December 25, 2007
I'm Not There
As the experts say, this is a film that will get better with multiple viewings. I can't say I saw it in ideal conditions - it was one of many things I did last weekend to distract myself from my loneliness and grief. I suppose the nonlinear format was easier to engage with than the straight-forward biopic I watched later in the evening.
Still, for some reason I didn't fully understand the connection between Bale's character and Ledger's character until I read the reviews.
Like many people, I thought Gere's bit was the least enjoyable of the movie. While I enjoy the Basement Tapes, I had the hardest time connecting to Gere. I appreciated the dissolution of Riddle, but Gere seemed to be skimming the surface of the milieu - one reviewer said his character was an actor in a period drama, but I thought he was actually supposed to be part of the environment without the artifice of actor playing a role.
Of course, like everyone, I thoroughly enjoyed Blanchett's reenactment of the seminal moments Dylan's transformation from folkie to rocker. And I got a kick out of Moore's bitter Joan Baez impersonation. Reminds me that my 2004 Halloween costume augured my future relationship to my personal Robert Zimmerman.
Though it is impossible to fully understand during a first viewing, and it doesn't have the linear draw of most movies - or the satisfying puzzle explained ending of most nonlinear movies - I'm Not There is one of my favorite movies of the year.
rotten tomatoes entry
Ty Burr's review in the Globe
Carina Chocano's review in the LAT
Ebert's review contains useful back story links
Owen Gleiberman's EW review
Posted by cj at 02:25 PM | Comments (0)
October 20, 2007
Transamerica
The journey is the destination. All the cliches of road trip movies are transformed into the wrapping to mainstream gender dysphoria. It's true that there's a lot of artifice in this film, but it actually works. I believed the story of a transsexual woman on her way to reassignment surgery meeting her son, a troubled teen who only knows how to please people physically.
It's true there are a lot of contrivances in the movie. But you only think about them when trying to describe it once it's done. While watching it, I felt I was watching a truthful slice of life of particular individuals. As Felicity said in an interview (part of the special features section), the film is about people's journey to find their true selves, which is every person's journey. It doesn't matter that one character is transgender and the other is a drug addict / prostitute, the mother and child traveling cross-country together are two engaging people trying to find their true selves in this heartless country.
I enjoyed the film, though I have to say I avoided it for awhile. I was done with Hollywood perceptions of The Other, and didn't feel compelled to see another explanation of how queer people are just like "us." I was intrigued by the great praise I kept hearing for Felicity Huffman's acting, so I put it on my Netflix queue, and eventually found my way to seeing it. I'm glad I took the time to give it a chance.
It's always important to remember that being true to yourself is the biggest gift you can give to the world. (And that getting your heart broken is a part of becoming a complete human.)
Rotten Tomatoes entry
Ebert's plot synopsis / shout out to red state open-mindedness
Posted by cj at 09:46 PM | Comments (0)
September 18, 2007
Random Biz News
Only in LA is this the big story in the business section of the newspaper -
"Now Showing...Chapter 1" by Josh Friedman
bottom line: many fantasy flicks are coming out this season.
Posted by cj at 10:04 PM | Comments (0)
September 16, 2007
Born Into Brothels
Really, I meant to get out tonight, but I got tired and couldn't get in touch with anyone, so I ended up with Netflix. I figured I'd watch 24 Hour Party People, since it was the more light-hearted offering. Alas, the disc was cracked, so I couldn't see it. Instead, I watched the Oscar winning documentary, Born into Brothels.
As serious as I am, it takes me awhile to convince myself to watch Important Movies. I usually turn to the black box to escape from life, and reality doesn't seem like the greatest escape.
Nevertheless, it's extremely important to see this film. Like any good doc, it grabs you and immerses you completely in a world unlike your own. I've studied the sex industry from many different angles: the cold reality of the porn biz, world capital here in the Valley; union organizing by strippers; prostitutes demanding respect from feminists for choosing their profession; the use of rape as a weapon of war, etc. But I've never explored the reality of families living within an illegal business.
Somewhat ironically, one of the children, Avijit, was invited to Amsterdam for a week for a global children's photography class. As many US'ers know, prostitution is legal in Holland and the Amsterdam Red Light District is as much a gawking tourist destination as it is a place to pay for sex.
The chasm between Western, legal, regulated prostitution and Indian, illegal prostitution is profound. It was incredible that the children had any child tendencies left at all, given the reality they witness, hear, and live everyday. And the coda at the end of the film just broke my heart. (Thankfully, their current situations are more bright.)
I wonder how children who grow up in such an environment can have hope or dreams, without the help of incredible outsiders. This film reminds you that societal problems can be distilled into the lives of individuals: children deserve education, food, shelter, the opportunity to move beyond the livelihoods of their parents. How do we stop spending money on a pointless "war on terrorism" and start spending money where it can actually do good - on the humanitarian needs of the global village?
Kids with Cameras - the nonprofit that was created out of this doc
Hope House: currently fundraising to build a dorm school near the Red Light district for up to 150 kids from the brothels
Posted by cj at 12:06 AM | Comments (0)
July 07, 2007
Husbands & Wives
So I finally saw the film that everyone said Sidewalks of New York was a poor man's version of. And I disagree. While they definitely use the same motif, they use it in different ways - Woody tries desperately hard to be realistic in his portrayal of intertwined New Yorkers, while Ed allows for some movie magic. Not to mention that I think Ed has a much better relationship with the opposite sex.
Seriously, could Woody Allen have a more screwed up notion of the female gender? Why is it that almost every female character in any Woody film is either a conniving bitch, a waif waiting for an older man to set her straight, a cold, highly opinionated NYer who can't relax enough to experience the passion of sex, or some combination of the above? It's clearly gotten to the point that no matter how good I think he is at his craft - and clearly the man can write and act like himself quite well - I've simply grown tired of his crappy portrayals of my gender.
Husbands & Wives is a decent movie. It even inspired Roger to write a real review, rather than simply rehash the plot. Vincent Canby also wrote a great review of the film in the NYT back in the day.
I just have a really hard time giving my full support to the non-stop negative portrayal of my gender. Traditional romantic comedies are not the answer - I like my female role models dumb just as much as I like them conniving bitches. At some point in the future, there will be more female writers, directors, and producers; and there will be more male writers, directors, and producers who understand that while there are gender differences, portraying all females as stereotypes is as realistic as black face performances.
Rotten Tomatoes entry.
IMDB entry.
Posted by cj at 02:27 PM | Comments (0)
June 24, 2007
The Queen
A masterful film. Unclear why I missed it in the theatres - probably the crush of movies, the excitement of having a new job, the 1,001 other things I needed to do around that time. In any event, I don't think you have to see this film on a big screen. It definitely helped that I watched it on a large television: the cinematography of Scottish wilderness were breathtaking.
And yet, even though it was a great character study and Helen Mirren definitely deserved all the accolades she got, I still am not sure I want to see it again. It's one of those movies that I'm glad I saw once, perhaps I would pick up some minutiae of the acting on a second viewing, but I really have no desire to add it to my dvd collection. Hooray for Netflix.
Roger Ebert actually wrote another plot recap on this one.
Actually, for all of Manohla's insistence that This Is The Movie to convince you that the Monarchy is Dead, it actually had the opposite affect on me. I hate all the gibber gabber monarchy watch in the States. But this film gave me an appreciation for what the monarchy has meant to England and who they are today, in a way that no amount of coverage of the dating habits of the young princes could possibly accomplish.
Posted by cj at 10:19 PM | Comments (0)
June 10, 2007
The Republic of Love
I should warn you I am in an altered state and therefore should probably not be passing judgment on anything. (Altered b/c I've been off my thyroid hormone for almost two weeks in preparation for my radiation treatment. Other thyca survivors call it "hypo hell;" my cousin said I appeared stoned.)
Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed this little film. This weekend, I've been thinking about writing a post about Annie Hall - about how a truly great romantic comedy should be about a failed love. And I was wondering why I felt that way. Perhaps because it's a state of mind we can all relate to, whereas very few are lucky enough to find enduring love.
At any rate, I'm not trying to tell you that The Republic of Love is in the same league as Annie Hall. I think you do need to be slightly altered to truly appreciate the film - either in love yourself or in a positive mood about the possibility of love. Perhaps I'm just a hopeless romantic, but I want to believe that the magical realism of this film can happen.
The flickering desperation of two adults wandering about their lives in moody solitude, only to happen upon each other and realize at once that they were meant to be together. It only happens in fairy tales and celluloid dreams, but it's a lovely dream.
I definitely want to read the source novel now.
And frankly, I don't care that the cynics on Rotten Tomato gave it a splat. It's time for us all to be a little less rational and a little more open to the possibility of life transformation.
Then again, this could just be the lack of meds talking so what do I know?
Update: at least the book only cost a penny plus shipping. Hopefully, it will arrive in time for me to read next weekend - when I'm out of the hospital and in home confinement.
Posted by cj at 09:01 PM | Comments (0)
June 07, 2007
Sidewalks of New York
I know I'm several years late in seeing this film. Many of the reviews call it a poor man's Husbands & Wives, which makes me think I should rent that film and make my own comparison.
I wouldn't say this film is ever going to make my top ten list. But it is a decent film. I was looking for a light, romantic comedy and I got one that doesn't give away its ending ten minutes into the film. Of course, it doesn't help that I saw part of the end of the film on cable several years ago, but so be it.
While the interconnections between the characters are a bit unrealistic, this isn't Crash - I don't mind being swept into its movie reality, because it's not trying to tell me What Every Person In New York Thinks, Feels, and How They Change Into Amazingly United People. That's left to the glitterati coast in the craptastic Crash.
But I digress. There are some stand out performances in this little flick - especially Brittany Murphy. It's a good film. Much better than the over-hyped crap that fills the "chick flick" genre these days.
Roger's plot description cum review (I hope you recover fully soon, Roger! The show is crap without you!)
Rotten Tomatoes listing
Owen Gleiberman's review in Entertainment Weekly
Random net review by Ross Anthony
User Comments on IMDB
Posted by cj at 08:11 PM | Comments (0)
April 01, 2007
Blood Diamond: Good Movie, Poor Explanation of Africa
I saw Blood Diamond for the first time on Friday night. It was on my list of "I'd like to see it" around Oscar time, but this year I barely saw anything in the theatre. There were a few other things going on in my life, so I don't feel too guilty about that. Plus, I'm quite leery of movies with a political point. As a peace activist, I stay on top of world news and often understand situations beyond the simplistic way they're related in movies.
For example, Hotel Rwanda included kindly white religious folk who helped shelter potential genocide victims. This was in direct contradiction to the horrific story behind the title of "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda." In general, films on global issues created by US filmmakers tend to gloss over the role that white people have in creating/perpetuating the problem. Instead, white people are shown as saviors and their society's economic and political structure is what the non-European world should aspire to.
Blood Diamond did suffer a bit from white savior syndrome. In general, it was surprisingly good and much better than I anticipated. Even though I've enjoyed most of his recent movies, I was also leery of the film's star - Leo DiCaprio. I've been trying to figure out why I hated the guy so much. I think it started because he went to high school with my cousin and I heard he was obnoxious even before he got famous. And Titanic sealed my belief that he was just another pretty face. It's strange how you can hold onto prejudices long after they've been proven wrong.
As the paid critics noted in their reviews of the film, Leo has grown up - his face is broader, his voice is lower; he's more man than Titanic boy toy. And while I appreciated his accent, and enjoyed his unapologetic acts of random violence, I was bored by his extremely forced flirting with the doey-eyed white reporter. I was shocked that Jennifer Connelly's character seemed to lump all non-whites into a "victims for copy" category and only saw white men as virile enough to satisfy her desires. Is this still the 21st century?
The last half hour was the most disappointing - every Hollywood cliche was followed and everyone had to get their due. The morally pure simple black folk were saved by the generous white folk and given free passage out of Africa and into the morally superior land that is Britain. The whites saw the evil of their ways and created the Kimberly Process, through which all white women can pretend that conflict diamonds are no longer smuggled out of Africa.
Another amusing aspect to white Hollywood's portrayal of Africa is that the only people who exist in Hollywood Africa are really dark black people, pale white women, and sun-weathered white men. Apparently, explaining how Indians became part of the population, or the Chinese businessmen who support genocide in the name of oil, or Arabs would complicate matters too much.
One more quibble - in this, and most Hollywood portrayals of Africa, the entire continent is described as a unified place, sorta as big as a country and as homogeneous as one. Take the refrain "T.I.A." - this is Africa, which the white Africans repeat throughout the movie. As if the problems of Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Angola (southern African countries referenced by the white cast) are exactly the same as what's happening in Sierra Leone (the west African country where the movie is supposed to take place, even though it was entirely filmed in South Africa).
So now you know what's wrong with the movie. Yet, it still shines as a good Hollywood flick - violent adventure with a touch of morality, and visual portrayals of how to create child soldiers. The movie does a great job depicting a civil war where none of the sides are "white hats." DiCaprio captures the cold-hearted nature of a white man born in Africa with amazing precision. I believe it was his best performance of last year, although I still think The Departed was a better all-around movie.
Too bad Blood Diamond ends with Hollywood cliches and white saviour moments. It's worth watching, but doesn't rise above what it is: white filmmakers' interpretation of black Africa's connection to the white world of the diamond trade.
Rotten Tomatoes entry.
Ann Hornday's review in WaPo.
Ty Burr's review in the Boston Globe.
David Denby's review in The New Yorker.
A political map of Africa.
Posted by cj at 06:40 AM | Comments (0)
February 25, 2007
The Year of The Departed & others...
This was an interesting Oscar show. I got a bit sick of the interpretive dancers. The video montages seemed to have nothing to do with the show, other than trying to keep the home viewer's attention. Everyone knew they had to keep their speeches short, but most still brought up scripts. The best speech was from Forrest Whitaker - after botching up every other thank you, he made a real impact with his Oscar time.
Intriguing that Alan Arkin won over Eddie Murphy. I really think Norbit added to his problems - Arkin is an actor's actor and Murphy is a business man's actor. (Ca-ching for all the crap he does.)
Unfortunately, this was another Year of the Man. Women were shut out in most categories. Exceptions being Heather Mirren, Jennifer Hudson (dare I say there was that much acting in her performance?), and Melissa Ethridge. True, the Costume Design winner was also female, but I hate anything associated with Sophia Coppola, so I'm not counting that. (For me, Sophia is the kind of hipster I despise - hipper than thou, boring, and superior. Her mashup of Music She Loves and "poetic" film-making makes me gag.)
Congrats to the winners.
And in best dressed award goes to Nicole Kidman for her stunning red dress. Runners up include Cate Blanchett in her snazzy couture, Reese Witherspoon in her deep purple gown, Penelope Cruz in her never-ending frock & Helen Mirren. Cameron Diaz gets a nod for worst hair.
Terrible dressers include: Anne Hathaway, Beyonce-I-Wanna-Be-A-Mermaid-Knowles, and Gweneth-I-Think-Everything-Old-Is-Cool-Paltrow.
My favorite entry in the E! Online photo gallery: David Craig & date. Apparently, if you're not famous or you're not married to the famous, you don't warrant having your name appear under your picture. I'm also amused that Marty's subtitle listed his wife's name, but said the other two women were simply "guests." I'm gonna take a stab in the dark and suggest that Scorcese brought his kids along for the ride.
Eva Green gets a double award - horrid dress and vampiric (not in a good way) makeup. For those who like me couldn't recognize the actress behind the macabre styling, she's the newest Bond girl.
That's all folks. G'night from La-La Land.
Posted by cj at 09:16 PM | Comments (0)
January 30, 2007
random film reads
I saw The Departed Saturday night and want to write a review, but there's too much goin on.
Here's Manohla's review at the NYT.
Here's Ty Burr's review at the Boston Globe. (not as well-written as Manohla's.)
Excellent critique of Dreamgirls by Ann Powers in the LA Times
Mildly amusing riff on acceptance speeches by Caryn James in the NYT.
Posted by cj at 10:36 PM | Comments (0)
January 28, 2007
Low Cut Dresses and a 13th Annual Pseudo Awards Show
The SAG Awards just ended. If you didn't watch, here's what you missed:
1. Dresses that lacked any semblance of covering the decolletage. Let's be clear - these dresses were not sexy. They were not in any way in good taste. They were simply missing fabric. The women who were falling out of their dresses were just ridiculous.
2. Sandra Oh looking absolutely gorgeous in a great dress.
3. Cate Blanchett lookin great.
3. America Ferrera & Chandra Wilson winning well-deserved awards.
4. Little Miss Sunshine winning a well-deserved ensemble award.
5. Helen Mirren pickin up two more awards - I'd say she's a lock for the Best Actress Oscar.
6. Jennifer Hudson pickin up another award - definitely the leader for the supporting actress Oscar (even though the LAT is right - she was the leading actress in the damn movie).
7. Eddie Murphy winnin another award - definitely the leader for the supporting actor Oscar.
8. Forrest Whitaker winning the leading actor award - I sure as hell hope he practices his speech more for the Oscars.
I'm not sure that was interesting enough to watch. On some level, I wish I had watched the E pre-show with the sound off. I really can't stand that woman Giuliana DePandi - she's a moron, has nothing interesting to ask celebrities, and cares more about people complimenting her than having interesting conversations about the people she's supposed to be interviewing. Ryan Seacrest is not much better, but at least he can keep up banter that has nothing to do with himself.
Then again, who cares what I was watching? I spent most of the afternoon holding Sir Isaac. Yoda is the best cancer therapy ever. The lil "bouge bouge" is just absolutely perfect. Sigh. I miss him already.
Yahoo News article on the SAG Awards
CNN article on the SAG awards
Posted by cj at 06:57 PM | Comments (0)
January 23, 2007
Oscar Noms Announced
Note: I have not heard/read any commentary on the actual nominees yet. I started writing this as soon as I woke up this morning. And I don't pretend to have actually seen all the movies nominated.
1. Why is Kate Winslet nominated every frickin year? Isn't there another younger actress who can get a damn nomination? The only other actress under fifty nominated in the Best Actress category is Penelope Cruz. Judi Dench is another perennial nominee - I know y'all love the Dame, but for goodness sake, she is not a god. Why not stretch your mind and find another woman to nominate?!?! We all know that the Oscar is probably going to Helen Mirren - unless for some strange reason she loses to Meryl Streep, but I highly doubt it.
2. Cate Blanchett is the other young, female Brit who apparently Must Get Nominated Every Year. It's as if the Academy is saying - we know we rarely write real female characters, so we'll just keep nominating the real British actors (see Mirren, Dench, Winslet, and Blanchett). THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!!
3. How likely is it that a foreign actress acting in another language is going to win an Academy Award? I agree, not that damn likely. So we can scratch the two women from Babel out of the Supporting Actress running. And while Abigail Breslin is the heart and soul of Little Miss Sunshine, it aint likely they're going to give their award to a 7 year old. So clearly, Jennifer Hudson's going to win for Dreamgirls. It's a good performance, I just wish (a)there were a wider range of noms in these two categories and (b)the Academy would stop nominating the Brits just to fill in the category and (c)for once in my life, these two categories were listed above their male counterparts.
4. Will Smith actually got nominated. It's hard for me to say whether or not he deserved it, since the MARKETING MACHINE RUINED THE FUCKING MOVIE. If you've seen the previews for the movie, you've seen EVERY SINGLE EMOTIONAL POINT OF THE DAMN FILM. Actually, I think his son should've been nominated.
5. Like they're gonna give the award to a guy playin a coke head teacher in a movie no one saw. I haven't seen Half Nelson yet, but I loved Ryan Gosling in one of his earliest films - The Slaughter Rule. It's one of those films that leaves you feeling its after effects several years after you watched it. (I'm not sayin it's the best movie ever, just that it has an impact on you.)
6. Are they gonna give Peter O'Toole a swan song Oscar or will they give it to Forrest Whitaker? I sorta doubt it'll go to Leo - no one thinks Blood Diamond was that good of a film, including the audience. I'd say it's a tough call between the guy with a foot in the grave and the man who actually acted well. Oscar tends to award old age, so the advantage is with O'Toole. (Of course, I haven't seen the films I'm talkin about in this point, just riffing on everything I've read about this award season.)
7. Actor in A Supporting Role - it's a fight between Eddie Murphy and Alan Arkin. Again a fight between young and old. Harder to determine, because I know they both did a good job. But Alan's not exactly an Academy-type of guy and Eddie's got the momentum from the Globes, so I'd say Eddie. Why the hell did another actor from Blood Diamond get nominated?
8. (running low on time) Borat was nominated once in the majors - for adapted screenplay. How fabulous would it be to hear another Sasha Cohen speech? He's one yummy Jew boy outta costume. Sadly, it's also the only film in the category I've seen.
9. Whose gonna win original screenplay? I've seen only one of these films - Little Miss Sunshine. It's a tough call; maybe Babel, probably The Queen. Though I really love the story behind the writing of Letters from Iwo Jima - it's the first film written by Iris Yamashita, a Japanese American woman (in English, then translated into Japanese).
10. Director - think Scorcese will actually win? Dunno, people really like The Departed. He's up against Clint and Gonzalez Inarritu and the anonymous guys behind The Queen and United 93. It might just be Scorcese's year.
11. Best Film - Babel, The Departed, The Queen, Letters From Iwo Jima, and Little Miss Sunshine. Again, a race btwn Scorcese and Clint. Since The Departed stars American actors (who have more votes in this thing than anyone else), I'd say The Departed is prolly gonna win.
now to make time to see these movies....
Posted by cj at 06:10 AM | Comments (0)
January 21, 2007
Dreamgirls
I went to see Dreamgirls right after I finished watching Todo sobre mi madre. A strange double bill, but awkwardly coherent - both offer a not quite great film adaptation of the female experience.
I have been wanting to see Dreamgirls for awhile. I was pushed into the theater because I went on errands today con mi madre and she played the soundtrack. I have to admit, I wasn't impressed by the sounds; at first, I thought it was because "One Night Only" was played ad nauseum during the Golden Globes awards, but it turns out I'm not the only one critical of the songs.
Like most stories written by men, the women in this film never move beyond stock characters. At least this time they're joined by their male counterparts in characters lacking depth. When the plot turned to push the heavy-set lead singer out off of her pedestal, I couldn't help remembering SNL parodies of Destiny's Child (you remember how Beyonce & her fam kept kicking out members of the group, don't you?) Here's a list of things that don't make sense about the movie:
1. Why do all the songs sound the same, even though the characters keep proclaiming the start of new sounds?
2. Why the Disney-ending?
3. Beyonce can not act. End of discussion. She also barely stifles her diva-ness until the 70s scenes.
4. Was it me, or did the scenes between Beyonce and Paul Lithgow seem to be lifted straight from Entourage?
5. The characters say that message music doesn't sell. Perhaps not In Your Face Message Music, but please explain to me how the folk genre was so popular during the same time period if people didn't want to hear a message. Also, didn't Marvin Gaye make some money at the same time?
6. How in the world does a Brother drop a Sister as fast as C.C. dismissed Effie from the group?
7. I usually hate Richard Roeper's film reviews, but on this he is right on:
The fiery Effie clutches her midsection and says she's not feeling well about a half-dozen times, concealing her pregnancy with all the subtlety of a character on "General Hospital," yet nobody catches on.
Despite my criticism, I did enjoy the film. Like Roeper I liked it, but didn't think it was great. I was impressed by the art direction and cinematography - I thought the end credits were made for the movie's Academy Award noms in those area (it really looked like a typical Oscar montage). But, I'm looking forward to seeing all of the movies mentioned in Roeper's review - since those are clearly the better movies of 2006. It really is a strange day when I'm agreeing with Roeper.
Roeper's review in the Chicago Sun Times
A.O. Scott's review in the NY Times
Kirk Honeycutt's review in the Hollywood Reporter
Walter Chaw's insightful review at Film Freak Central
Kenneth Turan's review in the LA Times
Rotten Tomatoes listing
IMDB listing
Posted by cj at 01:08 PM | Comments (0)
Todo Sobre Mi Madre
It is very strange to me that in IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes and Netflix, that it is difficult to find the movie Todo Sobre Mi Madre. Not because the film isn't there, but because those English-first, last and always sites insist on classifying it by the English translation of the name. I suppose I should just accept this as a fact of life - after all, I don't know the Chinese name of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." (Although, unlike most US'ians, I'd be able to pronounce the name if I saw it because I took a semester of Mandarin in college.) In any event, I saw the film yesterday.
To be honest, my interest in Almodovar is based on an erroneous memory. For some reason, I thought the guy had something to do with one of my favorite movies of recent years - Mar adentro. Now that I've bothered to look into the issue on IMDB, I feel like a fool. Still, it's good that I didn't fully understand the director's niche before seeing the film.
Of course, I saw it because it's been mentioned in all of the recent articles about Volver - explaining that Volver is the second Almodovar film highlighting the "talent" of Penelope Cruz. I dunno, I just have a hard time believing that she's anything besides a spoiled, pretty brat. Maybe that's because I sat through her attempts at English language acting before seeing her in a Spanish language flick.
First, let me explain that I hated La Mala Educacion. I didn't realize that Almodovar m.o. includes extensive use of transvestites, homages to old movies, and ridiculous, over-the-top plot lines. While he uses these tropes to better effect in Todo Sobre mi Madre, I still don't understand why IMDB commentators cried while watching the film. [I also think I was confusing my Spanish language interests - I was originally interested in La Mala Educacion because it stars Gael Garcia Bernal, the luscious star of Amores Perros and Y Tu Mama, Tambien.]
Back to Todo Sobre Mi Madre. It's a decent film. It's compelling and didn't feel slow. I had to swallow my disbelief in the beginning and accept that it would be a film full of convenient coincidence, but it's definitely worth watching.
Here's Ebert's review of the film, truncated to the review portion (i.e. deleting the plot summary):
Pedro Almodovar's films are a struggle between real and fake heartbreak--between tragedy and soap opera. They're usually funny, too, which increases the tension. You don't know where to position yourself while you're watching a film like "All About My Mother," and that's part of the appeal: Do you take it seriously, like the characters do, or do you notice the bright colors and flashy art decoration, the cheerful homages to Tennessee Williams and "All About Eve," and see it as a parody? Even Almodovar's camera sometimes doesn't know where to stand: When the heroine's son writes in his journal, the camera looks at his pen from the point of view of the paper.I agree with Roger that the coincidence and melodrama work in this film - I just don't understand how people are actually manipulated enough by these things to cry while watching. Still, it's worth a viewing if you haven't seen it yet."All About My Mother"' is one of the best films of the Spanish director, whose films present a Tennessee Williams sensibility in the visual style of a 1950s Universal-International tearjerker. Rock Hudson and Dorothy Malone never seem very far offscreen. Bette Davis isn't offscreen at all: Almodovar's heroines seem to be playing her. Self-parody is part of Almodovar's approach, but "All About My Mother" is also sincere and heartfelt; though two of its characters are transvestite hookers, one is a pregnant nun and two more are battling lesbians, this is a film that paradoxically expresses family values. [...]
Almodovar's earlier films sometimes seemed to be manipulating the characters as an exercise. Here the plot does handstands in its eagerness to use coincidence, surprise and melodrama. But the characters have a weight and reality, as if Almodovar has finally taken pity on them--has seen that although their plights may seem ludicrous, they're real enough to hurt. These are people who stand outside conventional life and its rules, and yet affirm them. Families are where you find them and how you make them, and home, it's said, is the place where, if you have to go there, they have to take you in.
Rotten Tomatoes listing
IMDB listing
Posted by cj at 11:53 AM | Comments (0)
January 13, 2007
Light the Trip Fantastic: The Triplets of Belleville
If you're lookin for a surreal experience, that will leave you feeling like you've just eaten a decadent dark chocolate dessert, you should rent The Triplets of Belleville. It's disorienting and intoxicating.
You could read a straight review of this film and learn all about it's most interesting plot turns. Or, you could just hearken back to the Academy Awards show that featured the title song of the movie and think "huh; maybe that's a movie I should put into my queue." I'm not going to bother telling you the plot - it's sorta beside the point, even though it's the whole point.
I will warn you - there is very little dialogue in the movie. About two lines. And while those two lines were originally in French, now they're spoken in English with French accents. Which leaves you scanning for subtitles for a few seconds until your brain picks up the fact that those are English words.
It's the trippiest movie I've seen in years. And it made me feel like I'd gone to another place even though I was soberly sitting in my living room. I highly recommend it.
Rotten Tomatoes listing (93% approval)
Ebert's review. This is actually one of the best Ebert reviews I've read in a long time. Here's the last graph:
Some of my faithful readers went to see "Songs from the Second Floor" on my recommendation. "Triplets" comes from a similar mindset, but is told in a manic fever, and is animated. Imagine Felix the Cat with firecrackers tied to his tail, in a story involving the French nephew and aunt of the Reservoir Dogs, and a score by Spike Jones. No, the other Spike Jones.
I could link to A.O. Scott's review or Kenneth Turan's review (both of which I read before writing this post), but they're not as engaging as Robert's review. Besides, there's no reason to read the critics on this one - either you want to see a surrealistic, dark, unique animated film or you don't.
Posted by cj at 11:45 AM | Comments (0)
December 12, 2006
Jeannette Rankin on Film
Do you know who Jeannette Rankin was? She was the first woman elected to Congress, a life-long pacifist, and a person who voted against both world wars. Her life was magical, her story is empowering. WILPF US Board Member Jeanmarie Simpson wrote and starred in the play "A Single Woman" about Rankin's life. Simpson and WILPF Life Member Cameron Crain have brought the story to the big screen - a film based on the play is now in post-production.
Rankin's life is truly awful, in the original sense of the word (full of awe). When I saw the play, it sent chills through my spine. It still resonates - and its been over a year since I saw it. I'm constantly questioning whether war is ever the answer because of Simpson's presentation of Rankin's views. I can't wait for the film!
Posted by cj at 09:53 PM | Comments (0)
November 20, 2006
In the Mood For Love
After seeing trailers for the English-language version of this picture (which I think has little to do with the original), the Hong Kong version landed on my Netflix queue and in my hands. The critics agree that it is a lush, tension-filled movie. It's also the longest 1.5 hours you'll spend with a film. Perhaps I feel that way because the last movie I saw was Casino Royale (at least three full hours of action), but still.
Frankly, I think the movie is worth seeing once. Yes, it is haunting - but is it realistic? Perhaps for the 60s, but I highly doubt it translates well into modern society. Maybe I'm a fool. On the other hand, I recognized my Chinese landlord from DC in one scene - Su Li-zhen is chastised by an overprotective landlord and I could totally see Mrs. Peng doing that.
Perhaps it didn't strike a chord because I've yet to encounter a man with as much self restraint as Mr. Chow. In any event, it's worth a viewing.
Extremely long review in NYT by Elvis Mitchell
Roger Ebert's plot breakdown / review
Posted by cj at 09:33 PM | Comments (0)
November 01, 2006
Fast Food Nation: Script Details
Scriptland, a weekly feature in the LAT Calendar section, rambles today about two films - one I don't care about and the other is "Fast Food Nation." I hope that by now you've read the book. It represents my favorite kind of writing: passionate, factual prose, expressive and full of meaning. Seriously, there is nothing better than a well-written nonfiction book. Except of course, for a well-written novel. I admit that when I think about 100 Years of Solitude, I cannot continue on my earnest rant in praise of straight facts.
In any event, the book was great. And the premise of the movie is to take the best aspects of the book: its cinematic vignettes and turn it into cinema. So this wont be a documentary (even though the book is all real). Don't read the Scriptland article if you want to be surprised about the movie. The book and movie harken back to The Jungle, which for some reason I have never read. Other influences:
Other disparate sources — the documentary "The Corporation," which explores its literally soulless approach to business, and sprawling film landscapes such as Robert Altman's "Nashville" and John Sayles' "City of Hope" — found their way into the feel of the film. (Linklater even referenced "Psycho" to sell his pitch to the studio, but not for the reasons you might think — it has to do with narrative structure.)I saw The Corporation at the one and only MoveOn event I've been to. (You should see it, though it's long. It builds on work started by WILPF members on challenging corporate personhood.) I'm intrigued by the Psycho reference, but not enough to watch it. (Yes, I do get nightmares from scary movies, wanna make something of it?) Nashville's now in my Netflix queue, but alas City of Hope hasn't made it to DVD. Never fear - you can pick up a VHS copy fairly cheap on Amazon.
Interesting. I think this is the first blog post that actually cost me money (because I picked up the $3 VHS tape).
Posted by cj at 11:23 PM | Comments (0)
October 01, 2006
All the King's Men
Before I get into the movie, let me set the scene. This is the first film I've seen in L.A. since returning to full-time residency. Everytime I was in a small theatre in Chi-town, I'd complain endlessly to my companion about how Chicago didn't measure up to LA's stadium-style seating. (I believe we started that trend, but I can't be sure.)
Right. So then I get to the mall to find the place jam packed with people trying to buy tickets. The line to get into the theatre is even longer - longer because they've only got One Guy taking tickets. Seriously, for the ten dollar charge, you'd think they could afford more employees.
So after dealing with all this external stimuli, we get into the theatre. Alas, despite the bustling and diverse crowd outside, our fellow patrons were primarily your stereotypical older white liberal types. And not that many of them to boot. When the movie started, I thought this was a sad statement on society's lack of interest in serious films.
Except this wasn't exactly a serious film. It was a Serious Film that Screamed Oscar with its Lush Cinematography and Convoluted Storyline and Charismatic Characters.
A flatmate gave me a copy of All the King's Men for my birthday five years ago. I tried several times to read it, but couldn't get past the words - the descriptions go on for days. So the book has disappeared from my library and I never saw the first movie about it. Which all ended up being a good thing - because for me, the ending was a surprise. And the ending, on top of the whole mess of a movie, made it seem worth it.
A few of the actors were rather good. I enjoyed Penn's performance. But I felt like the script never made me understand what was right or wrong about the character - I never saw him transition from a small town do-gooder to a crafty despot. In fact, I was never quite sure that he was nefarious (aside from his womanizing, but that seems par for the course in politician-land).
And I thought Law was decent, although I couldn't understand why the movie seemed to focus more on him then on Willie Stark (Penn's character). And I seriously hate Kate Winslet. Or perhaps I just hate all the American directors who think they can bleach her hair and Americans will think she's the all American blonde. She's not. She's British and a brunette. And maybe I just couldn't get past her really bad dye job. But seriously, she's not a good actor. There must be better actresses out there for all the parts she's getting.
And why, pray tell, must Southern aristocracy be played by Brits? Perhaps because when modern American film makers think aristocracy they can't get past the archetype enshrined by Merchant Ivory productions? For goodness sake, can we please allow some fine Southern actors to portray Southern characters so that if we have to deal with a cacophony of accents they're all bona fide Southern ones rather than a mix of standard English, put-on drawls, and British English?
Just wait for this to come out on Netflix. I'm thinking about putting the 1949 "masterpiece" version on my queue, but it's not gonna jump to the top of the list. People have complained that this version strays too far from the 49 version. I think a more accurate description is that it chooses uncompelling aspects of the book to hang a movie on. Then again, check out this passage from the book quoted by Ty Burr in the Boston Globe:
`The linoleum mat was newish, and the colors were still bright -- reds and tans and blues slick and varnished-looking -- a kind of glib, impertinent, geometrical island floating there in the midst of the cornerless shadows and the acid mummy smell and the slow swell of Time which had fed into this room, day by day since long back, as into a landlocked sea where the fish were dead and the taste was brackish on your tongue." And that's just the linoleum.It's good to know there's a real reason I couldn't find my way into the damn Pulitzer prize winning novel.
Right. Generally, the movie is pretty too look at but too long and convoluted and dwells on the wrong aspects of the story. Unlike my companion, I wasn't annoyed at the idea of flashbacks - I enjoy a nonlinear story as much as the next cinephile. What annoyed me was that they never went anywhere; they were repetitive without enlightening and detracted from the forward motion of the plot. They also took away valuable screen time from getting to know the players. It seems like the writer/director thinks everyone's already read the book and seen the 49 film and doesn't need to get Willie Stark. Maybe he spent too long in the editing room (a year); maybe he should've let someone else edit the damn thing. Maybe a different screenplay should have been green lighted. Oh well. Here's hoping there are some truly compelling movies in the rest of the Oscar hopefuls.
By the way, the rant about how I used to brag about LA movie theaters? Yeah, well this one had me sitting with my knees in my chest. It was the most uncomfortable seat I've been forced to sit in for quite awhile. Alas, I must rescind my former comments about how all LA theaters are more comfortable than Chi-town.
I've never been to a movie with such a low Rotten Tomatoes rating - 4.2 out of 10. A shame really; because the message behind the movie is important and immediate. The stump speeches before Stark becomes governor are almost worth the ticket price; but they're cancelled out by the director's shorthand use of The Hitler Pose to tell us Stark became a despot. I am seriously sick of the Large Building, Upward Camera Tilt, Black Night look to clue audiences into the fact that they should dislike a charismatic, autocratic politician.
Rotten Tomatoes listing
IMDB listing
Review in the Las Vegas Review Journal (which seems to forget that the 49 classic was based on a book)
Bob Bloom's favorable review from Indiana's Journal and Courier
Ty Burr's negative review in the Boston Globe
Posted by cj at 12:56 AM | Comments (0)
September 21, 2006
World Renown Cinematographer, Sven Nykvist, Passes On
Nykvist was the genius standing beside Ingmar Bergman during many of his masterpieces. He's one of the best cinematographers of all time and you really don't need any technical knowledge of lighting to know that - just watch Fanny and Alexander.
Chris Fujiwara wrote about a retrospective of Nkyvist's work at the Harvard Film Archive in May, 2000 in the Boston Phoenix. Here's a great graph:
In Light Keeps Me Company (2000; May 19 at 7 p.m., May 21 at 6 p.m., and May 30 at 7 p.m.), an intimate documentary made by son Carl-Gustaf Nykvist, Bergman says: "Sven and I saw things alike, thought things alike; our feeling for light was the same. We had the same basic moral positions about camera placement." The closeness between the two makes it difficult to isolate Nykvist's contribution to Bergman's work, especially since Bergman's own concept of cinema was changing at about the same time Nykvist became his regular cinematographer. Yet it's reasonable to assume that the visual purity, restraint, and naturalism that distinguish Nykvist's camerawork on Winter Light and Persona (1966; May 20 at 7 p.m.) from the more flamboyant work of Gunnar Fischer on The Seventh Seal (1957), Wild Strawberries (1957), and The Magician (1958) owe as much to Nykvist's genius as to Bergman's maturing temperament.I love the idea of being so passionate about your art that you can have a "moral position about camera placement."
Nykvist had a long illness and was being treated for aphasia, a form of dementia. It saddens me that such an amazing artistic genius suffered at the end of his life. I hope he rests in peace.
Obit round-up:
"Sven Nykvist, 83; Cinematographer Won Oscars for Work With Bergman," by Chris Lee in the LA Times
"Sven Nykvist, 83, a Master of Light in Films, Dies," by Stephen Holden in the NY Times
Sven Nykvist: Distinguished Swedish cinematographer who collaborated with Ingmar Bergman and other European and Hollywood luminaries," by The Times (of London)
"Soulful eye: Sven Nykvist uses the screen as his canvas," by Chris Fujiwara in the May 18-25, 2000 edition of the Boston Phoenix
Posted by cj at 09:22 PM | Comments (0)
August 11, 2006
Misogyny Writ Large
In the rush of films that were released around Xmas last year, I knew I could leave Woody Allen's newest for Netflix. After all, no matter how good the cinematography is, it looks perfectly large enough on my teevee. Little did I realize it would be a film that makes me disturbed to be alone.
A bit of warning - if you haven't seen Match Point yet, don't read this post. I usually try to leave a lot to the imagination when I comment on films, but I can't this time.
I admit that I was taken by the type casting - Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is one of my top ten screen candy, and having known someone who lusted after ScoJo, I was intrigued by the match.
But for the love of all things beautiful, could someone please start making movies that involve realistic female characters rather than "shameless blonde hussies" and "nagging shrews"? (Tip of the hat to Stephanie Zacharek for those descriptions in her Salon review of the movie.)
I am so sick of seeing the world through men's eyes. Male writers, male directors, male protagonists. This wouldn't bother me so much if they cared as much about the female characters as they do their males screen gods. I remembered that both Ebert and the NYT loved this movie; I remembered that a coworker also enjoyed it. So I was surprised at my revulsion. It's not that I need ultra-pure morality in film to enjoy it. I appreciate looking at the dark side of life as much as the next person. But I cannot stand when women are used as the balls and chains clinging desperately to the men around them. I've been known to enjoy romantic comedies in my day, and I've enjoyed a chick lit book or two, but this is a whole new level of deprivation.
My fury is not caused by the fact that two murders are swept under the rug; that the murderer is only punished in his head. My problem is that every female character is 100% negative; and every man has to placate these women in order to get on with their good lives.
Allowing the murders to happen off screen carries on the general detachment the viewer is forced to have from the film, a fact pointed out in Keith Uhlich's review in Slant Magazine. But seriously - does every Allen-replacing-actor have to succumb to infidelity because of the shrieking hag he's married to? How bout changing up the formula a bit and allowing the women to screw around because their husbands can't keep it up?
When the movie made it's final turn off the cliff, I started wondering - am I the only one who sees the blatant misogyny in this film? I'm relieved to see that I'm not. But I'm also disturbed that venerable critics such as Ebert and A.O. Scott couldn't see past the slick images of London high society and read the writing on the wall.
rotten tomatoes entry for this decidedly rotten tomato.
Posted by cj at 09:12 PM | Comments (0)
July 29, 2006
Dumb Adventures in Netflix
To: Netflix Customer ServiceNote that they have a drop-down menu subject line for returning your own disc. My goodness, am I an idiot. Hopefully, I can get my disc back.
Category: Shipping and Receiving Movies
Subject: I returned my own disc (or non-Netflix disc)
Message: I'm glad to know I'm not the only one with this problem. I accidently returned my own disc - disc four of the second tv season of La Femme Nikita - instead of Wicker Park. Is there a way to get my disc back? This is particularly concerning to me because it's impossible to buy just one disc in a multi-disc tv pack. Obviously, I also want to send you the actual Wicker Park dvd. Thank you for your help.
Posted by cj at 03:27 AM | Comments (1)
July 03, 2006
Superman Returns...but is it any good?
I've been pondering this question all day. I really can't make up my mind. I feel like my experience was severely limited, because I was sitting in the Third Row of a Giant Theater (you know the kind; the kind that should never include the first five rows of seats). So, during the (many) quiet, close-up shots in the film, I was staring up people's noses.
I also couldn't decide if my antsy-ness was due to my desperate need to use the facilities (damn those over-sized medium soft drinks!), the kids tapping their feet in front of me, the person kicking my seat behind me, or the fact that the movie needed to be edited. I've decided the movie needed better editing. Plus, it needed more dialogue, especially for Brandon Routh (previously of One Life to Live "fame"). I'm also glad to know I wasn't the only one who wasn't drawn to Kate Bosworth. First of all, her hair is so obviously dyed! Were there absolutely no true brunettes available for the frickin casting call????? Second, she can't act. I know this isn't always a prerequisite for doing well in an action movie, but come ON. Wasn't Terri Hatcher's Lois your favorite part of Lois & Clark?
I think Spacey's getting a bum rap for his Lex Luther. While he definitely doesn't have the sex appeal of Michael Rosenbaum (but seriously, how many men can look that hot bald?), he has a good blend of camp and evilness. My only problem is that his Lex seems to be chained to his henchmen; I'm not convinced he could pull any of his tricks off without the people around him.
Parker Posey was definitely the most engaging actor. Perhaps because I was so damn close to the screen, I focused too much on how small her eyelashes are (seriously, I was that close), but nevertheless, she managed to outplay her one-sided character with more panache than Bosworth did with a four dimensional character.
Ooh ooh ooh. And did you notice the cameo by La Femme Nikita?!?! I'm of course, speaking of none other than Peta Wilson as Bobbie-Faye (the self-assured, Operations-type character explaining the airplane / spaceship set up).
They could've used a much better editor; someone to say "after the two hour mark, do we really need to draw out all this crap?" Especially since the end lacks oomph. It would've been better to end it 20 minutes earlier...but I'll spare you the exact point I think it should've ended in case you haven't seen it.
All in all, I expected more from the director of X-Men and X2. I still enjoyed the film and would be willing to see it a second time in theaters - if only to move farther away from the screen...but there are so many other movies out there vying for my time (how excited are you that we're mere days away from the next Pirates movie?), that I'm not rushing out to give this movie a second try.
The most difficult to navigate to review aka the LA Times review by Kenneth Turan (whom I despise)
Roger Ebert's skewering cum plot summary. I don't think it was that bad.
Manohla Dargis' NYT Review. This is my absolute favorite writing about this film, including how obnoxious the Jesus imagery was. More importantly, it explains how this movie fits into the current homosocial film trend:
Intentionally or not, the Jesus angle also helps deflect speculation about just how straight this Superman flies. Given how securely Lois remains out of the romantic picture in "Superman Returns," now saddled with both a kid and a fiancé (James Marsden), it's no surprise that some have speculated that Superman is gay. The speculation speaks more to our social panic than anything in the film, which, much like the overwhelming majority of American action movies produced since the 1980's, mostly involves what academics call homosocial relations. In other words, when it comes to Hollywood, boys will be boys and play with their toys, whether they're sleeping with one another or not, leaving women to weep, worry and wait to be rescued.Emphasis added. Perhaps I was so enthralled by Peta's cameo because it was the slightest of nods to the fact that Women Can Kick Ass. Too bad this flick's Lois has no spine.
Rotten Tomatoes entry
Posted by cj at 08:45 PM | Comments (2)
June 29, 2006
The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio
If you want a depressing film, or a film that feels so real it hurts, stay far away from this flick. On the other hand, if you like great performances alongside some frustrating cliches (why, when there are a lot of children involved are they only rarely called by name?!?), then this is the movie for you.
Unfortunately, my copy from Netflix was scratched badly in two places, but I believe I saw most of the film. (Nevertheless, I liked it enough to order a better copy to be delivered ASAP for a second viewing.)
Many reviewers, especially of the male persuasion, found this to be a treacly chick flick that barely rose to made-for-tv quality. On the other hand, less cynical Y-chromosome possessing critics and plenty of women found it endearing. Yes, there are things I'd love to know about this family and especially this mother that weren't fully explained in the movie. But when you consider that it is based on the memoir of a child, it fits perfectly: there's no way to know the extremely inner feelings of the protagonist; but enough of her life theory is explained to understand why she stayed with her alcoholic, (verbally, financially) abusive husband. And Woody Harrelson is always good at realistically playing extremely flawed men.
tPWoDO is a first rate look at the extraordinary perseverance of one Midwest housewife in the 50s and 60s. It is well worth 1.5 hrs.
Rotten Tomatoes listing
Ebert's review / plot explanation
Posted by cj at 11:40 PM | Comments (0)
June 23, 2006
Don't Drink the Water
So who know that the lil play by Woody Allen was made into a movie in the 60s starring Jackie Gleason? And Woody had nothing to do with that flick and hated it so much that he made a made-for-tv movie to resucitate his screwball comedy.
Oddly enough, I rented the film without knowing it was made for tv. It showed up in Netflix recommendations after I rented Melinda and Melinda, and I decided to go for it because I have vague memories of being the Stage Manager and Sultan's Wife (nonspeaking role, due to my theatre teacher's belief that I couldn't act my way out of a paper bag) ten years ago during my senior year of high school. Yes, in fact it has been ten years. Dude, I'm old.
Anyway, it was a light-hearted affair and the reason the wife reminded me of Marge Simpson is because the actress is Marge Simpson. So that's what Julie Kavner looked like 12 years ago. And perhaps this tv movie is the reason the aforementioned theater teacher chose the play. At any rate, I had zero recollection of the daughter and the romantic subplot, so it was a pleasant 1.5 hrs. Not earth-shattering. No need to watch it again. But pleasant enough. Specially since it included watching Michael J. Fox falling in love with Blossom.
I think it might be time for me to watch Annie Hall again...I keep hoping to find another Allen film that grabs me like that one did. No luck yet, but I've only scratched the surface of his ouevre.
IMDB listing for the tv movie.
IMDB listing for the supposedly terrible Gleason version.
Posted by cj at 09:26 PM | Comments (0)
June 01, 2006
The Da Vinci Code
I saw this opening weekend (life's full of stuff that's been keeping me from blogging, or did you not notice?) I really tried to give it the benefit of the doubt. I was actually excited for it: it's been long enough since I read the book that I didn't remember all the plot twists. Which allowed me to gasp out loud at some of the thriller parts (I admit it, I'm that kind of "girl watchin a movie." Which is why you'll never see me at a slasher flick - I've got enough nightmares as it is, thank you very much.)
Right, but there were also times during the film when I had ants in my pants. And I couldn't figure out if that was just b/c I was seeing A Seminal Summer Movie alone or what. I think the what's have it: it just wasn't that good.
In the words of Bob Bloom of the Journal and Courier in Lafayette, Indiana:
The book kept you breathless; the movie makes you restless.
I'm still troubled by this movie. Part of me agrees with Ebert's reviews (both on teevee and in print). It worked as a popcorn flick. It wasn't the greatest popcorn flick ever made, but Ron Howard always makes pretty pictures. Worth seein, but not worth standing in line for (which I imagine you wont have to do anymore anyway).
Rotten Tomatoes entry (consensus = it's rotten)
Ebert gave it three stars, as did his users.
IMDB entry
Posted by cj at 11:07 PM | Comments (0)
Fanny and Alexander
One of the many reasons Netflix loves me is that I stubbornly hold onto dvd's waiting for the inspiration to watch them for weeks at a time. I did this not once, but twice with Fanny and Alexander. The broken promise raved about it, which is the reason it landed in my flat the first time. (I have a love, love, hate relationship with foreign movies: I love to watch them, love to think about them, and hate to get up the inspiration to read subtitles. But it's really no harder than fully paying attention to an English language film.) It landed on my Netflix the second time because other film reviewers wrote passionately about their love of Bergman and this particular masterpiece, so here it came at the most inopportune time: when I got extremely sick with bronchitis.
So, I've finally seen the theatrical release form of Fanny and Alexander. And I gotta say, I can't wait to see the 6 hour (made for Swedish television) version. Of course, I want to wait and watch that version on a better screen. Perhaps the big screen at my folks' house. It definitely warrants surround sound and sharp picture quality.
Ebert gave the movie 4 stars when it first came out in 1983. In that review, he explained the movie's importance in relation to Bergman's oeuvre. Then, he reviewed it again in 2004 as part of his "Great Movies" series. If, like me, you get sick of the obligatory plot description in Ebert reviews, definitely do not read the latter review. It was actually a pleasant read for me, since it reminded me of all the delicately shifting aspects of the plot.
My favorite words from his reviews are contained in the last graph of the Great Movies review:
At the end, I was subdued and yet exhilarated; something had happened to me that was outside language, that was spiritual, that incorporated Bergman's mysticism; one of his characters suggests that our lives flow into each other's, that even a pebble is an idea of God, that there is a level just out of view where everything really happens.Amen, brother.
Other interesting tidbit: Rotten Tomatoes lists 16 fresh reviews, 0 rotten.
IMDB entry
Posted by cj at 10:36 PM | Comments (0)
May 16, 2006
Paradise Now
I watched the film between my cousin's ufruf and her engagement party. This is significant only because my cousin is more traditionally Jewish than I am and the difference between going to a Shabbat service where a temple-goer's car actually had a W '04 sticker on it, where prays are said for the well-being of Israel and the stark honesty of Paradise Now impacted me more than just seeing the movie without context would.
Paradise Now is truly suspenseful. Nothing happens the way you expect it to and the change between the protagonists looking "normal" and when they have haircuts and shaves to look like Israeli settlers is unsettling. More importantly, their dialogue is real and realistic. I wonder what would happen if US lawmakers actually watched this film and listened to Palestinians discuss the daily humiliation and hardship cause by the Israeli occupation. Would they be able to hear? Or would they chalk it up to propaganda b.c they've already been bought and sold by AIPAC.
And yet, I agree with Ebert that it deserved 3 out of 4 stars. Unlike Ebert, I'm not waiting for a movie about a secular suicide bomber. It would be interesting to see the point of view of someone who is not economically oppressed choosing to become a terrorist. But more importantly,
I can't place my finger on what is missing from the film. It is powerful and important. It is a better movie than March of the Penguins. But right now I'm falling asleep (which seems to be a trend for my blogging time), and will have to continue to mull over what I needed from Paradise Now to bump it up to a 4 star rating.
More info:
Ebert's review
Rotten Tomatoes entry
Posted by cj at 10:55 PM | Comments (0)
March 29, 2006
Ella Enchanted
Yesterday, I basically didn't get out of bed. And that included being sucked into watching Ella Enchanted. Sad thing is, I think I missed more of the movie than I realized - okay, I'm not sure if missing the beginning of the movie is the sad part, or the fact that I read three reviews of the damn thing which pointed out all the early plot points I missed when I was watching it.
Things not pointed out in reviews:
1. The schlocky animation is so crappy that the "elves" look like normal size people.
2. Every scene reminds you of an earlier, funnier, smarter movie.
3. Cary Elwes as the Evil Uncle is just plain mean to women everywhere who grew up watching and loving The Princess Bride.
4. Did I mention the schlocky animation? A wanna-be lawyer elf is Hathaway's sidekick, so it's really distracting that he isn't small in the slightest. He just looks like a short guy. Nothin magical about a short lawyer.
5. Hathaway has an amazing body. I'm sure being 21 has a lot to do with that. But her huge lips and bodice filling bosom are simply unnatural. Am I wrong to notice these things in a children's movie? Oh well.
Rotten Tomatoes entry
Ebert's review
Elder's review in the Trib
Kehr's review in the NYT
Posted by cj at 01:59 PM | Comments (0)
February 12, 2006
Capote: A Long Walk Towards Death
First, I believe this entry was better in the wee hours of the morning when it was almost finished and my computer froze, forcing me to shut down and lose my thoughts forever.
I believe the first reviews of Capote were not great, but that once it came out there was great buzz about the movie and Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance. Add an Oscar nom, and it made it to the top of my "really want to see in a theatre" list. So I went last night to see it.
I was truly engaged with the film for about the first half. But it never went beyond the surface of any scene; perhaps in part due to the affectation-filled quirks of the title character. Insights were left to one-liners, most of which I'd already heard in the many trailers for the film. I couldn't remember why the name Capote stuck in my mind, until I read the Wikipedia entry for the man - he produced the infamous Black and White Ball to celebrate Katharine Graham's birthday, which she wrote about in her autobiography, which I read several years ago.
I still want to read In Cold Blood, since I already love the "literary non-fiction" genre that Capote created. But about half way through the film I started seriously questioning what all the buzz was about. And two-thirds through the film I started empathizing with Capote's desire for the killers to be killed - simply because I knew that would end the movie.
I blame a slow paced script and elongated camera shots for my disinterest. When I was originally mulling the film over in my mind, I thought maybe I didn't have the attention span for a slower movie. But no, I fully appreciate movies that engage me with underlying emotions or revealing context. This movie was almost all fluff and slow, torturous shots of walls as the camera languidly moved from speaker to reacting character.
On a larger scale, why are films that rest primarily on one man's shoulders such a critic and Oscar favorite? Last year there was Ray, now there's Capote. I don't think either is as great as people make them out to be. To me, Catherine Keener's portrayal of Harper Lee was the emotional heart of the movie: her character revealed more about Capote and his milieu than the entire two hours of Hoffman's overly restrained, completely unrevealing, though perhaps superficially accurate portrayal of Capote. What is more important in a film: being historically accurate in your portrayal of a real person or engaging the audience? While I'm glad Catherine Keener got a supporting actress nom, I'm disappointed that the film garnered as many Oscar nominations as it did because it simply isn't that good. Then again, 2005 on the whole simply wasn't as engaging as 2004 for film.
More info:
IMDB page
Victoria Alexander's review via Rotten Tomatoes - a spot-on review esp this graph:
My biggest complaint about CAPOTE was how dull it was. Where was the flamboyant Truman or the alcoholic "Tiny Terror" who finally pooped all over his wealthy friends by writing about their off-marital assignations and peccadilloes? Instead we get the subdued Truman who "related" to the killers as "outsiders."
Roger Ebert tells you all the best lines and plot twists of the movie.
Rotten Tomatoes entry
Ross Anthony's Hollywood Report Card entry
Capote Wikipedia page
Posted by cj at 03:36 PM | Comments (0)
January 28, 2006
The Constant Gardener
Part of the reason this was in my Netflix queue is that it turned up on many critic's Top Ten list. Or at least the critics I read. And I was intrigued that Rachel Weisz was up for a Golden Globe. I thought maybe I just have a short attention span today and that was the reason the movie seemed to drag to me. But after reading some reviews, I realize it was the movie, not me, that dragged.
Here's the problem with Highly Opinionated Political Thrillers - if you're a highly opinionated political activist, the movie probably wont ring true. Apparently, if you're a really well respected film critic, you spend so much time focused on movies, you don't know a tired argument when you see it.
I am really sick of Great White Hope for the problems of the oppressed. Rich white men and women are not going to solve all of the problems in the world. They can help - if they donate their money effectively - but they cannot lead the way. So, while I recognized a lot of myself in the Weisz character (expect I'm not a trust fund baby, minor detail), I couldn't get behind most of the story.
The problem with Big Pharma isn't really their drug trials; it's the basic reason for their existence. Treating healthcare as a commodity will lead to expendable people, because pure capitalism does not care about individual lives. The real problem is that society entrusts the pharmaceutical industry with its lives, and like any industry, pharma is only interested in the bottom line.
More importantly, the only reason the film was interesting was because of its non-linear sequence of plot points. Fine, I get that it is intriguing to unravel a mystery. But once it was unraveled, the film dragged on for another half an hour and the only thing I got for investing that time into the movie was the exact words of a mysterious letter. Woohoo.
The experts speak:
"'Gardener' settles for familiar ground," by Ty Burr in the Boston Globe
"Cold Comfort Pharm: Postcolonial detritus and pharmaceutical devilry dominate a mature le Carre adaptation," by Michael Atkinson in the Village Voice
Roger Ebert's review
Rotten Tomatoes Entry
Posted by cj at 11:11 PM | Comments (0)
January 11, 2006
Magdalene Sisters
It is really horrifying to know that Magdalene Laundries continued to operate until 1996, just ten years ago. Young women and girls in Ireland were sent to those prisons for the crime of being female: either because they were raped, had a child out of wedlock, flirted with a guy, or simply looked too pretty. They were known as penitents and had to pray and work for no pay in a laundry six days a week, 52 weeks a year.
From that uplifting history, a film was created to follow the lives of three women forced into a Magdalene Laundry. The actors were compelling, the story was Important and real yet unbelievable, but I'm not sure if it completely succeeded as a film. I suppose the truth is that years of torture really are ended without a particularly spectular escape, and that it really angered me so many women were destroyed by their community's "faith." It was a hard film to watch, since it showed every terrible aspect of the torturous asylum.
I'm not sure what I expected from the movie. I thought more would happen, but given the restrictions of the prison - "penitents" weren't supposed to talk and worked from sun up to sun down - it would be difficult to explore the character's feelings more or have more dialogue than was included. So, it was a good film and definitely worth seeing. It's not one of my favorite films, but I'd give it four out of five stars. My problem wasn't that the internal story of the nuns was given short shrift, but that I longed to know more about the women who were locked up. I did find out a bit more by watching the documentary included on the dvd. The whole package is definitely worth the three hours it takes to watch it. I only wish special features on dvd's came with time information. (The doc is an hour, the movie is two hours.)
I realize now that I liked the film more than I originally thought after reading reviews and realizing that the scenes had a powerful impact on me, even though I felt like I'd experienced them before. That's probably because of the US media coverage of serial rapist priests a few years back; nevertheless I couldn't imagine living in a country where these laundries were accepted and existed. My horror really isn't at the Catholic church - I know that institutional religion brings both joy and pain; rather, it is at the continued second-class status of women throughout the world.
More info:
Rotten Tomatoes entry
Ebert's review
Ty Burr's review from the Boston Globe
Posted by cj at 07:35 AM | Comments (1)
December 27, 2005
Munich: The Most Over-Hyped Movie of the Year
I can't get it. I don't understand David Brooks lambasting the film in a NYT op-ed for having the audacity to present Palestinians as three-dimensional human beings. (I was disgusted by the article; but it made me excited for the film: Palestinians as human beings is always a sign of reality to me.) And every trailer seemed to scream Reviewers Around The World Love This Movie And So Will You. Alas, I couldn't. I left the theater angry, wanting to get into an argument with everyone in the world who enjoyed the film.
Let's get something straight - allowing characters in a film to be human beings with back stories and thoughts about the future is not the same thing as giving an even-handed account of their lives. I'm not saying terrorism is justified. I'm saying that the Jewish murderers acted just as criminally as the Palestinian murderers. The film ends with a few words about how many of the originally sought Palestinians were murdered. It says nothing about the fate of the main protagonist, or that no one was ever convicted for the murders portrayed on film. I get that the film was inspired by real events and is not a documentary. But the world is a seriously fucked up place when this trite swan song for Israel is crucified as being anti-Israel.
I guess my political views overshadow my ability to enjoy the film. Sure, I can agree with the reviewers that there were nail-biting procedural thriller scenes and I'm a sucker for those kind of scenes; I'd never call a procedural movie the stand out #1 movie of the year. Everyone seems to think Spielberg broke new ground by having a single comprehensible scene where a Palestinian articulates a motive for terrorism. But its telling that you can't really understand the Palestinian family featured at the beginning of the movie; and you never see Palestine in this film. All you see is stalwart Holocaust-surviving Jews who, against all stereotypes of my fine ethnicity, have the courage to use big guns and loud explosives to murder their neighbors.
Is no one else outraged? Whether or not this movie is based on reality or fantasy, Israel continues to murder Palestinians with impunity, justifying its actions as being provoked by suicide bombings. There is a really good reason that, at least officially and in full view of US law, the US government cannot assassinate people. You cannot promote law and order, democracy, and civilization by murdering people.
My heart was filled with outrage and sadness when I left the theater. I cannot believe this is a controversial film. I cannot believe people actually think this film gives Palestinians a fair shake. I cannot believe mainstream society cannot grasp that Palestinians are just as human, just as capable of governing themselves and being civilized as any other group of humans - from slaves in colonial America to black South Africans to Indians under British colonial rule - humans everywhere strive for independence and deserve the ability to be treated humanely, and not be collectively punished for the horrible crimes of a few people.
More info:
Ebert's review / plot summary
Rotten Tomatoes entry
Manohla Dargis review in the NYT
David Edelstein's review in Slate (probably the best of the bunch)
Posted by cj at 09:23 PM | Comments (0)
December 25, 2005
March of the Penguins
I saw the film for the first time on DVD, which allowed me to watch the extras right after the film. I'm not sure that was such a good idea. First, it bothers me that extras don't have time indicators - I had no idea the making of doc was practically as long as the movie, nor that National Geographic makes such tasteless drivel (with a bunch of interesting facts pushing you through the drivel and fast, flashy camera work).
What I find most interesting about the reviews for the film is that reviewers thought they were watching the life cycle of the entire Emperor Penguin species. When the movie ended I thought, hey I wanna know more about these creatures - how many of these mating places are there and how are they affected by global warming and how were these shots gotten. Turns out, the documentarians had to wait in camp during the coldest month b/c one got frost-bitten and the other mucked up his leg during a particularly grueling six hour mile walk back to base camp during a seriously bad storm. And there's not exact truth in the film, in a way I think ppl would find disturbing if it was a documentary about people - they didn't follow the mothers all the way back to the ocean, yet played footage of penguins as if they did.
I kept getting infuriated that Morgan Freeman never said the words dies, dead, or death. Instead, penguins mellifluously faded away. During the making of doc, Of Men and Penguins, the truth was revealed - a quarter of the babies die either in the egg or during their first year. And many more fathers die standing around for three months, not eating or drinking, but only protecting their kids from the weather.
Another really interesting thing brought up in the National Geographic doc is that there are plenty of other pods of Emperor Penguins - and some of them only live a few miles offshore. I think those pods have more success with their reproduction...unless a huge iceberg comes along (the largest in the world, the size of Ceylon, broken off of Antarctica due to global warming), and crashes into your bit of the continent, destroying the beautiful sheets of ice and leaving you with a hilly terrain that your simple claws and waddling body cannot navigate. That happened to another pod, and most simply disappeared into the depths of death, but a few were caught on tape (dead or dying in troughs of ice they'd fallen into).
I guess I'm far more fascinated with the big picture of Antarctica and its penguins than I am in the "love story" Morgan Freeman spinned. Maybe, like the BBC reviewer, I'm simply too hard-hearted. I know I would've felt differently about the movie if I'd seen it 8 months ago. Oh well. It's pretty and it made me appreciate the relative warmth of a Chicago winter.
BBC review by Paul Arendt
Rotten Tomatoes entry
Ebert's review
LA Weekly review
IMDB entry
Posted by cj at 07:35 PM | Comments (0)
The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe
I originally planned to see two films at a theater today, to fulfill my duty as a Jew to Go Forth And Pay Money To Watch Movies On Someone Else's Holiday. Alas, I had a pleasant diversion from that mission - a friend was in town for a few hours on her way to NYC, so I met her for dinner instead. Which led me to seeing one film. And I chose the happy one on my list because I figured (a)not too many kids are taken to the movies on Christmas Eve and (b)I didn't want to watch a political Spielberg romp after seein a friend for the first time in over a year. Alas, even without kids the theater wasn't silent. Why the hell don't people understand that When They Whisper Everyone Is Disturbed?!?!? It drove me frickin nuts and no amount of turning and glaring helped. I suppose it only worsened my own experience.
Well, back to the movie adaptation of one of my favorite childhood books. For some reason, I've never been able to retain all the plot points of the books, despite the fact that I read them several times as a child. I do remember that the Narnia bit started way earlier in the book than the movie.
I'm not sure why It Needed To Be Firmly Anchored To Reality by an extended sequence introducing WWII and the kids' mum to the viewer. But, for some reason, chronicles cannot begin without pointless diversions. I also recall the book spending a lot more time explaining all of Narnia's creatures more thoroughly; or perhaps that was just me re-reading passages because I never read Greek or Roman myths before C.S. Lewis, and I was so enchanted by the whole world.
I did enjoy myself. I agree with A.O. Scott of the NYT that the two hours after Lucy's initial encounter with the wardrobe and Mr. Tumnus, a faun, didn't quite live up to the excitement and wonder of the original transition. I think this is best explained by Ty Burr of the Boston Globe:
Anyway, the true deity in this movie is Peter Jackson. "Chronicles of Narnia" is very much "The Lord of the Rings" rebuilt to PG specifications, which services the box office at the expense of C.S. Lewis. It also cheats the youngest readers of an intense little story of moral ideas. A gracefully subtle metaphor about life's Deep Magic has become a war film; what was a one-chapter battle toward the end of the book is now a ripsnorting Armageddon that looks like something Hieronymus Bosch might dream up after a heavy meal.I miss the fantasy of my youth enough to buy the book that's been calling to me since the Spring - a one volume, paperback version of the entire Chronicles. Heck, it's cheaper than the total cost of my movie watching experience (including popcorn, pop, parking, and a $9.50 admission fee).
More info:
Rotten Tomatoes Entry
Ty Burr in the Boston Globe
A.O. Scott in the NYT
Carina Chocano in the LAT
Roger Ebert (of the Chicago Sun Times) (I thought he was more articulate in his t.v. review than in print.)
IMDB page
Posted by cj at 12:10 AM | Comments (0)
December 24, 2005
Something's Gotta Give
Last night, I was convinced it would be months before I could enjoy a romantic comedy. Today, perhaps because I was enamored with movies after waking up to Double Happiness, I stuck around HBO to watch a movie I've avoided since it came out. My sister instilled in me a healthy dose of Jack Nicholson dislike and I've never particularly cared for allowing the cad to be the hero of my movie fantasies. Oh, really, who am I kidding? Cads are usually a helluva lot more interesting than nice guys on film.
So I was pleasantly surprised when I enjoyed the first two thirds of this film. It seemed to strike true notes with pitch perfect dialogue and the right twist. And yet, there was always Keanu Reeves sticking out like a sore thumb. And really, did it have to have a Hollywood ending? About the third to last scene is when people get into a cab. I thought that would've been the perfect place to end it. Nope. Instead it had to be schmaltzy.
Which was another interesting thing. Keaton's family is vaguely Jewish - at least I don't know any non-Jews who throw around Yiddish as easily as they do. But why? Because of the ethnic identity of the screenwriter / director, Nancy Meyers? Perhaps.
I agree with Ebert that Keanu's character was a poorly constructed plot device whose actions are completely unrealistic (except for his initial action of being smitten for a woman whose work he admires)...and I'm struck by A.O. Scott's observation that he and his fellow theater goers laughed hysterically when Keaton cried hysterically. Guess it hit too close to home for me because I thought - "oh, okay, I'm not going crazy by having the same reaction" and "her crying sure doesn't sound real to me." I suppose it's harder to laugh at the truth when you're living it.
More info:
IMDB page
A.O. Scott's review in the NYT
Ebert's review
Rotten Tomatoes page
Posted by cj at 03:00 PM | Comments (0)
Double Happiness
I missed the first two minutes of the film because I was figuring out what to watch while making breakfast. It took me awhile to start cooking because the movie is just fascinating. And since it is in English and Cantonese, it's a little difficult to turn away from the screen.
Perhaps because I missed those first two minutes, I didn't realize it is set in Vancouver. In a pleasant twist of fate, I've been wondering recently what else Sandra Oh has been in besides Sideways, Under the Tuscan Sun, and Grey's Anatomy. Turns out, this is one of her first works, from 1994.
I enjoyed the slice of life look at a Chinese-Canadian family, dealing with the tensions between traditional parents and Westernized children. It reminded me of this chick-lit book I read about a Korean woman and her family, In Full Bloom, by Caroline Hwang. And I kept thinking during the movie that I thought Sandra Oh was Korean, not Chinese. (Turns out she is Korean and there's this little thing called acting which allows an actor to sound believable even when speaking a foreign language.)
There's nothing particularly deep about the film, although it does perceptively portray the difficulty of being an Asian woman trying to succeed as an actress in North America. Its themes are universal - we all try to please our parents and find our own happiness, and sometimes we're able to maintain double happiness, and sometimes we can't.
I enjoyed the movie and hope more people can catch it on HBO soon (or rent it). In case you're wondering, I am trying to fulfill the Jewish stereotype of watching tons of movies during my Christmas break. I'm off work till Tuesday, January 3. Go me.
More info:
IMDB page
Roger Ebert's plot summary
Posted by cj at 02:29 PM | Comments (0)
Brokeback Mountain
At first blush, I wasn't sure the movie lived up to the hype. I'm a little frustrated by all the chatter that surrounds December openings. I particularly feel jilted by knowing too much about movies before I see them. I prefer to allow them to unfold naturally, especially films like Brokeback Mountain. Since it takes place over the course of many years, it's better not to know anything past the first arch.
It has a lyrical, slow pace to it. The primary characters are well drawn, and the secondary characters work well at being part of the film's world, even though they don't get much time to develop. Heath Ledger absolutely melted into his character; it was a brilliant performance.
And since the film has been haunting me since it ended, I must concede that it is worthy of its hype. But I'm definitely not going to attempt to watch any romantic comedies for awhile; I don't have the stomach for over-the-top love stories. This one was quite enough for me for awhile.
More info:
IMDB entry
Greg's Previews says it was filmed in Calgary, Canada. Why do I remember New Mexico being thanked in the credits?
Ebert's Plot Summary Really no need to read it before you see the movie. Although I'm glad he wasn't sure about a plot point towards the end of the film, since it troubled me too. The review also reminded me to put some Ingmar Bergman films on my Netflix queue.
Posted by cj at 03:10 AM | Comments (0)
December 14, 2005
Syriana
When I write about a film, I try to convey my experience in watching it without revealing too much of the plot. It smacks of elementary school book reports to waste time telling you all the characters' names, which actors play them, and how they're related. I also think it detracts from your viewing experience when a critic or trailer reveals any significant plot point past the first five minutes of the film.
So, I always suggest reading reviews after you see a film. Yet, for some reason, I'm still watching Ebert & Roepert on Sunday mornings. I guess I'm just having difficulty giving up the detritus of my past relationship.
In any event, in his written review of Syriana, Ebert tried really hard not to focus on the plot. He still gave away a plot point and introduced a bunch of characters.
I've been trying to sort out my own reaction to the film. I've decided I need to see it again. My viewing experience was simply too altered to give the movie the concentration it deserves. First, I saw it at the Davis Theater in Lincoln Square. They are slow as cold molasses in selling you a ticket and popcorn, so I missed the first few minutes of the movie. Plus, since I came in late, I took the first seat available - on the aisle by the door. Found out that the reason I could see the seat wasn't because I had opened the door but because the Emergency Exit sign would keep me and my seat illuminated throughout the film. And for some reason, my fellow movie-goers decided to walk in and out of the theater endlessly during the film. So I could often hear The Chronicles of Narnia playing next door, which completely distracted me.
I agree with Roger on this:
The more you describe it, the more you miss the point. It is not a linear progression from problem to solution. It is all problem. The audience enjoys the process, not the progress. We're like athletes who get so wrapped up in the game we forget about the score.Except since my viewing experience didn't allow me to fully engage in the process of the movie, I was left grasping for straws. In some ways, I feel like the frame of the movie (which Roger calls "hyperlink movies" and which was described by the NYT several Sundays ago) is over down. It's a cliche even though there aren't that many multiple story movies. Does it really make for a better movie to make the plot so complex it would take multiple viewings to sort it all out? It's true that politics are best left as complicated on screen as they are in real life, but does that make for an enjoyable viewing experience? I think it does when the film isn't too preachy. Preachy movies only appeal to the choir. I think Syriana is an intriguing look at the reality of the world that doesn't try to Push Down Your Throat A Message, which in some ways is what Traffic did. At the same time it is completely devoid of environmental crusaders and there are no important women in its world. Perhaps tree huggers and women don't play a crucial role in the interaction between China, the US, and the Middle East. Perhaps tree huggers and women aren't intimately involved in the world of oil. But I think they are and I wish they were better represented in this film.
Posted by cj at 11:06 AM | Comments (0)
I Heart Huckabees
I wanted to see this quirky film when it came out in theatres. For one reason or another (probably because other films pulled me more), I never saw it. Then, last Friday, I found it on HBO. It is a quirky powerhouse of life's ultimate questions. Some movies don't need a traditional plotline for me to enjoy them. This is one of them. The flurry of debate between existentialism and nihilism is exhilirating; the truths calmly portrayed about corporate America and activists are biting; and ultimately the experience is uplifting.
This truly is a movie you'll either love or hate. Kinda like The Royal Tenenbaums. Ebert hated it. Then again, he liked that crap Me, You, and Everyone We Know. Different quirks for different folks.
Intriguing sites:
Official movie site. (Way too much flash for my taste.)
Huckabees dot com
open spaces dot org
IMDB page
Seriously, both the fake corporate and fake coalition sites are pitch perfect. I only wish they could be expanded by fans of the film, instead of lying static and (dare I say?) dead.
Posted by cj at 09:38 AM | Comments (0)
December 04, 2005
In Good Company
Last night, I stumbled across In Good Company, just as it was starting on HBO. I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed the film. I suppose my original decision not to see the film was based on jealousy - my ex had a crush on ScoJo (Scarlett Johansson).
The movie accurately portrays the tension between mega-merger corporate behemouths and regular businessmen who truly believe in their industries. It also does a good job of juxtaposing the consumption crazy lives of young professionals with the idealism-fueled lives of young college students. I thoroughly believed Dennis Quaid as Dan Foreman, an ad sales director for a national sports magazine. I also recognized the truth about print ad sales told in the movie; something I could relate to since its the biz I currently work in. Topher Grace created a character that was definitely Hollywood-ized: very few young professionals ever stop to wonder whether their work has any meaning or if they are connected to it for any reason other than to buy more crap.
Nevertheless, it was a great film. I can't expect a Hollywood feature to conform to reality; after all, that's not their primary purpose. I encourage you to check it out on cable or dvd.
Randomly, now that network tv is not pulling my strings the way it once did, I'm seriously considering getting my own subscription to Netflix. I'm trying to check the desire, since I'm also trying to save money for an eventual move....still, dvd's are a great source of entertainment (and cheaper than going to a movie theater every week).
Posted by cj at 11:32 AM | Comments (0)
November 20, 2005
A Movie I Could Watch Every Night
Walk the Line is the best movie I've seen this year. So yes, I should admit that I am one of many women over the years who have fallen for Johnny Cash's deep voice and beautiful songs. But I've also always been intrigued to know more about his life - since it was clearly racked with pain and ecstasy. This is a thrilling re-telling, based on two autobiographies and extensive interviews with Johnny Cash and June Carter Cash before they passed.
A lot of hype has been made about the fact that every actor in the film sings his or her own songs. It is well deserved hype. Instead of hearing octave changes that just don't match the speaking voice onscreen, everything melds into one beautiful thread of a story. And Joaquin Phoenix truly lost himself in Mr. Cash. His eyes were haunting and mesmerizing. This is also the kind of love story I love - two people who absolutely must be together, regardless of societal or familial pressures. I would call it Hollywood fantasy, except it really happened. Fearless and brilliant. I'm so glad I saw it before I saw too many clips on teevee. Alas, I was annoyed at the preview for the film that the stupid theater ran before playing the correct previews. I really, really hate when they do that. It happened in "Cinderalla Man" as well, and it pisses me off. I don't need the film makers to push down my throat the idea that This Is An Important Film Based on Real Events. Nevertheless, the film itself remains pure brilliance.
Posted by cj at 10:39 AM | Comments (0)
October 30, 2005
Good Night, and Good Luck
My first foray into seeing A Really Important Movie Likely to Be Part of Awards Mania came this evening. First, when did movie tickets go to $9.50? Sigh. I'm trying to stay away from the theater for many reasons - the obnoxious talkers, the overpriced junk food, and the crazy ticket prices. But there are still other movies I want to see Now - Capote and North Country and maybe one of the lighter movies (In Her Shoes or Shopgirl)....
So there was plenty I knew about Good Night, and Good Luck before seeing it: its shot in black and white, Clooney directed and co-starred, and McCarthy is played by himself via footage from the time. I didn't realize that it was completely about news room politics. For a movie about the creation of a volatile program during a difficult period, it sure as hell was slow. Yes, it was an artistic decision. But seriously, the long fade outs and the steady monologues just weren't that interesting. Someone behind me asked her companion if she had learned anything from the movie and the second woman replied in the negative. Personally, it reminded me of all the problems I already know about between the editorial and business side of media companies. It also reminds folks of the impetus of true journalism to report the truth, not necessarily giving equal time to "both sides" of a situation. As Roger Ebert pointed out, very few journalists heed that call to duty nowadays. I was also reminded of when I first learned about McCarthyism, in AP US History in 11th grade. I remember watching some of the same footage used in the film, along with bits from the Murrow show that exposed McCarthy. I remember thinking that the documentary I watched in high school was more riveting, but maybe because it was my first exposure to the story.
I don't understand why the film is so myopic. Its difficult to understand Murrow's impact without seeing any public reaction shots. How did Joe and Jill America respond to the broadcasts? How many Americans were watching the programs? What else was on at the same time? I thought the film lacked these vital aspects of the story. I was fine with it focusing on the process of creating media, but I have to say that Control Room was far more gripping and made watching the process of relating the news much more interesting. Perhaps it seems like an unfair comparison - a dramatization of the 50s with a doc about the Iraq War. But since Clooney's primary reason for making the movie was to Remind Us What We've Been Giving Up For This War On Terrorism, I think it is a legitimate comparison.
Nevertheless, I look forward to seeing the film again (on video) to determine whether or not I've been unfair in my criticism due to extraneous circumstances.
Posted by cj at 12:48 AM | Comments (1)
October 23, 2005
Good Snarky Copy
The Aardvark inspired me to speak.
Okay, so what the hell is up with artsy films? Slice of life meandering without a real beginning and never a full conclusion seems to be the new formula for ab fab "perfect" films. And of course they're perfect because the masses have no interest.
My most recent foray into this genre was Me and You and Everyone We Know. The vast majority of film critics creamed themselves over this movie. There were definitely aspects of it I enjoyed. And it makes more sense now that I know the writer/director/star is a performance artist and this is her first film.
Let me explain - I understand why this film got an R rating. I do not understand why the writer chose to write the akward, uncomfortable to watch scenes. I had to read a review to understand how those scenes were palatable to anyone. Supposedly, they represent a child's complete lack of knowledge about all things sexual and his innocent foray into instant messaging and meeting your messaging partner. I'm sorry, but it was just too gross and pulled me right out of the movie experience. And what kind of older brother (age 14) allows his 7 year-old younger brother to help him engage in virtual sex?
Yes, the main story line was sweet and interesting. But what the hell was the point of this disturbing secondary story? I am not as easily convinced as Roger Ebert. And I'm sick of the formula. Instead of just creating interesting characters, how bout having a story? Why is the indie formula to simply show part of a life? They remind me of short stories: interesting for as far as they go, but never a complete story. I don't need a linear story, but I do need a complete one.
Catch-22, on the other hand, was a good dramatization of a classic novel. Mike Nichols is one of my favorite directors. Alan Arkin was a perfect Yossarian. I also enjoyed Art Garfunkel, Martin Sheen, Jon Voight, and Orson Welles. Now there's a fabulous completely non-linear, absurd story. It packs a bigger punch as a novel, but it was still great as a film.
Posted by cj at 10:11 PM | Comments (1)
September 18, 2005
The Terrible State of Film
This entry should've been on Friday. So I went to the movies after getting my car fixed (b/c some jerk broke my rear view mirror). And I thought I was going to see one movie, but it turns out I was viewing the wrong AMC listing on my phone. So I ended up at Hustle & Flow.
Now I hadn't planned on spending $9 (plus $2 for parking) to see a movie about a "good" pimp. But forgetting about the movie, I am so frickin sick of going to movie theaters.
I am sick of people opening their cell phones and distracting me with the light. I am appalled that children can run amok in a theater - answering their cell phones, running up and down the aisles, and waving their hands in front of the screen. I didn't get up during the movie to complain b/c that would have ruined the movie entirely for me - I can pretend to ignore people but I cannot get back the time lost complaining to the theater staff while the movie is running.
Plus the film stock was crappy and had weird colors run through it every once in awhile. But the music was catchy. And for a brief moment, even I was hooked, despite my political desire to hate the film.
I complained afterwards, but didn't wait around for a manager - I don't want to go back there and at this point, I do not want to go out to see a movie unless / until silence and a distraction-free experience can be gauranteed.
Posted by cj at