Stigmata -
Funny story about Stigmata. I actually went to see it when it came out in the theaters, with my sister. We got about halfway through the film when a fire broke out in the building somewhere. We had to evacuate. I don't think anyone got hurt, but we never got to see the rest of the film. So that's why I rented this, I wanted to see how it ended.
This movie actually reminded me a lot of Jacob's Ladder. They are sort of derived from the same place. SPOILERS AHEAD. Start with a fact. A little known fact that is A) controversial, B) hushed up and C) has broad range appeal. In Jacob's Ladder it was that the US Government experimented on its own troops in the Vietnam War. In Stigmata it's that an ancient scroll was discovered that could very well be Jesus' own Gospel, his own words, and it has been denied by the Catholic church. Start with that fact, then build a story that is tangential to that fact. Not a story about those facts, but a story about people that were affected by those facts. In one case it's a soldier that was killed by his comrades under the influence of the drug and and the subsequent happenings as he dies. In the other, it's a young woman that becomes by possessed by the spirit of a priest that translated the scroll and the happenings as the spirit is determined that the gospel become public.
About the movie, it was a decent flick. Lots of the imagery was well done and things were done to an appropriately yet not over-the-top level. The music was interesting, I saw that the soundtrack was done by Billy Corgan of Smashing Pumpkins fame. The story was intriguing enough. That acting was decent. I really like Patricia Arquette and she made a decent showing here. Gabriel Byrne is like a slightly more lively William Hurt. His acting style is more of a mirror, a blank slate. He's generally not strong enough to carry a film on his own, but he's great at having other actors play off of him. The quality of his performance is usually dictated by the performance of the actors opposite him. In this case I think Arquette and Byrne played off each other well.
This is sort of a "small" film, like Jacob's Ladder. The world it creates is small. There are only a few characters, only a few locations, and it creates the feeling that the film could be contained in a small glass globe. Not like a movie based on a play, that has a different feel. But, because the film is a "small" film (and note that has nothing to do with size of production, but just a feel) it has a tendency to get into a niche in your mind and kind of hang out there. Like a seed in a sidewalk crack or a pip in between your teeth. It'll stick in there, most of the time not discreetly, but every once in a while it'll pop out.
On a side note, I wonder how Gabriel Byrne's sitcom did.
Grade: B
Blade II -
Sequel to the B movie action flick Blade. I was interested in the film partially because it was directed by Guillermo Del Toro, celebrated director of Pan's Labyrinth, the Hellboy movies, and upcoming blockbusters The Hobbit and....sigh....The Hobbit II (don't get me started). I'm not familiar with Del Toro's work, so I wanted to start getting a feel for it.
I actually like the first Blade. It had this neat sort of indy-film feel to it. It was an action film about vampires, sure, but it had some artsy edges to it. Not overblown, but nicely accented. And it was serious, it took itself seriously which is really the only way these types of films can work. Making something intentionally campy is a recipe for disaster. I wish Mr. Del Toro had realized that.
Whereas the original Blade was artsy and dark and serious, this film is just dumb. The plot, what little there is of it, is silly and not developed at all. Some of the plot points were ridiculous. Resurrecting Whistler? Fuck you, I don't think so. The acting was either wooden or extreme (with the exception of the awesome Ron Perlman, who is awesome). The set design looked like the guy who designed sets for the 60's Batman TV show became a goth and watched the Matrix 14 times. Rooms with pipes of blood creating pools of more blood? An underground rave with leatherclad goths? Where was Morpheus, eh?
Obviously this is an action movie, so it is supposed to be carried by the strength of the action scenes. It wasn't. The action scenes were carbon copy Matrix style, aka no originality, and much of the action style was done simply to look cool. I hate that. I want it to look cool because it works with the natural flow of the fighting, not because you pause the damn film as Blade catches his sunglasses. It's like a bunch of thirteen year old boys held Woo Ping at gunpoint and forced him to choreograph the fights the way they wanted it.
As always, the film does have a redeeming point or two. There were a couple good laughs. And there was Leonor Varela, who could be best described by "humina humina humina humina humina."
Let's hope this was a fluke by Mr. Del Toro, though I don't hold much hope. My understanding is that his major criticism is that he's all style, no substance, and if he fucks up The Hobbit there will be blood. And frankly, I don't trust anyone that wants to make a sequel to the Hobbit created with their own material. Why? Why must you do this to me?
Grade: D
Resident Evil -
I rented this.....because? I have no idea. Seemed like the thing to do. I never played the games.
Based on the first 10 minutes of this film I had some hope for it. It actually had a very creepy and well done prelude, and the opening of actual main arc had a very good video game feel to it. You are thrown into a world where shit is going on and you don't know a damn thing. You are given a very important task with comrades, figure it out as you go along, and the truth will be revealed to you through a series of flashbacks until it all makes sense.
Then things went downhill.
I thought there was going to be some hint of a plot. There wasn't. None. Period. Zip. Zilch. The plot of this film made Blade II's plot look like Hamlet. I'll give you the whole plot. Giant evil corporation makes evil virus that turns people into zombies, said virus gets loose in a facility. Military needs to go inside and take care of it, then get back out in three hours. That's it. There you go, you've seen the movie.
This movie is supposed to be carried by the awesome badassedness of Milla Jovovich. Milla Jovovich is absolutely stunningly gorgeous in this film, and she is indeed badass. I think. Fact of the matter is, we don't even see her do anything remotely badass until FIFTY MINUTES INTO THE FILM. And that is just one small thing. In fact, there is very little of Ms. Jovovich being badass at all. She shoots a couple things, smacks some things in the head with an axe, and that's it. This film needed her to be an asskicker, and she wasn't given the opportunity to kick much ass, outside of a few puppies. No, all the action was done by the military unit, who are as interesting as staring at beige carpeting. The most intriguing character was the unit commander, who seemed very cool, and they killed him off within a half hour. Even Michelle Rodriguez wasn't that entertaining.
The film sucked. The acting sucked, the action sucked, the plot didn't exist, the sets were rediculous, the production values were weak, the special effects were atrocious. I had to double check to make sure it wasn't an Uwe Boll film. The only redeeming part of the film was the end. Partly because it was over. Partly because it had the trademark horror film ending. Just when you think everything was going to be ok, the shit hits the fan, you are left with a vision of the world even more hopeless than before, and the door is wide open for a sequel. It was nice to see something in this film executed correctly.
Grade: F
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
July 11-13, 2008
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari -
A german expressionist film from 1919. I'm not terribly familiar with german expressionism. I've seen Der Golem, and while Metropolis is not considered a german expressionist film per se, it is heavily influenced by the movement. However, that's pretty much my exposure to the genre. But this is a very influential film in its own right. It is one of the early horror movies. Admittedly the horror is extremely dated, and I didn't feel a twinge at this point, but I can imagine audiences of the time freaking out at the film.
As with most silent films that do not fall in the comedy grouping, the acting was way over the top. That's the way it is, and that's why I tend not to like silent dramas. It's too much. The story of the film was fairly interesting if not simplistic. In a small town during a fair, a series of murders occurs that seemingly have a connection to sideshow run by the aging and creepy Dr. Caligari. The show is called the Somnambulist (a fancy term for a sleepwalker, though here the somnambulist was closer akin to a zombie). The Somnambulist is kept in a cabinet and comes out to read the future.
Really, the thing to talk about here is, of all things, the set design. The set design was, in a word, brilliant. For nearly every set in the film, there is not a straight line or a right angle to be found. Everything is at an odd angle. Walls are set at angles, doors within the walls aren't even close to rectangular, more trapezoidal or even triangular. Everything is exaggerated. Authority figures, such as the town clerk or the police officers, sit at desks easily 5 feet tall, and their chair have seats at the same height, so they are all towering above other people. Even the doors of Dr. Caligari's cabinet aren't in a straight line. In an amazing feat of engineering, they made the seam between the two cabinet doors crooked. This all produces a really eerie feeling. This feeling has a purpose, though I won't say why because it has to do with the twist ending. And the twist was pretty damn cool. It's not Sixth Sense wow-factor, but still pretty damn good in it's own right. I was pleased.
Grade: B-
Alexander Nevsky -
Considered the masterpiece of legendary Russian filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein, who created one of the most influential movies in history, Battleship Potemkin.
In terms of theme and story, this is pretty clearly Communist propaganda. It's the story of 13th century "Prince" Alexander, the prince of a small community in Russia that is really more common than royal. However, he is a brilliant tactician and warrior. The people rally around him to repel an invasion by German (Teutonic) knights. Nevsky is more of a common man in stature (metaphorically, as literally he is shown to tower over other people). He incenses other royalty, but rallies the commonfolk into a fighting force, under the banner of a unified Russia, to repel the invaders. Most people consider Nevsky an allegory for Stalin.
While the theme and story are pretty bland, the imagery is very well done. While the russian peasants are barefaced, the germans all wear helmets that cover their faces (some even extremely elaborate with pagan symbols and such), making them a more intimidating appearing fighting force. Sort of a stormtrooper effect. Also, intriguingly, the germans are shown to be heavily religious, covered in cross symbols and bringing an entire christian retinue with them, including a priest that wears a sort of Inquisitors robe and makes him look like Emperor Palpatine. That same religious symbolism is missing from the Russians, though presumably they were similarly religious at the time. Seems like that Eisenstein was using religion derogitorily which falls in line with the communist political views, but I find this surprising. I'm not expert on Russia, but I'd think that there would still be pretty heavy russian orthodox christians in Russia in the 1930's despite the communist government. Of course, I could be wrong.
Grade: C
Flatliners -
A thriller about a group of med students that use their knowledge to kill themselves to investigate death and return back to life. What they see haunts them when the come back, literally.
This actually was a pretty damn good movie. The story was inventive and intriguing, and it certainly kept me interested. The visual style was well done. Lots of use of color, not just in contrasting the death vs. life states, but also states of mental consciousness and emotions. Lots of good imagery in the film as well, and the pacing was good.
Where this film suffers is in the cast. Don't get me wrong, the acting wasn't exactly bad (though Oliver Platt needs to be sedated as usual). The problem is that the case is a bunch of pretty people. It's Keifer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Kevin Bacon at his 80's mulletted best, a young Billy Baldwin before he went nuts, and the aforementioned Oliver Platt. This cast was clearly designed to draw audiences in based on them being pretty, and not the film itself even though the film doesn't need any help. It's just, at every turn you see the cast standing there saying, "Hi. We're pretty people. Love us!" A less physically pleasing cast would probably have worked better. It felt too much like the Lost Boys Go to Med School.
Grade: B
A german expressionist film from 1919. I'm not terribly familiar with german expressionism. I've seen Der Golem, and while Metropolis is not considered a german expressionist film per se, it is heavily influenced by the movement. However, that's pretty much my exposure to the genre. But this is a very influential film in its own right. It is one of the early horror movies. Admittedly the horror is extremely dated, and I didn't feel a twinge at this point, but I can imagine audiences of the time freaking out at the film.
As with most silent films that do not fall in the comedy grouping, the acting was way over the top. That's the way it is, and that's why I tend not to like silent dramas. It's too much. The story of the film was fairly interesting if not simplistic. In a small town during a fair, a series of murders occurs that seemingly have a connection to sideshow run by the aging and creepy Dr. Caligari. The show is called the Somnambulist (a fancy term for a sleepwalker, though here the somnambulist was closer akin to a zombie). The Somnambulist is kept in a cabinet and comes out to read the future.
Really, the thing to talk about here is, of all things, the set design. The set design was, in a word, brilliant. For nearly every set in the film, there is not a straight line or a right angle to be found. Everything is at an odd angle. Walls are set at angles, doors within the walls aren't even close to rectangular, more trapezoidal or even triangular. Everything is exaggerated. Authority figures, such as the town clerk or the police officers, sit at desks easily 5 feet tall, and their chair have seats at the same height, so they are all towering above other people. Even the doors of Dr. Caligari's cabinet aren't in a straight line. In an amazing feat of engineering, they made the seam between the two cabinet doors crooked. This all produces a really eerie feeling. This feeling has a purpose, though I won't say why because it has to do with the twist ending. And the twist was pretty damn cool. It's not Sixth Sense wow-factor, but still pretty damn good in it's own right. I was pleased.
Grade: B-
Alexander Nevsky -
Considered the masterpiece of legendary Russian filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein, who created one of the most influential movies in history, Battleship Potemkin.
In terms of theme and story, this is pretty clearly Communist propaganda. It's the story of 13th century "Prince" Alexander, the prince of a small community in Russia that is really more common than royal. However, he is a brilliant tactician and warrior. The people rally around him to repel an invasion by German (Teutonic) knights. Nevsky is more of a common man in stature (metaphorically, as literally he is shown to tower over other people). He incenses other royalty, but rallies the commonfolk into a fighting force, under the banner of a unified Russia, to repel the invaders. Most people consider Nevsky an allegory for Stalin.
While the theme and story are pretty bland, the imagery is very well done. While the russian peasants are barefaced, the germans all wear helmets that cover their faces (some even extremely elaborate with pagan symbols and such), making them a more intimidating appearing fighting force. Sort of a stormtrooper effect. Also, intriguingly, the germans are shown to be heavily religious, covered in cross symbols and bringing an entire christian retinue with them, including a priest that wears a sort of Inquisitors robe and makes him look like Emperor Palpatine. That same religious symbolism is missing from the Russians, though presumably they were similarly religious at the time. Seems like that Eisenstein was using religion derogitorily which falls in line with the communist political views, but I find this surprising. I'm not expert on Russia, but I'd think that there would still be pretty heavy russian orthodox christians in Russia in the 1930's despite the communist government. Of course, I could be wrong.
Grade: C
Flatliners -
A thriller about a group of med students that use their knowledge to kill themselves to investigate death and return back to life. What they see haunts them when the come back, literally.
This actually was a pretty damn good movie. The story was inventive and intriguing, and it certainly kept me interested. The visual style was well done. Lots of use of color, not just in contrasting the death vs. life states, but also states of mental consciousness and emotions. Lots of good imagery in the film as well, and the pacing was good.
Where this film suffers is in the cast. Don't get me wrong, the acting wasn't exactly bad (though Oliver Platt needs to be sedated as usual). The problem is that the case is a bunch of pretty people. It's Keifer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Kevin Bacon at his 80's mulletted best, a young Billy Baldwin before he went nuts, and the aforementioned Oliver Platt. This cast was clearly designed to draw audiences in based on them being pretty, and not the film itself even though the film doesn't need any help. It's just, at every turn you see the cast standing there saying, "Hi. We're pretty people. Love us!" A less physically pleasing cast would probably have worked better. It felt too much like the Lost Boys Go to Med School.
Grade: B
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
July 4-6, 2008
THX 1138 -
Ah, the dystopian future story from George Lucas, one of his first feature length films based upon an award-winning short he made at USC film school.
In terms of story, this is pretty much your standard dystopia tale. People's lives are completely controlled by a corporate state, they take drugs to kill urges and be complacent. One man struggles to break free of the system, runs from the authorities, escapes and finds....well we don't know, the film ends right as he gets away, so there is no sense of closure here, but that's the way it goes. In terms of cinamatographic style, you can tell this is an early film in someones career. It leans heavily towards artsy fartsy. Style for the sake of style, with not so much regard on how that style impacts the emotionality, or lack of it. Also, this is the re-release version of the film, and it looks like the effects have been significantly cleaned up. Waaaaay too nice compared to other film effects of the period.
As would be expected from George Lucas, this film is heavily influenced by other films and stories. There are clear elements from Brave New World, a ton of stuff from Metropolis, a smattering of The Day the Earth Stood Still and I think a little Alphaville in there as well. Possibly some 2001. I'd swear it influenced some later films itself, though. I saw some elements in there that reminded me Logans Run and Rollerball. Maybe even a little Blade Runner.
There's not a heck of a lot to talk about. The story is simple. The style is disjointed, particularly the use of sound is very hectic and blaring. It's a young filmmaker experimenting with things.
Grade: C
Dil Chahta Hai -
I once mentored an undergraduate girl named Puja. She was a med student, and didn't do particularly good work, but she was a nice person and we got along well. We talked a lot. She developed an affection for me as a mentor. Of course, being the bastard I am we lost contact when she left, even though she emailed me a couple times. She even brought me back a blanket from India when she went to visit family. Anyways, to the point, I had mentioned to her how I'd seen come Indian films and that I really liked Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge. Like most Indian people when I mention this fact to, she first gave me a look like I said I liked to gargle my own urine, then she chastised me for my terrible pronunciation of the name, then said I needed to watch some better Indian movies. She then gave me a list of 3 films I should see. One is called Lagaan, which would've been the third Indian film this weekend making it round out nicely, but it wasn't available from Netflix. The second was this film. Like Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, this is a Bollywood film.
Bollywood films are a guilty pleasure of mine. I haven't seen many, but I've liked all the ones I've seen, though admittedly this might be because I've only seen the good ones. It's hard enough to find Bollywood films available to the general public period, let alone bad ones. Bollywood films are like if 1950's musicals from Hollywood got transplanted into India, took root, and refused to die. They are the height of escapism. There are certain guidelines that are really rules for a Bollywood film. First, it's got to be long. No Bollywood film I have seen has been under 3 hours. There is good reason for this, as most people in India are dirt poor and if they are going to spend a little money on a movie, they want the biggest bang for their buck. Two, it's got to have a romance with very good looking people with the guy getting the girl in the end. Again, escapism. These may be the rules, but there is one unbreakable law for Bollywood films. They all have to have extravagant, hugely choreographed and insane musical numbers. During the course of the film, the main characters WILL burst into song with tons of people dancing and very strange moves going on. It will have little to do with the plot. It may appear even at random. But it will happen.
I think the reason Puja recommended the two movies I saw this weekend is that they are more modern versions of Bollywood films. Don't get me wrong, they are pure Bollywood. Three hours long, love is the main topic, tons of dance numbers. But I think they do a decent job of representing a modern India (ok, that's a guess, like I have a clue what modern India is like). You can imagine my surprise when watching this film one of the characters starts playing Sting's Desert Rose album, or when the characters walk out of a theater that's playing Snatch and Charlie's Angels and Chicken Run.
This film is the story of three friends who are as close as brothers, how they struggle to find love and how that splinters them apart. But this is a Bollywood film, so it all works out in the end. And here is where Bollywood really shines. You know why? This film takes it's time. American filmmakers are so concerned with creating the largest emotional impact in the smallest amount of time that often characterization is lost in the name of brevity. Not here. The movie is going to be long, so the filmmakers can take their time to fully flesh out the characters. When the characters fall in love, it's not a love at first sight kind of thing (well, ok, sometimes it is), but the affection between two people is built over a number of scenes. It makes it seem more realistic and the emotional impact is greater. The more people interact, the more their actions become believable. I really found the characterizations and plot devices derived there-from to be very well done, largely because the filmmakers had time to do it.
The types of love stories that come into play are very different, as well as the conflicts with the main characters. It is superbly acted and really resonates. The only real complaint I have is a small thing they added to the ending to make it all happy-go-lucky, but that's to be expected. All in all, I was very impressed.
Grade: A-
Kal Ho Naa Ho -
And even more modern Bollywood film. The story of a young Indian woman (Preity Zinta) living in New York in a fractured family and her struggles to find happiness when all around her is tragedy. Of course, there's a love story, but this times it's a triangle between her, her best friend (Saif Ali Khan) and a newly arrived neighbor who not only manages to teach her to love again, but fixes other various problems with her family. The neighbor is played by Bollywood MEGASTAR Shah Ruhk Khan. He's sort of the guardian angel, semi-mystical person. At least mystical change.
The angel analogy is interesting actually, because I was very surprised to see that the main character and most of her family were actually Christian. Her grandmother was Hindu, and while there was some conflict over the religion, the conflict in the family was largely from other reasons. I was just really surprised to see a family in a Bollywood film being Christian. Good on them, way to break with tradition guys, I'm proud of you.
Like the previous film, this one takes the time to fully develop relationships and emotional reactions, which is good. The problem is that the plot uses a lot, and I mean a LOT, of really really really bad soap opera-ish devices. Not only do you cringe when you see the plot device, they lead to some really bad overacting. The last third of the film is basically people crying. But I'll give the ending some credit, it didn't end with a happy-go-lucky feeling, it had a more bittersweet feel. It seems that this is sort of a revolutionary Bollywood film, in that the director is given credit for taking the Bollywood archetype in a slightly different direction. I still liked the film, and if they had stayed away from the All My Children plot styles I'd think it's better than Dil Chahta Hai, but I just can't take that sort of thing.
Oh, and Preity Zinta is FREAKING HOT. I mean smoking hot here. She actually was in Dil Chahta Hai, and she was hot there, but here she's even hotter, and I'm amazed that's possible. She could be working in American films.
Oh yeah, one last thing. Both Indian films I watched had this strange occurrence. Every once in a while the actors would say their lines in English. Four-fifths of the film is in....whatever language they use in Indian, there's like 12o different dialects aren't there? But about a fifth of the film is in English. It confused the hell out of me at first. I couldn't tell if I needed to have the subtitles on or not.
Grade: B-
Ah, the dystopian future story from George Lucas, one of his first feature length films based upon an award-winning short he made at USC film school.
In terms of story, this is pretty much your standard dystopia tale. People's lives are completely controlled by a corporate state, they take drugs to kill urges and be complacent. One man struggles to break free of the system, runs from the authorities, escapes and finds....well we don't know, the film ends right as he gets away, so there is no sense of closure here, but that's the way it goes. In terms of cinamatographic style, you can tell this is an early film in someones career. It leans heavily towards artsy fartsy. Style for the sake of style, with not so much regard on how that style impacts the emotionality, or lack of it. Also, this is the re-release version of the film, and it looks like the effects have been significantly cleaned up. Waaaaay too nice compared to other film effects of the period.
As would be expected from George Lucas, this film is heavily influenced by other films and stories. There are clear elements from Brave New World, a ton of stuff from Metropolis, a smattering of The Day the Earth Stood Still and I think a little Alphaville in there as well. Possibly some 2001. I'd swear it influenced some later films itself, though. I saw some elements in there that reminded me Logans Run and Rollerball. Maybe even a little Blade Runner.
There's not a heck of a lot to talk about. The story is simple. The style is disjointed, particularly the use of sound is very hectic and blaring. It's a young filmmaker experimenting with things.
Grade: C
Dil Chahta Hai -
I once mentored an undergraduate girl named Puja. She was a med student, and didn't do particularly good work, but she was a nice person and we got along well. We talked a lot. She developed an affection for me as a mentor. Of course, being the bastard I am we lost contact when she left, even though she emailed me a couple times. She even brought me back a blanket from India when she went to visit family. Anyways, to the point, I had mentioned to her how I'd seen come Indian films and that I really liked Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge. Like most Indian people when I mention this fact to, she first gave me a look like I said I liked to gargle my own urine, then she chastised me for my terrible pronunciation of the name, then said I needed to watch some better Indian movies. She then gave me a list of 3 films I should see. One is called Lagaan, which would've been the third Indian film this weekend making it round out nicely, but it wasn't available from Netflix. The second was this film. Like Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, this is a Bollywood film.
Bollywood films are a guilty pleasure of mine. I haven't seen many, but I've liked all the ones I've seen, though admittedly this might be because I've only seen the good ones. It's hard enough to find Bollywood films available to the general public period, let alone bad ones. Bollywood films are like if 1950's musicals from Hollywood got transplanted into India, took root, and refused to die. They are the height of escapism. There are certain guidelines that are really rules for a Bollywood film. First, it's got to be long. No Bollywood film I have seen has been under 3 hours. There is good reason for this, as most people in India are dirt poor and if they are going to spend a little money on a movie, they want the biggest bang for their buck. Two, it's got to have a romance with very good looking people with the guy getting the girl in the end. Again, escapism. These may be the rules, but there is one unbreakable law for Bollywood films. They all have to have extravagant, hugely choreographed and insane musical numbers. During the course of the film, the main characters WILL burst into song with tons of people dancing and very strange moves going on. It will have little to do with the plot. It may appear even at random. But it will happen.
I think the reason Puja recommended the two movies I saw this weekend is that they are more modern versions of Bollywood films. Don't get me wrong, they are pure Bollywood. Three hours long, love is the main topic, tons of dance numbers. But I think they do a decent job of representing a modern India (ok, that's a guess, like I have a clue what modern India is like). You can imagine my surprise when watching this film one of the characters starts playing Sting's Desert Rose album, or when the characters walk out of a theater that's playing Snatch and Charlie's Angels and Chicken Run.
This film is the story of three friends who are as close as brothers, how they struggle to find love and how that splinters them apart. But this is a Bollywood film, so it all works out in the end. And here is where Bollywood really shines. You know why? This film takes it's time. American filmmakers are so concerned with creating the largest emotional impact in the smallest amount of time that often characterization is lost in the name of brevity. Not here. The movie is going to be long, so the filmmakers can take their time to fully flesh out the characters. When the characters fall in love, it's not a love at first sight kind of thing (well, ok, sometimes it is), but the affection between two people is built over a number of scenes. It makes it seem more realistic and the emotional impact is greater. The more people interact, the more their actions become believable. I really found the characterizations and plot devices derived there-from to be very well done, largely because the filmmakers had time to do it.
The types of love stories that come into play are very different, as well as the conflicts with the main characters. It is superbly acted and really resonates. The only real complaint I have is a small thing they added to the ending to make it all happy-go-lucky, but that's to be expected. All in all, I was very impressed.
Grade: A-
Kal Ho Naa Ho -
And even more modern Bollywood film. The story of a young Indian woman (Preity Zinta) living in New York in a fractured family and her struggles to find happiness when all around her is tragedy. Of course, there's a love story, but this times it's a triangle between her, her best friend (Saif Ali Khan) and a newly arrived neighbor who not only manages to teach her to love again, but fixes other various problems with her family. The neighbor is played by Bollywood MEGASTAR Shah Ruhk Khan. He's sort of the guardian angel, semi-mystical person. At least mystical change.
The angel analogy is interesting actually, because I was very surprised to see that the main character and most of her family were actually Christian. Her grandmother was Hindu, and while there was some conflict over the religion, the conflict in the family was largely from other reasons. I was just really surprised to see a family in a Bollywood film being Christian. Good on them, way to break with tradition guys, I'm proud of you.
Like the previous film, this one takes the time to fully develop relationships and emotional reactions, which is good. The problem is that the plot uses a lot, and I mean a LOT, of really really really bad soap opera-ish devices. Not only do you cringe when you see the plot device, they lead to some really bad overacting. The last third of the film is basically people crying. But I'll give the ending some credit, it didn't end with a happy-go-lucky feeling, it had a more bittersweet feel. It seems that this is sort of a revolutionary Bollywood film, in that the director is given credit for taking the Bollywood archetype in a slightly different direction. I still liked the film, and if they had stayed away from the All My Children plot styles I'd think it's better than Dil Chahta Hai, but I just can't take that sort of thing.
Oh, and Preity Zinta is FREAKING HOT. I mean smoking hot here. She actually was in Dil Chahta Hai, and she was hot there, but here she's even hotter, and I'm amazed that's possible. She could be working in American films.
Oh yeah, one last thing. Both Indian films I watched had this strange occurrence. Every once in a while the actors would say their lines in English. Four-fifths of the film is in....whatever language they use in Indian, there's like 12o different dialects aren't there? But about a fifth of the film is in English. It confused the hell out of me at first. I couldn't tell if I needed to have the subtitles on or not.
Grade: B-
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
June 27-29, 2008
Road to Rio -
You know, it's funny. If this movie were made today the critics would rip it to shreds. I know I would. It's Hollywood capitalism at it's finest. Absolutely no plot to speak of, just two big names and a bunch of jokes. In modern day parlance, this would be like George Clooney and Ray Romano making a buddy picture. People of taste would rise and lambaste the film like it was White Chicks. But I love the Road movies. Somehow, because it's Hope and Crosby, it makes it all ok. I have no explanation for this. It is a complete and total double standard, I admit it. And I don't care.
This film is Bob Hope and Bing Crosby fooling around, this time supposedly in Rio Di Janeiro, though I'd bet dollars to donuts there wasn't a second of location shooting. But who cares. This film is funny. I laughed. The bit with the hats had me cracking up. It's amazing how these old movies were able to do such simple things to make you laugh. I suspect that these films work because they are largely derived from vaudeville. The plot is just a thin veneer to string together a bunch of set pieces, be they song and dance numbers, comic routines, daredevil routines, whatever. And just as with vaudeville, the main purpose of each bit is to entertain, and I think if there is a distinction between these movies and modern day silly comedies it's that the aims are slightly different. The old movies (ala vaudeville) want to entertain. They want people to have a good time. Modern silly movies are almost insulting. It's like the failed writers and directors that make them take out their bitterness in the "comedy". Like they are saying "you yokels actually think this shit is funny? Well fine, I'll heap on this crap until you choke, you bastards." And I give Hope and Crosby credit, you can tell that everything they are doing is to entertain you. They are willing to do anything to get a laugh. Turn to the camera and mug? No problem. Dress in drag? Make sure it shows my chest hair.
Another interesting facet of this film and Road films in general is how carefully it treads breaking the fourth wall, both literally and metaphorically. It's not like a Zucker brothers comedy, where it completely violates the fourth wall and plot-driven filmmaking, but it's not a straight comedy either. There are plenty of times where the characters turn to the camera and say something to the audience, or they refer to the fact it's a film or to their real life personas. So it treads the middle ground between straight comedy and Zucker comedy. It's a difficult area to make work, but they do it well.
Grade: B
Calender -
This is the Netflix summary of the plot:
Atom Egoyan directs and stars in this painfully honest account of an Armenian photographer's search for love in spite of himself. His marriage in tatters, he starts dating again, but can't quite jump in with both feet, and his heart, first. With every date, he puts the women through the paces, asking them to make sexually charged phone calls to others. When he finally meets his match, his ex suddenly comes back into the already murky picture.
Yes, this is the plot of the film. But then again, it's not. The events described in this summary are about seven layers underneath the actual happenings in the film. It is helpful to know this summary going in so you can abstract the meaning from the very slow-paced action of the film. And the film is incredibly slow. While it does serve some purpose, it allows the viewer time to digest what is going on and abstract the actual meaning from the events, it does not make for an entertaining time.
The cinematography oscillates between stark visuals and luscious textures, though I would've preferred the switch between the different styles to have slightly more meaning in the context of the story, but it is used to a fairly well effect. The main problem I have with the film, outside of it's pacing, is the fact that I found the protagonist to be a fairly unlikeable character. He's a schmuck. And an asshole. Yet we are supposed to identify with this person, identify with his pain and struggles. While that is certainly possible, we do identify with his struggles to a certain extent, it's hard to care when he is a jerk.
On the whole, I liked the film. It does a good job relating the emotions of a heartbreak, something we can all relate to, in a very convincing and artistic fashion, but the film does have flaws, which detract from the overall experience.
Grade: C+
Zorba the Greek -
The iconic role for revered ethnic actor Anthony Quinn, one for which he was nominated for an Oscar and should've won (he lost to Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady, though that was a pretty damn good year for best actor category). The story of a young Englishman (Alan Bates) who travels to a bit of land in Crete owned by his family, with plans for resuscitating the lignite mine on the premises. Along the way he meets an old Greek man named Zorba (Quinn) who becomes his right-hand man and life mentor. Bates reason for traveling to Crete are murky and subtly told. He is a writer, but hasn't written anything for months, and views the mine as a test to his ability. All of this is related in one conversation with Zorba in the underneath subtext of two or three lines of spoken dialog. This is just one small facet of this amazing film.
To put it bluntly, this is the best film I have seen in some time. It blew me away. What is this film about? It is about life. From the dizzying highs to the stygian lows and all points in between. White, black and every shade of gray imaginable. Or as Zorba himself would put it, "the whole catastrophe". Every human being should see this film. If life were a college course with a required reading/viewing list, this film would be on it. This film examines life from every angle. Not just the positive life-affirming stuff that you'd expect in a film, but also the senseless, tragedies that come along for the ride. It's LIFE, in all its mysterious ways. Just when you think you get a handle on how the film is going to go, it moves in a completely different direction. A couple times, those directions were dark. Not just dark, but black. Bleak. Disturbing even. But it doesn't stay there. It hits a point, then comes back around to something else. This isn't a one-message film, just as life doesn't have one message. It is a mirror. It shows what life is. The messages are your own.
For all you guys out there that cry at the ending of Big Fish, I dare you...I DEFY you...to watch the ending of this film and not weep like a babe. It is now one of my favorite endings of all time. I rewound and watched the ending four times, then the next day popped the DVD back in to watch the ending a couple more times. I haven't done that since I saw Secretary. This is a brilliant film. Go watch it. NOW.
Grade: A+
You know, it's funny. If this movie were made today the critics would rip it to shreds. I know I would. It's Hollywood capitalism at it's finest. Absolutely no plot to speak of, just two big names and a bunch of jokes. In modern day parlance, this would be like George Clooney and Ray Romano making a buddy picture. People of taste would rise and lambaste the film like it was White Chicks. But I love the Road movies. Somehow, because it's Hope and Crosby, it makes it all ok. I have no explanation for this. It is a complete and total double standard, I admit it. And I don't care.
This film is Bob Hope and Bing Crosby fooling around, this time supposedly in Rio Di Janeiro, though I'd bet dollars to donuts there wasn't a second of location shooting. But who cares. This film is funny. I laughed. The bit with the hats had me cracking up. It's amazing how these old movies were able to do such simple things to make you laugh. I suspect that these films work because they are largely derived from vaudeville. The plot is just a thin veneer to string together a bunch of set pieces, be they song and dance numbers, comic routines, daredevil routines, whatever. And just as with vaudeville, the main purpose of each bit is to entertain, and I think if there is a distinction between these movies and modern day silly comedies it's that the aims are slightly different. The old movies (ala vaudeville) want to entertain. They want people to have a good time. Modern silly movies are almost insulting. It's like the failed writers and directors that make them take out their bitterness in the "comedy". Like they are saying "you yokels actually think this shit is funny? Well fine, I'll heap on this crap until you choke, you bastards." And I give Hope and Crosby credit, you can tell that everything they are doing is to entertain you. They are willing to do anything to get a laugh. Turn to the camera and mug? No problem. Dress in drag? Make sure it shows my chest hair.
Another interesting facet of this film and Road films in general is how carefully it treads breaking the fourth wall, both literally and metaphorically. It's not like a Zucker brothers comedy, where it completely violates the fourth wall and plot-driven filmmaking, but it's not a straight comedy either. There are plenty of times where the characters turn to the camera and say something to the audience, or they refer to the fact it's a film or to their real life personas. So it treads the middle ground between straight comedy and Zucker comedy. It's a difficult area to make work, but they do it well.
Grade: B
Calender -
This is the Netflix summary of the plot:
Atom Egoyan directs and stars in this painfully honest account of an Armenian photographer's search for love in spite of himself. His marriage in tatters, he starts dating again, but can't quite jump in with both feet, and his heart, first. With every date, he puts the women through the paces, asking them to make sexually charged phone calls to others. When he finally meets his match, his ex suddenly comes back into the already murky picture.
Yes, this is the plot of the film. But then again, it's not. The events described in this summary are about seven layers underneath the actual happenings in the film. It is helpful to know this summary going in so you can abstract the meaning from the very slow-paced action of the film. And the film is incredibly slow. While it does serve some purpose, it allows the viewer time to digest what is going on and abstract the actual meaning from the events, it does not make for an entertaining time.
The cinematography oscillates between stark visuals and luscious textures, though I would've preferred the switch between the different styles to have slightly more meaning in the context of the story, but it is used to a fairly well effect. The main problem I have with the film, outside of it's pacing, is the fact that I found the protagonist to be a fairly unlikeable character. He's a schmuck. And an asshole. Yet we are supposed to identify with this person, identify with his pain and struggles. While that is certainly possible, we do identify with his struggles to a certain extent, it's hard to care when he is a jerk.
On the whole, I liked the film. It does a good job relating the emotions of a heartbreak, something we can all relate to, in a very convincing and artistic fashion, but the film does have flaws, which detract from the overall experience.
Grade: C+
Zorba the Greek -
The iconic role for revered ethnic actor Anthony Quinn, one for which he was nominated for an Oscar and should've won (he lost to Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady, though that was a pretty damn good year for best actor category). The story of a young Englishman (Alan Bates) who travels to a bit of land in Crete owned by his family, with plans for resuscitating the lignite mine on the premises. Along the way he meets an old Greek man named Zorba (Quinn) who becomes his right-hand man and life mentor. Bates reason for traveling to Crete are murky and subtly told. He is a writer, but hasn't written anything for months, and views the mine as a test to his ability. All of this is related in one conversation with Zorba in the underneath subtext of two or three lines of spoken dialog. This is just one small facet of this amazing film.
To put it bluntly, this is the best film I have seen in some time. It blew me away. What is this film about? It is about life. From the dizzying highs to the stygian lows and all points in between. White, black and every shade of gray imaginable. Or as Zorba himself would put it, "the whole catastrophe". Every human being should see this film. If life were a college course with a required reading/viewing list, this film would be on it. This film examines life from every angle. Not just the positive life-affirming stuff that you'd expect in a film, but also the senseless, tragedies that come along for the ride. It's LIFE, in all its mysterious ways. Just when you think you get a handle on how the film is going to go, it moves in a completely different direction. A couple times, those directions were dark. Not just dark, but black. Bleak. Disturbing even. But it doesn't stay there. It hits a point, then comes back around to something else. This isn't a one-message film, just as life doesn't have one message. It is a mirror. It shows what life is. The messages are your own.
For all you guys out there that cry at the ending of Big Fish, I dare you...I DEFY you...to watch the ending of this film and not weep like a babe. It is now one of my favorite endings of all time. I rewound and watched the ending four times, then the next day popped the DVD back in to watch the ending a couple more times. I haven't done that since I saw Secretary. This is a brilliant film. Go watch it. NOW.
Grade: A+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
