, Read My Lips and The Beat That My Heart Skipped.

The White Ribbon
Haneke has carved himself out a nice little niche in the cinematic landscape...a dark and deeply disturbing niche. Certainly not for everyone, but I'll definitely be there.

Mammoth
I've just started to view the films of Lukas Moodysson (see my review of Show Me Love) and I like what I've seen so far.

The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
OK, the magic seems to have all but dried up with Terry Gilliam, but he's still the guy who made one of my favorite films, Brazil. And this film, if nothing else, seems to have at least tapped into the Gilliam of old's flair for the fantastical. And it's Heath Ledger's final film.

Crazy Heart
I've always been a big fan of Jeff Bridges. Which is not to say I'll go see a movie just because he's in it; but this does look like a classic Bridges' performance that must be seen. Not sure if the movie itself will be great, but I know his performance will.

Avatar
OK, I'm only adding this because I'm curious to see what $500 million looks like on screen...or whatever this film really cost to make. The trailer didn't wow me like I think it was supposed to, but perhaps in 3-D and on a big screen, it can. However, something tells me this is another Titanic, not the movie but the grand ship that famously sinks. We shall see....

Cloverfield

2009-11-06T18:25:00.007-06:00

My quickest review yet, summed up as follows: the cast of The Hills wanders onto the set of a Godzilla movie and thankfully die.

Cloverfield
Score: 38%

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon

2009-10-29T16:37:00.016-05:00

Wanting to get in the Halloween spirit, I decided to watch a horror movie I had been putting off for quite a while: Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon. Although the movie has its moments, almost all of which occur in the first two acts, for brevity's sake I will primarily be focusing on what I didn't like.

Let's begin with the lack of originality. This movie is Man Bites Dog meets Scream. I'm not a fan of Scream (or its shitty sequels, for that matter) but will admit it is far more original and clever than this film. And I'm not even going to compare this film to the immensely superior, Man Bites Dog. Behind the Mask borrows heavily from both of these movies but still only manages to produce a mediocre movie.

In fairness, this is a low budget horror film, so I shouldn't nitpick the script nor bother discussing the quality of acting. But I guess it's not nitpicking when the script is filled with plot holes (big, gaping ones too). The script is at its best during the mockumentary stretch, but the humor is too sparse to carry the movie, let alone make up for the very weak third act. For a movie (and director) so obsessed with the glory of 80's slasher films, the third act is a rushed nightmare of lameness. Part of this has to do with the tired "joke" that all of this has to play out in cliched horror movie fashion; but mostly, it's the lack of an attempt to emulate 80's slasher movies. Sure, the setting is fine, but all of the kills are boring and practically bloodless. The best kill in the film was an accident not involving the killer!

The bottom line: there's just not enough that works here to overlook what doesn't. There's enough here for one viewing, but that's it. I don't want my time back, but I would not give this movie anymore of it, even if a sequel arrives sometime in the future.

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon
Score: 40%

New York

2009-10-08T08:12:00.005-05:00

I just got back from New York. Spent some quality time with family and friends, chilled out, went to the city, ate some great food, etc.... Hence the lack of posts. I don't have a movie post just yet, but I did go to the Museum of Natural History (hadn't been since I was a kid) where I made sure to see the "Clash of the Titans," a giant squid and a sperm whale doing battle in a dark, deep sea diorama. I have some memory of it from my childhood, but can't really recall my feelings at the time. It must have seemed frightening to my childhood self, if nothing else. As an adult, it still maintains that ability to unnerve me. Of course, pictures don't do it justice, the flash from the camera illuminating far too much of the immense and murky darkness. So, no pictures! But there is the movie, The Squid and the Whale, the title alluding to this very diorama.

Quick Hits

2009-09-21T15:41:00.015-05:00

Some other films I watched recently that I don't have time to write posts.

Hobson's Choice
Score: 80%

The Visitor
Score: 70%

Into the Wild
Score: 62%

Momma's Man
Score: 66%

Dear Zachary: A Letter To A Son About His Father

2009-09-20T22:06:00.017-05:00

A heart-wrenching film, Dear Zachary: A Letter To A Son About His Father, will leave you emotionally exhausted. This is a film that shows the best of humanity, through the pure love of friendship, family, and two amazing parents. But it also depicts the worst of humanity, and a broken judicial system. Some have argued that the movie is manipulative, and that's a somewhat fair argument, although I disagree with the use of the word manipulative and its negative connotation. A good man was murdered, and his friend created this movie, initially to memorialize him, and to share the film with friends and family only. But as new events sprang from this tragic event, the film changed, along with the purpose of the film. Does the filmmaker have an agenda? Sure, but I think every filmmaker has an agenda. Given the highly subjective nature of the documentary, and how close the director is to the subject, I see it less as manipulation and more as an unfettered emotional release of love, hatred, anger, and frustration in the face of tragic circumstances as they are unfolding, channeled through a camera's lens. It's impossible to really critique such a film. I did find moments in the film to be overwrought and heavy-handed, too frenetic at times, overly stylized in places, but certainly nothing that robs the movie of its real power; it never distracts and the movie maintains its firm grip on our hearts, squeezing and never letting go.

Dear Zachary: A Letter To A Son About His Father
Score: 70%

V-Day

2009-09-15T11:32:00.010-05:00

I realize this is a blog about movies, but I couldn't help myself. I love me some Venture Bros. and the 4th season is almost upon us. October 18th, to be precise. I can't wait. If you've seen all three seasons, or if you haven't seen all three seasons and don't care about spoilers, check out the following panels from the past few Cons. Here's the Q&A from Dragon Con...and then there's this from Comic Con in San Diego...and another from Comic Con in NYC and another from Dragon Con in Atlanta (welcome to my dork fest). OK, that's it. Back to all movies all the time.

Slacker (me, not the movie)

2009-09-12T13:58:00.011-05:00

Yes, I've been slacking off on my blog. And to commemorate my slackdom, here's a poorly thought out, less than interesting, totally uninspired list of some movies I've seen recently with merely a rating and a link to their trailer. I used full trailers for the latter two because, in the case of Young@Heart, it doesn't really give anything away, and in the case of Standard Operating Procedure, most people should have at least some knowledge of what happened at Abu Ghraib, right?

Rec
Score: 67%

Young @ Heart
Score: 70% (100% for the people in the film, 40% for the director)

Standard Operating Procedure
Score: 78%

Amarcord

2009-09-01T16:31:00.019-05:00

Every summer I look forward to going to see films at the Paramount. I ended this summer at the Paramount with Federico Fellini's semi-autobiographical film, Amarcord, a masterpiece that manages both poignancy and bawdiness in a nostalgic and often dreamlike remembrance of his youth in a small seaside town in Fascist-era Italy. The film is populated with a menagerie of larger-than-life characters, characters that, despite the satirical elements in the film, Fellini clearly has a tremendous fondness. There is no central character; Fellini just parades them all before us. If there is a central character, it would have to be the town.

Set over the span of one year, the film is book-ended by the arrival of Spring. There are multiple narrators, some even addressing the camera directly, as Fellini guides the viewer through life in the town of his memory, laced with moments of the fantastical. Fellini's direction is masterful, the film flowing with rhythmic effortlessness of orchestrated chaos, a hypnotic dance to the wonderful Nino Rota music.

On the surface, the mood is mostly up tempo, the residents brimming with life and the film loaded with humor, from the lofty satirical to the lowly fart joke and everything in between. (Yes, there are many a fart joke to be had here.) There are also many moments of wistfulness that Fellini renders with the touch of a poet, such as the scene when the grandfather gets lost in the fog. And magical moments, as when a peacock descends through a curtain of falling snow to land on a frozen fountain in the town square.

Fellini once said: "My films from my past, recount memories that are completely invented." Here, Fellini invented a deliberately artificial universe, one that not only illustrates that memory is not reality, but also stresses that the hopes and dreams Mussolini's Fascist regime offered were illusory.

I know it's an oft repeated phrase, but they really don't make movies like this anymore.

Amarcord
Score: 94%

Show Me Love (1998)

2009-08-23T17:10:00.022-05:00

Fucking Amal is the original and far superior title of Lukas Moodysson's debut film, Show Me Love. According to the director, the name was changed because Variety magazine would not run an advertisement for the film with that title. Moodysson chose the new title from the name of the song that plays at the end of the film. I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise to me that the film would lose its original title in the States. I'll leave that rant for another day.

This is a simple and honest movie shot in a grainy, almost documentary style. Teenagers are captured realistically and with non-professional actors. The cinematography is intimate and clumsy, perfectly fitting for a movie about teenagers.

Taking place in the small town of Amal, these teenagers suffer from ennui and the usual dosage of teen angst. It is a movie about identity. It is a movie that explores alienation and loneliness. Ultimately, I find the honest portrayal of these characters--their awkwardness, their inability to communicate emotions, their cruelty--to be an accurate depiction of life as a teen and therefore rewarding in a way most American teen movies never seem to be.

Show Me Love
Score: 72%

District 9 (2009)

2009-08-15T11:45:00.029-05:00

Having seen the original short film that would become District 9, Alive in Joburg, I must say the film does not live up to the promise of the short. Of course, this will be perceived as either good or bad, depending on what type of moviegoer one is. The film caters more to the popcorn eating, escapism crowd than the serious-minded sci-fi aficionados. But I guess that should be obvious once the viewer has been made aware of the director's statement that (regarding a deeper social commentary) "the film would become too serious and oppressive and that it 'wouldn't be entertaining on a popcorn level.' " That should go a long way into answering any questions one has about what this filmmaker is trying to accomplish.

As entertainment on a popcorn level, one doesn't have to be concerned with the many plot holes, contrivances and the heavy-handed allegory on racism, nor the confusing mishmash of styles and tones. On this level, it entertains...if you can just shut your brain off and enjoy the ride of humor, gory violence, and action. However, when it is perceived as more than just mindless entertainment, problems arise.

Because it certainly tries to be more than mindless entertainment. Unfortunately, it mostly falls short in its attempt to deliver its themes convincingly, and stylistically and tonally becomes confused and uncertain as to what it wants to be and say. There is the serious documentary-style film attempting to expose the darker side of humanity, and then there is the action film with cool weapons and explosions trying to entertain "on a popcorn level." Mix in copious amounts of gore and humor--scenes of cartoonish violence that seem inspired by Peter Jackson's early films. (Yes, the same Peter Jackson who produced this movie.) The presence of the latter lends a lightheartedness that is incongruous with the harsher, more serious themes of the film. All of these styles and tonal shifts make the film feel disjointed and unsure of itself.

Sure, District 9 is head and shoulders above scrap heap garbage like The Transformers, but does that really say anything? What it says to me is that moviegoers and critics are so inundated with uninspired tripe that when something comes along that offers more, it is hastily declared brilliant. I certainly think the movie succeeds in some ways, but I don't agree with the consensus that this movie is something more than a slightly above average film. It had higher aspirations than the average film, but it didn't meet those aspirations fully.

The hype surrounding this movie has probably done more damage than good, bolstering expectation for a movie that can't match the lauded praise. Despite a lot of problems I have with the film, it is still slightly better than the average movie and a decent flick for the escapism crowd; but for those looking for the next great sci-fi film, this isn't it.

District 9
Score: 58%

Signs of Life on Planet Coen?

2009-08-13T14:18:00.015-05:00

For the most part, I hate movie trailers. They pretty much do for movies what Cliff Notes do for novels: ruin them. I just don't want that much information prior to seeing a movie. I want the mystery. I want to be surprised.

So why has the trailer always persisted in this manner, always there to give away the entire plot of a movie, and in some cases ruining key moments of the film? Good question. I don't get it. I try to avoid trailers at all costs. My only exception is teaser trailers. Teaser trailers (done right) give away virtually nothing, but lure you into the magic of what the film might deliver. The best example, in my opinion, is the teaser for Kubrick's The Shining.

With that said, I tossed caution to the wind and watched the new trailer for the Coen's, A Serious Man, which has been getting a fair share of buzz on the internet, in the way only the internet can do it. Based on what people were saying, the trailer didn't just boil itself down to a minute and a half version of the film like every other trailer out there. This of course, piqued my interest.

Having now seen it, I do feel like I know more than I wanted to know. Sure, the trailer itself was nicely done, choosing to focus more on capturing the essence of a "Coen Bros. experience" and less on summarizing the plot of the film. But no matter how expertly crafted the trailer, there is the more pressing issue: did it sell me, did it deliver the promise of a great Coen Brother's film? Is this a return to form, or another mediocre effort? In my opinion, their first four films (listed HERE, chronologically) are still their finest work and the standard for which I've held them to with every subsequent film. They have made very good films since, such as Fargo and The Big Lebowski. But they have also had their fair share of less than satisfying efforts. My finger is pointed at you, Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers!

So where does that leave me, exactly? On the fence. I'm as intrigued as I am skeptical. But that's been a common feeling leading up to the release of every Coen Brother's film since The Man Who Wasn't There.

The Ascent (1977)

2009-08-07T13:34:00.015-05:00

Finally got around to watching Larisa Shepitko's, The Ascent. Set in Belarus during WWII, The Ascent is a war movie concerned with the psychological toll war has on people, and how extreme situations alter who we are and the decisions we make. The use of Christian allegory narrows the film's themes, and even though the two main characters are defined in an allegorical context, the films' depiction of humanity in crisis is still universal. Shepitko uses lingering close-ups to convey these themes of moral struggle and troubled consciences to great effect.

Shepitko's film has a poetic style and is beautifully shot. The bleak winter landscapes lend symbolic weight and set the mood of the film from the onset.

This is an excellent film that, for me, falters slightly in the second half due to the overt execution of its Christian allegory. It is a harrowing film that will stay with you long after the film concludes.

The Ascent
Score: 81%

The Hurt Locker (2009)

2009-08-02T13:32:00.022-05:00

The Hurt Locker is not a plot-driven film. I mention this only because I've seen too many moronic posts (on various websites) decrying its lack of a plot, and how terrible this is...apparently only to those persons who cannot wrap their heads around the idea of a character-driven film. And The Hurt Locker is a character-driven film, charting a bomb squad unit's final 38 days of its Company's current deployment. This is also a war movie, but one that leans on suspense over action, one that focuses on individual soldiers and not the politics of war.

People have also complained about the film's use of the shaky camera, and although I am not a proponent of this cinematic technique, I do think it works well in the context of a war movie, especially one that seeks to embed the viewer into the unit as it goes about the nerve-wracking job of defusing bombs. After all, the script comes from a journalist who was embedded in Iraq with a bomb squad unit. It seems only natural that the film be shot this way.

Bigelow does a great job of capturing the environment: the suffocating heat, the arid wind choking with sand and nagging flies. She knows how to ratchet up the tension in the film until it becomes so unrelenting that the viewers are literally holding onto their seats. Despite some cliches and heavy-handed moments, Bigelow delivers a riveting and thoroughly engrossing film.

The Hurt Locker
Score: 75%

Torture of the Artist as a Young Man

2009-07-28T09:56:00.021-05:00

Many people have asked me what it is about Ingmar Bergman and his films that I love so much and I never really answer the question. Not for lack of an answer. Not because I'm surprised someone would ask...or am I?

There are few directors who have made as many great films as Ingmar Bergman. (For brevity's sake, I won't be delving into individual films, but have offered a "recommended list" at the end of the post.) Bergman's sustained level of excellence over the course of a long career is also quite remarkable, and puts him in the company of only a few directors with an oeuvre as impressive. As a proponent of the auteur theory, I have a much greater appreciation for directors as artists, and not just hired hands. And Bergman is the paragon of auteurism. I also have an appreciation for literature, and Ingmar Bergman the writer was an exceptional talent. I have read several of his scripts, and they are indeed works of art in their own right.

And personally, I relate to his characters: their humanity, their frailty. I have a shared understanding and connection to the fears and doubts he had, the demons he wrestled with his whole life. I certainly don't pretend that these are not, in most instances, universal fears and doubts. We all struggle at some point in our lives with death and our own mortality. And a lot of people struggle with doubt over whether God exists. Bergman was certainly not the first tortured artist, and certainly not the first to bare his soul through his work. But there are other psychological explorations and themes he delved into where few (if any) directors dared to go. And it's this daring, this unflinching gaze into the depths of the human psyche, and the skill for which he translates them, that I admire most. His films are austere. They are difficult to watch, sure. But think about the greatest literary works. How many classic novels are happy, joyous romps? Are they not filled with tremendous suffering and great tragedy? Bergman was the first great film artist, the first to put film into the same conversation with literature and art. And only a few have joined him.

Yes, I have many reasons why I love his films, and I often wonder...why don't people like Ingmar Bergman?

Recommended films (listed chronologically):
Smiles of a Summer's Night (1955)
Wild Strawberries (1957)
Seventh Seal (1957)
Through a Glass Darkly (1961)
Winter Light (1963)
Persona (1966)
Cries and Whispers (1973)
Scenes from a Marriage (1973)
Autumn Sonata (1978)
Fanny and Alexander (1982)