The documentary Gaza Strip is about the conflict in the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip and the ordinary lives of the Palestinians who live there. In particular, we see a lot of Mohammed Hejazi, a young boy who risks getting shot every day to throw rocks at Israeli tanks. This documentary was filmed with no tripods, lights, or external microphones on location over the course of 100 days. As an objective account of its subject, Gaza Strip fails. Historians will be dissatisfied, and those desiring a complete, objective account of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict either in Gaza Strip or at large will raise the expected objections (we see nothing from the Israeli's point of view). But the film does succeed at giving us an idea of everyday life in that cramped, narrow strip of land in the Middle East, and showing how solving our conflicts through violence begets more violence and can probably only at best serve as a temporary means.
Reviews
18 Reviews
March of the Penguins
(2005)
It's about penguins, what do you think I think?
31 July 2005
If March of the Penguins is told in a rather conventional manner for a documentary, I'm willing to forgive it because the story behind it is so compelling. When you have a story this unusual and interesting, you can't be slowed down by things like presentation and layout. You can't make up the things that happen to these emperor penguins. As much as I hate to spread a cliché, truth is stranger than fiction in this case.
The emperor penguin's sole purpose, it may seem, in life is to give birth so that their kind may live for another generation. To do this, they must travel to get to a breeding ground thick enough to support them when the ice melts in spring. Before they reach this safe ground, they will have traveled over seventy miles. Keep in mind that they do not travel this distance by air (as they are a flightless bird) or by sea- but on foot. When they have arrived, the thousands of penguins pair up and begin to mate. Sometimes it seems that something as simple as another penguin's call is enough, but it is most likely their method of selecting a suitable partner is based on a criteria we cannot possibly understand.
Once the penguins have given birth, ownership of the egg is switched from the female to the male. This reversal of gender roles in the natural kingdom is not unique to penguins (if I remember correctly, the male sea horse is the one who actually gives birth), but it is interesting nonetheless. So as the male penguins brave blizzards that can be up to 150 degrees below zero while holding the egg under a flap of skin, the females walk back to the sea to collect food for themselves, and more importantly for their baby. As we are told, the penguins who do not return actually result in two casualties: the mother penguin and that of her newborn chick.
Like the chicks who are eventually forced to swim without ever having seen the sea before, their journey to the breeding ground is an instinctual feeling, an evolutionary process so oft-repeated by their ancestors that it has been drilled into their head. The fact that these penguins are traveling over seventy miles on foot is extraordinary enough, but that they are doing so on an instinct, to a destination they have never known, is simply astounding. Try to put this in human. Many of us cannot even get to the pizza place without Mapquest in tow. How could we possibly navigate miles of Antartica land and find a small area on a feeling? If there's any one problem with the film, it's that Morgan Freeman's narration and even the soundtrack serve to further the film's tendency of emotionalism over logic. There's a scene in particular I'm thinking about, right after the female penguins feed for the first time since the march's start. As the music swells with sinister tones, we are reminded about a predatory sea lion scouring the sea floor in search of (and finds) a penguin to make its next meal. My problem with this scene is that it seems to almost look down on the sea lion. Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly rooting for the emperor penguin's extended survival, but isn't the sea lion just following nature's way as well? No, the idea that hundreds of these noble creatures will not make it back is not a happy one. But as anyone familiar with Darwin's idea of natural selection will tell you, it is for the best. That's the thing about Mother Nature: she can make something as awe-inspiring as this, but she can just as quickly take it away.
And although the film does end with a sense of closure, in reality they will back again next year, and the year after that. I knew that emperor penguins mate every year, but I had always thought that penguins spent most of the year swimming, feasting, and generally acting like the polar bears from the Coca-Cola commercials and set aside one season of the year to mate. In other words, the total opposite. At any rate, this is a fine documentary about one of nature's most intriguing happenings.
The emperor penguin's sole purpose, it may seem, in life is to give birth so that their kind may live for another generation. To do this, they must travel to get to a breeding ground thick enough to support them when the ice melts in spring. Before they reach this safe ground, they will have traveled over seventy miles. Keep in mind that they do not travel this distance by air (as they are a flightless bird) or by sea- but on foot. When they have arrived, the thousands of penguins pair up and begin to mate. Sometimes it seems that something as simple as another penguin's call is enough, but it is most likely their method of selecting a suitable partner is based on a criteria we cannot possibly understand.
Once the penguins have given birth, ownership of the egg is switched from the female to the male. This reversal of gender roles in the natural kingdom is not unique to penguins (if I remember correctly, the male sea horse is the one who actually gives birth), but it is interesting nonetheless. So as the male penguins brave blizzards that can be up to 150 degrees below zero while holding the egg under a flap of skin, the females walk back to the sea to collect food for themselves, and more importantly for their baby. As we are told, the penguins who do not return actually result in two casualties: the mother penguin and that of her newborn chick.
Like the chicks who are eventually forced to swim without ever having seen the sea before, their journey to the breeding ground is an instinctual feeling, an evolutionary process so oft-repeated by their ancestors that it has been drilled into their head. The fact that these penguins are traveling over seventy miles on foot is extraordinary enough, but that they are doing so on an instinct, to a destination they have never known, is simply astounding. Try to put this in human. Many of us cannot even get to the pizza place without Mapquest in tow. How could we possibly navigate miles of Antartica land and find a small area on a feeling? If there's any one problem with the film, it's that Morgan Freeman's narration and even the soundtrack serve to further the film's tendency of emotionalism over logic. There's a scene in particular I'm thinking about, right after the female penguins feed for the first time since the march's start. As the music swells with sinister tones, we are reminded about a predatory sea lion scouring the sea floor in search of (and finds) a penguin to make its next meal. My problem with this scene is that it seems to almost look down on the sea lion. Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly rooting for the emperor penguin's extended survival, but isn't the sea lion just following nature's way as well? No, the idea that hundreds of these noble creatures will not make it back is not a happy one. But as anyone familiar with Darwin's idea of natural selection will tell you, it is for the best. That's the thing about Mother Nature: she can make something as awe-inspiring as this, but she can just as quickly take it away.
And although the film does end with a sense of closure, in reality they will back again next year, and the year after that. I knew that emperor penguins mate every year, but I had always thought that penguins spent most of the year swimming, feasting, and generally acting like the polar bears from the Coca-Cola commercials and set aside one season of the year to mate. In other words, the total opposite. At any rate, this is a fine documentary about one of nature's most intriguing happenings.
A Very Long Engagement
(2004)
Amelie goes to war...
23 July 2005
Anyone who is expecting the pastel colored, child-like magnificence of Amelie will be taken aback by the starkness of Jeunet's follow-up, A Very Long Engagement. The World War I scenes are fittingly muddy, grim, and bloody. Even the moments back at home with Mathilde (Audrey Tatou) have the texture of almost a burnt sienna photograph. And just like the style, this is a more somber effort than Amelie.
In World War I, the French and Germans dug into each other from trenches as politicians slowly debated the war from their homes. Meanwhile these men were exposed to numerous seasons of cold, hunger, pain, illness, and death. It is to Jeunet's credit that he depicts all this so convincingly. I may not realize the full effect of shell-shock the war had on these men, but Jeunet still paints a picture with little observant details like rats in a bunker or soldiers' hands being shot off.
In this time, some men cynical of any change at getting home put a rifle in their mouth. Other more optimistic ones wound themselves to get sent home. If a soldier is suspected of self-mutilation however, they are condemned to death. Manech (Gaspard Ulliel) is such a man, and when the military court suspects he allowed himself to be shot in the hand, they send him to No Man's Land. Some eyewitnesses escape with their life, and feel it is their duty to inform Mathilde that her man is surely dead. Her surrogate parents softly nudge her to find another man and settle down.
Yet Mathilde has a strong sense in her heart that her love Manech (Gaspard Ulliel) is not yet dead. She has no way of proving this, only a feeling in her guts. Nevertheless it is enough to send her on a search for anyone who may have any information on Manech's condition. When she finds a letter that implies all five men may not have died and eyewitnesses who did not technically see him die, her heart lightens and she enlists the help of an old detective (Ticky Holgado) to find him.
A Very Long Engagement is not so much about whether or not a woman with polio will find her lost love as it is how it gets there. And I'm happy to report that the closing moments do not ring false and are done gracefully.
P.S.: Jodie Foster has a cameo, and I guess she can apparently speak fluent French. Her appearance belongs in the same category as George Clooney in The Thin Red Line under "Okay, but why?"
In World War I, the French and Germans dug into each other from trenches as politicians slowly debated the war from their homes. Meanwhile these men were exposed to numerous seasons of cold, hunger, pain, illness, and death. It is to Jeunet's credit that he depicts all this so convincingly. I may not realize the full effect of shell-shock the war had on these men, but Jeunet still paints a picture with little observant details like rats in a bunker or soldiers' hands being shot off.
In this time, some men cynical of any change at getting home put a rifle in their mouth. Other more optimistic ones wound themselves to get sent home. If a soldier is suspected of self-mutilation however, they are condemned to death. Manech (Gaspard Ulliel) is such a man, and when the military court suspects he allowed himself to be shot in the hand, they send him to No Man's Land. Some eyewitnesses escape with their life, and feel it is their duty to inform Mathilde that her man is surely dead. Her surrogate parents softly nudge her to find another man and settle down.
Yet Mathilde has a strong sense in her heart that her love Manech (Gaspard Ulliel) is not yet dead. She has no way of proving this, only a feeling in her guts. Nevertheless it is enough to send her on a search for anyone who may have any information on Manech's condition. When she finds a letter that implies all five men may not have died and eyewitnesses who did not technically see him die, her heart lightens and she enlists the help of an old detective (Ticky Holgado) to find him.
A Very Long Engagement is not so much about whether or not a woman with polio will find her lost love as it is how it gets there. And I'm happy to report that the closing moments do not ring false and are done gracefully.
P.S.: Jodie Foster has a cameo, and I guess she can apparently speak fluent French. Her appearance belongs in the same category as George Clooney in The Thin Red Line under "Okay, but why?"
Heat
(1995)
Excellent
27 June 2005
Los Angeles at night is a strange sight. From a distance it looks almost ethereal, but at the same time it's all just streetlights and buildings. This city is the landscape of Heat, Michael Mann's well-crafted 1995 film about cops and robbers. The fact that Al Pacino and Robert De Niro are both included in the cast has been much-ballyhooed, and for good reason. This isn't the first time they've both appeared in the same movie (that distinction goes to The Godfather Part II), it is the first time they've acted together on screen. Even if just for Pacino and De Niro's inclusion, Heat would still probably be worth seeing once. But Michael Mann has made a film here that is both tight and truly tense.
One of the more interesting aspects of Heat is how it seems to suggest that cops and robbers need each other more than they may let on. The restaurant scene works so well because you get the sense that other than their job descriptions, cop Vincent Hannah (Pacino) and criminal McCauley (De Niro) have a lot in common. They're both middle-aged, completely devoted to their work, and as both concede, don't know how to do anything else than what they do. Now is it unorthodox for a cop to offer to buy a criminal a cup of coffee? Maybe, but it works. Over time, something of an uneasy attachment grows between the two. I'll admit that it feels a little forced at the ending, but otherwise I thought it was really well done.
The other topic that Michael Mann explores at length is the women in their lives. Vincent's wife (Diane Verona) is concerned about his obsession with his job. Vincent doesn't really live with her, in her mind, but "among the remains of the dead". And their daughter (played by Natalie Portman before she became a star) is troubled by her other father's failure to show up. McCauley on the other hand falls in love with a woman who he initially is aloof to (Amy Brenneman). Actually, falling in love probably isn't the right phrase, as he too is committed to his work above her. Thrown into the mix are McCauley's accomplice (played by Val Kilmer) and his wife (Ashley Judd, also before she became famous). These relationships could easily be clichéd, but Michael Mann manages to make it something more insightful.
Some of the technical aspects are worth mentioning as well. The glossy cinematography in particular complements the slick narrative, even if Mann's own Collateral looks static in comparison. The heist scenes are also well edited. Instead of lingering on the carnage like someone like John Woo might, it's chaotic like an actual heist would probably feel. The film does admittedly lose some momentum after the bank heist.
All in all, Michael Mann's Heat is more intelligent than many films of the same genre aspire to. Come for Pacino and De Niro, stay for the film.
One of the more interesting aspects of Heat is how it seems to suggest that cops and robbers need each other more than they may let on. The restaurant scene works so well because you get the sense that other than their job descriptions, cop Vincent Hannah (Pacino) and criminal McCauley (De Niro) have a lot in common. They're both middle-aged, completely devoted to their work, and as both concede, don't know how to do anything else than what they do. Now is it unorthodox for a cop to offer to buy a criminal a cup of coffee? Maybe, but it works. Over time, something of an uneasy attachment grows between the two. I'll admit that it feels a little forced at the ending, but otherwise I thought it was really well done.
The other topic that Michael Mann explores at length is the women in their lives. Vincent's wife (Diane Verona) is concerned about his obsession with his job. Vincent doesn't really live with her, in her mind, but "among the remains of the dead". And their daughter (played by Natalie Portman before she became a star) is troubled by her other father's failure to show up. McCauley on the other hand falls in love with a woman who he initially is aloof to (Amy Brenneman). Actually, falling in love probably isn't the right phrase, as he too is committed to his work above her. Thrown into the mix are McCauley's accomplice (played by Val Kilmer) and his wife (Ashley Judd, also before she became famous). These relationships could easily be clichéd, but Michael Mann manages to make it something more insightful.
Some of the technical aspects are worth mentioning as well. The glossy cinematography in particular complements the slick narrative, even if Mann's own Collateral looks static in comparison. The heist scenes are also well edited. Instead of lingering on the carnage like someone like John Woo might, it's chaotic like an actual heist would probably feel. The film does admittedly lose some momentum after the bank heist.
All in all, Michael Mann's Heat is more intelligent than many films of the same genre aspire to. Come for Pacino and De Niro, stay for the film.
Batman Begins
(2005)
This could be the beginning of a great relationship...
22 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Warning: There are no major spoilers and is on par with an average review, but I recognize this film has been hotly anticipated by many and some may want a completely pure experience. They are recommended to read this review after seeing the film.
Batman Begins is an enjoyable enough piece of smart popcorn, and it succeeds in making Batman dark, someone who, even compared to the clean-cut Superman, has somehow been considered by many "silly" instead of "troubled" or "three-dimensional". This is probably because of the '60s show starring Adam West (I've noticed hipsters love referencing this show, probably because they think they're being ironic). Joel Schumacher's last two lousy Batman films didn't help either. Thankfully director Christopher Nolan decides to play it straight with Batman Begins. And you know what? I think it's the best thing to happen to the character since Tim Burton was around.
The film basically explains how Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) came to be Batman, something that was supposedly sort of glossed over in the comics. Having not read them since I was about five years old, I can't say if this is true or not. But I do know that the guy who kills his parents has changed from the original Batman film and is now just a petty criminal. It was actually kind of interesting how Nolan suggests the rampant crime in Gotham City is related to its poverty. Still, it's irritating it took more than an hour to explain that Bruce Wayne is concerned about crime because his parents were killed. Well, yeah.
The film picks up with Bruce Wayne/Batman in an Asian prison when he is retrieved by Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson). Ducard's intentions are to mold Wayne into a member of the ragtag radical organization The League of Shadows through training. Now, normally, the neat getting to know-my-powers sequences are my favorite parts of any superhero movie, but not so here. The training sequences are mainly the two fighting with swords while Ducard floats between sounding like a Sith lord or ripping off the Matrix. Also, I have a few choice words for whoever edited the fight scenes. Like, "What was the point in doing that?" The headache-inducing fight scenes are cut so each shot is maybe a second long. So it's difficult to just to figure out what's going on. Anyways, the leader Ra's Al Ghul (a sadly underused Ken Watanabe) is impressed and Bruce Wayne is told if he kills a murderer in front of him he will be accepted. He takes the highway, which is just as well because The League of Shadows were going to destroy Gotham City anyways. Apparently, they also burned London and started the Plague, which is kind of silly but I'm starting to nitpick.
This is where the second and my favorite part of the film comes into play. Except for a rushed romance with Wayne's childhood friend, played by Katie Holmes, there's a lot to like. The unusually classy cast also is used more in the second part. Gotham crime lord Carmine Falcone is played by Tom Wilkinson, Morgan Freeman is Bruce Wayne's weapons inventor Lucius Fox, an also underused Rutger Hauer plays a soul-sucking executive at Wayne Corporations, and Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) is one of the good cops on hand. And it introduces the second villain Scarecrow, played frighteningly (and oh so dreamy) by Cilian Murphy.
Aside from getting the general idea right, there are a number of nice touches on Christopher Nolan's part. For one, the Batmobile. While the Batmobiles in the past have been sleek black convertibles, this one looks like a mix between a Humvee and a tank, with big tires. The Batcave isn't some high-tech lab, it's really just a cave. And when the Scarecrow starts to hallucinate, Batman appears to him as a gargoyle with worms dribbling from his mouth. It all ties in to the ending, which neatly hints at possibilities to a Batman Begins franchise. From what Christopher Nolan displays here, I have no objections.
Batman Begins is an enjoyable enough piece of smart popcorn, and it succeeds in making Batman dark, someone who, even compared to the clean-cut Superman, has somehow been considered by many "silly" instead of "troubled" or "three-dimensional". This is probably because of the '60s show starring Adam West (I've noticed hipsters love referencing this show, probably because they think they're being ironic). Joel Schumacher's last two lousy Batman films didn't help either. Thankfully director Christopher Nolan decides to play it straight with Batman Begins. And you know what? I think it's the best thing to happen to the character since Tim Burton was around.
The film basically explains how Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) came to be Batman, something that was supposedly sort of glossed over in the comics. Having not read them since I was about five years old, I can't say if this is true or not. But I do know that the guy who kills his parents has changed from the original Batman film and is now just a petty criminal. It was actually kind of interesting how Nolan suggests the rampant crime in Gotham City is related to its poverty. Still, it's irritating it took more than an hour to explain that Bruce Wayne is concerned about crime because his parents were killed. Well, yeah.
The film picks up with Bruce Wayne/Batman in an Asian prison when he is retrieved by Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson). Ducard's intentions are to mold Wayne into a member of the ragtag radical organization The League of Shadows through training. Now, normally, the neat getting to know-my-powers sequences are my favorite parts of any superhero movie, but not so here. The training sequences are mainly the two fighting with swords while Ducard floats between sounding like a Sith lord or ripping off the Matrix. Also, I have a few choice words for whoever edited the fight scenes. Like, "What was the point in doing that?" The headache-inducing fight scenes are cut so each shot is maybe a second long. So it's difficult to just to figure out what's going on. Anyways, the leader Ra's Al Ghul (a sadly underused Ken Watanabe) is impressed and Bruce Wayne is told if he kills a murderer in front of him he will be accepted. He takes the highway, which is just as well because The League of Shadows were going to destroy Gotham City anyways. Apparently, they also burned London and started the Plague, which is kind of silly but I'm starting to nitpick.
This is where the second and my favorite part of the film comes into play. Except for a rushed romance with Wayne's childhood friend, played by Katie Holmes, there's a lot to like. The unusually classy cast also is used more in the second part. Gotham crime lord Carmine Falcone is played by Tom Wilkinson, Morgan Freeman is Bruce Wayne's weapons inventor Lucius Fox, an also underused Rutger Hauer plays a soul-sucking executive at Wayne Corporations, and Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) is one of the good cops on hand. And it introduces the second villain Scarecrow, played frighteningly (and oh so dreamy) by Cilian Murphy.
Aside from getting the general idea right, there are a number of nice touches on Christopher Nolan's part. For one, the Batmobile. While the Batmobiles in the past have been sleek black convertibles, this one looks like a mix between a Humvee and a tank, with big tires. The Batcave isn't some high-tech lab, it's really just a cave. And when the Scarecrow starts to hallucinate, Batman appears to him as a gargoyle with worms dribbling from his mouth. It all ties in to the ending, which neatly hints at possibilities to a Batman Begins franchise. From what Christopher Nolan displays here, I have no objections.
Primer
(2004)
Boy, do I have mixed feelings about this one...
22 June 2005
Primer is that kind of film that will inspire debates on message boards to explore its "deeper meaning" and people will encourage multiple viewings to "get it". And I don't say that to mock them; I'm just not sure if I could muster the enthusiasm to watch it again. As enjoyable enough as everything leading up to the end is, the ending seriously didn't work for me. Donnie Darko and Twelve Monkeys both explored similar territory, had endings open to many interpretations, and in my opinion, paid off much more than this film does. Now there is of course the possibility I will see it again, and it will make more sense to me and I will deeply enjoy it. But the more I reflect on it, the more I wonder if maybe director/actor/writer/editor Shane Carruth intended to be incoherent and it would be mistaken as being profound.
All of this is especially regrettable because Primer seems tailor-made for me. It's an independent science-fiction film (some might bristle at the phrase "science-fiction", but it is mainly about time travel, so I'm sticking to it) that seems similar to Pi. I'm also usually a big fan of just about any kind of film that encourages debate. But for whatever reason, this one never really clicked with me.
But if (and this is a big if) you can somehow ignore all this, Primer is not a bad movie. The fact that it was made on a budget of $7000 actually helps the film in my opinion. Since that money doesn't allow for big special effects, Carruth has to think of ways to keep the film interesting without them. And the two actors are pretty good, although 78 minutes is not nearly enough time for me to have become attached by their characters. I'll admit that even before the ending I was lost at times. But there it seemed more a thing of suspense (Why is his ear bleeding?) than plain incoherency. The story is about two guys (Carruth and David Sullivan) who somehow create a makeshift time machine from discoveries about something that secretes more pollen than time should be allowed to secrete. They fool around with time and use the stock market to gain money with the knowledge they already have. The only think they can't do is meet their "doubles", or them at that time on that previous day.
There's even some humor, like when one of the guys notes how weird it must be for the manager of the storage spaces where the "time machine" is hiding to see two guys come and never come out. The other replies it's just as weird that the two always get a hotel room for six hours (Watch the film.) But even this isn't enough to totally cancel out the sour taste the ending it left in my mouth. For me at least. Maybe it will for others, but I'll stick to Donnie Darko.
All of this is especially regrettable because Primer seems tailor-made for me. It's an independent science-fiction film (some might bristle at the phrase "science-fiction", but it is mainly about time travel, so I'm sticking to it) that seems similar to Pi. I'm also usually a big fan of just about any kind of film that encourages debate. But for whatever reason, this one never really clicked with me.
But if (and this is a big if) you can somehow ignore all this, Primer is not a bad movie. The fact that it was made on a budget of $7000 actually helps the film in my opinion. Since that money doesn't allow for big special effects, Carruth has to think of ways to keep the film interesting without them. And the two actors are pretty good, although 78 minutes is not nearly enough time for me to have become attached by their characters. I'll admit that even before the ending I was lost at times. But there it seemed more a thing of suspense (Why is his ear bleeding?) than plain incoherency. The story is about two guys (Carruth and David Sullivan) who somehow create a makeshift time machine from discoveries about something that secretes more pollen than time should be allowed to secrete. They fool around with time and use the stock market to gain money with the knowledge they already have. The only think they can't do is meet their "doubles", or them at that time on that previous day.
There's even some humor, like when one of the guys notes how weird it must be for the manager of the storage spaces where the "time machine" is hiding to see two guys come and never come out. The other replies it's just as weird that the two always get a hotel room for six hours (Watch the film.) But even this isn't enough to totally cancel out the sour taste the ending it left in my mouth. For me at least. Maybe it will for others, but I'll stick to Donnie Darko.
House of Sand and Fog
(2003)
Yes, it's about a conflict over a house. No, the house is not possessed.
20 May 2005
There's a sadness to House of Sand and Fog made doubly so by characters that are neither good nor evil. They can do hateful things just as easily as they can noble, and in that aspect they are all human. House of Sand and Fog is a magnificent effort, I thought. It works as a reminder that there is good and bad in all of us, and breaks your heart in the process.
Behrani (Sir Ben Kingsley) has just bought a house on auction for him and his family (wife Nadi played by Shohreh Aghdashloo and son Ismail played by Jonathan Ahdout). It is his intent to live there for a few months until he can sell it for a higher price and find a better home for his family. The only problem is that the house was taken from its previous owner Kathy (Jennifer Connelly) due to a bureaucratic error. Behrani refuses to give up the house and suspects Kathy of trying to cheat him out of what he sees as rightfully his. Kathy, on the other hand, is left to wander, even resorting to sleeping in her car and getting dressed in (euggh) public restrooms. Both desperately need the house at the expense of the other's grievances.
If anyone is to blame for what is to happen, it is Officer Lester Burdon (Ron Eldard). He is assigned to the task of helping Kathy move out of the house. He is affected by her story and acts a shoulder to cry on. The two soon become romantically involved. Unfortunately, Lester has a very poor sense of justice, which leads to him visiting Behrani and bullies him with threats with deportation. This visit helps to ignite an already unsteady dispute between Kathy and Behrani.
What happens next is something so unexpected, moving, and most surprising of all, fitting, it reminds me of the simple power that film can have. The climax has been complained as a misstep about in an otherwise generally critically praised film. And yes, while I agree what happens is senseless, I think that that was the point the director was trying to get across. You have to realize that for Behrani and his family, this house really IS all they have. Their financial woes are so troubling that Behrani changes into a suit on his way home from his job as a construction worker just so his son doesn't realize how thin the ice his family is on is.
And then the performances wow. The very pretty Jennifer Connelly probably isn't accustomed to playing this "broken spirit" kind of role, but she's quite good. It makes you wonder why she doesn't get as much work as some other less dynamic Hollywood actresses. Secondly, who is Shohreh Aghdashloo and why have I not heard of her? She's fantastic and layered and motherly and holds her own against Ben Kingsley. Speaking of Mr. Kingsley, he's mesmerizing, bringing nobility to his character. Of course, this doesn't justify some of his actions, but one gets the sense he really would do anything for his family.
So I wholeheartedly recommend House of Sand and Fog with the disclaimer that it is a very sad film. Still, it's better than 90% of say, romantic comedies out right now. It's certainly not a fun experience, but I would say it's a worthwhile one.
Behrani (Sir Ben Kingsley) has just bought a house on auction for him and his family (wife Nadi played by Shohreh Aghdashloo and son Ismail played by Jonathan Ahdout). It is his intent to live there for a few months until he can sell it for a higher price and find a better home for his family. The only problem is that the house was taken from its previous owner Kathy (Jennifer Connelly) due to a bureaucratic error. Behrani refuses to give up the house and suspects Kathy of trying to cheat him out of what he sees as rightfully his. Kathy, on the other hand, is left to wander, even resorting to sleeping in her car and getting dressed in (euggh) public restrooms. Both desperately need the house at the expense of the other's grievances.
If anyone is to blame for what is to happen, it is Officer Lester Burdon (Ron Eldard). He is assigned to the task of helping Kathy move out of the house. He is affected by her story and acts a shoulder to cry on. The two soon become romantically involved. Unfortunately, Lester has a very poor sense of justice, which leads to him visiting Behrani and bullies him with threats with deportation. This visit helps to ignite an already unsteady dispute between Kathy and Behrani.
What happens next is something so unexpected, moving, and most surprising of all, fitting, it reminds me of the simple power that film can have. The climax has been complained as a misstep about in an otherwise generally critically praised film. And yes, while I agree what happens is senseless, I think that that was the point the director was trying to get across. You have to realize that for Behrani and his family, this house really IS all they have. Their financial woes are so troubling that Behrani changes into a suit on his way home from his job as a construction worker just so his son doesn't realize how thin the ice his family is on is.
And then the performances wow. The very pretty Jennifer Connelly probably isn't accustomed to playing this "broken spirit" kind of role, but she's quite good. It makes you wonder why she doesn't get as much work as some other less dynamic Hollywood actresses. Secondly, who is Shohreh Aghdashloo and why have I not heard of her? She's fantastic and layered and motherly and holds her own against Ben Kingsley. Speaking of Mr. Kingsley, he's mesmerizing, bringing nobility to his character. Of course, this doesn't justify some of his actions, but one gets the sense he really would do anything for his family.
So I wholeheartedly recommend House of Sand and Fog with the disclaimer that it is a very sad film. Still, it's better than 90% of say, romantic comedies out right now. It's certainly not a fun experience, but I would say it's a worthwhile one.
The Cat's Meow
(2001)
Peter Bogdanovich is back, folks
15 May 2005
I have to say, I thought the Cat's Meow was the cat's pajamas. Peter Bogdanovich has made a story out of an event whose outcome is still unexplained. What's more, it feels like it actually could've happened. The interactions between the characters leading up to the act are given much more screen time than the actual act itself. So when it happens, it doesn't seem preposterous at all.
The story concerns newspaper honcho William Randolph Hearst (Edward Herrmann) and company celebrating the birthday of Hollywood producer Thomas Ince (Cary Elwes) on Hearst's yacht. That company includes Hearst's lover/actress Marion Davies (Kirsten Dunst), Charlie Chaplin (Eddie Izzard), author Elinor Glyn (Joanna Lumley), gossip columnist for Hearst's newspaper Louella Parsons (Jennifer Tilley), and Tom's lover. Tom hopes to negotiate a contract with W.R. Hearst for Marion to star in his next few films, but Hearst is more concerned about the attraction between Marion and Chaplin. Elinor is nearby to dispense advice, while Louella unsuccessfully attempts to mingle. There's also a pair of party girls on board attempting to have a raucous time as possible.
The Cat's Meow has an eclectic ensemble with a Robert Altman-esquire taste to it. Edward Herrmann's role may be the most challenging, because he has to juggle eccentric, warmth, and jealousy as W.R. Hearst. Joanna Lumley is wonderfully dry. And for those like me who only remember Eddie Izzard for his droll stand-up work, he's surprising in this film. He's quite good as Charlie Chaplin. Kirsten Dunst is the biggest name on the cast. She's very fetching in the Cat's Meow, and this represents a change of pace from her dearth of Hollywood-oriented films.
As good as the cast is, this is really just as much Peter Bogdanovich's film. After the excellent Last Picture Show, he sort of faded away and made smaller films (The Thing Called Love, for example). Although The Cat's Meow will not make him a household name, hopefully maybe his work will garner more attention again. His direction is very good here.
Oh, I should also mention the costume design and music here. The production values in general are excellent in imitating the feel of that era. I was reminded a little of Woody Allen's Bullets Over Broadway (and not just the Jennifer Tilly connection). Anyways, The Cat's Meow is a good movie with interesting characters and thoughtful direction.
The story concerns newspaper honcho William Randolph Hearst (Edward Herrmann) and company celebrating the birthday of Hollywood producer Thomas Ince (Cary Elwes) on Hearst's yacht. That company includes Hearst's lover/actress Marion Davies (Kirsten Dunst), Charlie Chaplin (Eddie Izzard), author Elinor Glyn (Joanna Lumley), gossip columnist for Hearst's newspaper Louella Parsons (Jennifer Tilley), and Tom's lover. Tom hopes to negotiate a contract with W.R. Hearst for Marion to star in his next few films, but Hearst is more concerned about the attraction between Marion and Chaplin. Elinor is nearby to dispense advice, while Louella unsuccessfully attempts to mingle. There's also a pair of party girls on board attempting to have a raucous time as possible.
The Cat's Meow has an eclectic ensemble with a Robert Altman-esquire taste to it. Edward Herrmann's role may be the most challenging, because he has to juggle eccentric, warmth, and jealousy as W.R. Hearst. Joanna Lumley is wonderfully dry. And for those like me who only remember Eddie Izzard for his droll stand-up work, he's surprising in this film. He's quite good as Charlie Chaplin. Kirsten Dunst is the biggest name on the cast. She's very fetching in the Cat's Meow, and this represents a change of pace from her dearth of Hollywood-oriented films.
As good as the cast is, this is really just as much Peter Bogdanovich's film. After the excellent Last Picture Show, he sort of faded away and made smaller films (The Thing Called Love, for example). Although The Cat's Meow will not make him a household name, hopefully maybe his work will garner more attention again. His direction is very good here.
Oh, I should also mention the costume design and music here. The production values in general are excellent in imitating the feel of that era. I was reminded a little of Woody Allen's Bullets Over Broadway (and not just the Jennifer Tilly connection). Anyways, The Cat's Meow is a good movie with interesting characters and thoughtful direction.
The Merchant of Venice
(2004)
Non male, as the Italians say.
15 May 2005
The Merchant of Venice would be just a competent period piece were it not for Al Pacino's performance. His character Shylock is by far the most interesting character, even though his character is no doubt intended as an antagonist. I can't endorse the actions he eventually takes, but is his initial desire for revenge so wrong? He is spit on by Christians because just being a Jew is supposedly sinful, the same Christians who routinely visit whorehouses. The money he has loaned has not been returned as was promised and to add insult to injury, his daughter runs off with a Christian and his fortune.
There's a great courtroom scene in which Shylock attempts to collect a pound of flesh from the man in debt, Antonio (Jeremy Irons) by falling back on technicalities of the court. His "Hath not a Jew eyes?" speech is fantastic, although paradoxical with the anti-Semitism apparent in Shakespeare's play. Then Shylock meets his bitter downfall by having other technicalities thrown back at him. In contrast with this scene, the last 20 minutes following a subplot about rings is farcical.
The look of the Merchant of Venice is well-done. Both the costume and set design are just about faultless. How the film has been put onto celluloid I would think would be pretty close to what the Bard had probably imagined it. Of course, not even the best production values can save a film entirely. And the Merchant of Venice has its share of slips.
The story following Bassanio (Jeremy Irons) wooing Portia (Lynn Collins, who resembles Cate Blanchett) is often unexciting. The biggest problem is the erratic tone of the film. The drama of the characters Antonio and Shylock is undercut by dips into screwball comedy. Sometimes the comic relief works. Other times, like when the courtroom scene's drama is punctured by the presence of a cross-dressing Portia (yes, you read that correctly), it feels ridiculous. In addition, the character Bassanio is uninteresting. Guessing if Antonio has romantic feelings towards him is of some interest, but Shylock is the only character I'm going to remember a week from now.
Even if the background story wasn't that interesting, I still think it may be worth a look for Al Pacino's excellent turn. He brings depth and pathos to a story that doesn't possess much of it. The film's intelligent and is the first adaptation of the play that isn't a silent film. But those looking for a little more meat to their films might want to look elsewhere.
There's a great courtroom scene in which Shylock attempts to collect a pound of flesh from the man in debt, Antonio (Jeremy Irons) by falling back on technicalities of the court. His "Hath not a Jew eyes?" speech is fantastic, although paradoxical with the anti-Semitism apparent in Shakespeare's play. Then Shylock meets his bitter downfall by having other technicalities thrown back at him. In contrast with this scene, the last 20 minutes following a subplot about rings is farcical.
The look of the Merchant of Venice is well-done. Both the costume and set design are just about faultless. How the film has been put onto celluloid I would think would be pretty close to what the Bard had probably imagined it. Of course, not even the best production values can save a film entirely. And the Merchant of Venice has its share of slips.
The story following Bassanio (Jeremy Irons) wooing Portia (Lynn Collins, who resembles Cate Blanchett) is often unexciting. The biggest problem is the erratic tone of the film. The drama of the characters Antonio and Shylock is undercut by dips into screwball comedy. Sometimes the comic relief works. Other times, like when the courtroom scene's drama is punctured by the presence of a cross-dressing Portia (yes, you read that correctly), it feels ridiculous. In addition, the character Bassanio is uninteresting. Guessing if Antonio has romantic feelings towards him is of some interest, but Shylock is the only character I'm going to remember a week from now.
Even if the background story wasn't that interesting, I still think it may be worth a look for Al Pacino's excellent turn. He brings depth and pathos to a story that doesn't possess much of it. The film's intelligent and is the first adaptation of the play that isn't a silent film. But those looking for a little more meat to their films might want to look elsewhere.
Kung Fu Hustle
(2004)
Plenty of kung-fu, but it's no hustle: Just a very good film
24 April 2005
Perhaps the best thing about Kung Fu Hustle is how self-aware it is. The Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions may have had some very cool chop-socky fights, but the directors took it all so seriously it took a lot of the fun out of it for me. Kung Fu Hustle realizes how inherently silly it is and doesn't try to hide it. It revels in it.
In the film's hierarchy of gangs, the Axe Gang reign supreme. In the film's opening the leader beats a man to death and shoots a woman in the back with a shotgun. This is followed by axe dancing. The only people spared their choreographed doom are those who live in deep poverty. So Sing (Stephen Chow) and his partner decide to masquerade as Axe Gang members and extort some money from such a place. They are surprised to find out that three kung fu gurus live amongst the district's tenants.
It's a good rule of thumb that if you're going to spend a bunch of money on CGI that you might as well have fun with it. Kung Fu Hustle takes this to heart. One guy uses steel rings on his hand along with two other guys to beat up a legion of Axe Gang members. In another scene, Sing is chased by the landlady (Qui Yuen) with those little speed blurs that always followed the Roadrunner. And most memorably, the landlady catches her husband (Wah Yuen) with lipstick on his cheek and throws him out of a building. He falls down hitting a number of things on the way and when he hits ground a flowerpot falls on his head.
I'm going to take this minute to praise Stephen Chow because he stars in the film he directed yet avoids the pitfall of self-indulgence. Instead of making his character unbelievably witty and with an unattainable love interest (something Woody Allen can't seem to stop doing), he plays a pathetic and intensely despicable character up until about the last fifteen minutes. Actually, scratch that. He does have a love interest but she has so little screen time she's barely worth mentioning.
The oddest character though has to be the Beast (Siu Lung Leung). About halfway in the movie Sing is accepted as a member of the Axe Gang. The Axe Gang leader needs someone to get the Beast and Sing is the only person desperate enough to do it. You see, the Beast was so obsessed with kung fu he went crazy. And it's up to Sing to free him. I'm not going spoil the moment, but let's just say that he's hardly the image of terror and bloodlust Sing expected.
Kung Fu Hustle has such an infectious tone that it helps to cancel out some of its flaws. For example, just about everyone's personality changes immensely in the final few moments. And I'm even willing to forget the handful of gross-out humor moments. Because Kung Fu Hustle is a joyful film, and it's rare I ever see that these days.
In the film's hierarchy of gangs, the Axe Gang reign supreme. In the film's opening the leader beats a man to death and shoots a woman in the back with a shotgun. This is followed by axe dancing. The only people spared their choreographed doom are those who live in deep poverty. So Sing (Stephen Chow) and his partner decide to masquerade as Axe Gang members and extort some money from such a place. They are surprised to find out that three kung fu gurus live amongst the district's tenants.
It's a good rule of thumb that if you're going to spend a bunch of money on CGI that you might as well have fun with it. Kung Fu Hustle takes this to heart. One guy uses steel rings on his hand along with two other guys to beat up a legion of Axe Gang members. In another scene, Sing is chased by the landlady (Qui Yuen) with those little speed blurs that always followed the Roadrunner. And most memorably, the landlady catches her husband (Wah Yuen) with lipstick on his cheek and throws him out of a building. He falls down hitting a number of things on the way and when he hits ground a flowerpot falls on his head.
I'm going to take this minute to praise Stephen Chow because he stars in the film he directed yet avoids the pitfall of self-indulgence. Instead of making his character unbelievably witty and with an unattainable love interest (something Woody Allen can't seem to stop doing), he plays a pathetic and intensely despicable character up until about the last fifteen minutes. Actually, scratch that. He does have a love interest but she has so little screen time she's barely worth mentioning.
The oddest character though has to be the Beast (Siu Lung Leung). About halfway in the movie Sing is accepted as a member of the Axe Gang. The Axe Gang leader needs someone to get the Beast and Sing is the only person desperate enough to do it. You see, the Beast was so obsessed with kung fu he went crazy. And it's up to Sing to free him. I'm not going spoil the moment, but let's just say that he's hardly the image of terror and bloodlust Sing expected.
Kung Fu Hustle has such an infectious tone that it helps to cancel out some of its flaws. For example, just about everyone's personality changes immensely in the final few moments. And I'm even willing to forget the handful of gross-out humor moments. Because Kung Fu Hustle is a joyful film, and it's rare I ever see that these days.
A Love Song for Bobby Long
(2004)
New Orleans, Alcohol, and Travolta's Greying Hairline
21 April 2005
There's absolutely nothing remarkable about A Love Song for Bobby Long, but it manages to do a couple of things well. It tells the story of Pursy (Scarlett Johannson) sharing the house left behind by her late mother with routine drinkers Bobby Long (John Travolta) and Lawson (Gabriel Macht). From this one-sentence summary, it's easy to predict where the film will take off from there. Although Pursy will at first be disgusted by the two, she will of course grow fond to them. Bobby Long will seem like a drunken slob initially, but will have some remarkably perceptive things to say about life. And Pursy will make some tearful discoveries about her mother.
The film stays watchable to me largely because of Scarlett Johansson and John Travolta's baffling presence as the gray-haired Bobby Long. Even as the film goes into emotional gymnastics near the end, the strength of Johansson's performance is one of the few consistent things. She has a good Floridian accent too. And although I was mostly distracted with what an odd casting choice John Travolta is for his role, by the end of the film I almost didn't notice. Without them, I imagine the film would've been an impossible to stomach piece of Southern-fried corn.
I think A Love Song with Bobby Long would've been better with a much tighter script. As it is the script is rather vanilla. Also for a film that seems like it's trying to reverent of the South for some reason there's one scene that's very questionable. When we first meet Pursy, she's in Flordia sitting in a trailer eating M&Ms with peanut butter on them. They might have as well dressed her in a wife beater.
So I guess my biggest problem with it all is that it's all been done before. Little risks are taken (Although I liked that whenever Bobby Long dropped obscure literature quotes in conversation for Lawson to guess, he never stopped for the audience by saying something like, "That's right, Lawson, and they wrote...") There's nothing here you couldn't find in a different movie. Well, maybe you won't see Travolta looking like this any time soon. :)
The film stays watchable to me largely because of Scarlett Johansson and John Travolta's baffling presence as the gray-haired Bobby Long. Even as the film goes into emotional gymnastics near the end, the strength of Johansson's performance is one of the few consistent things. She has a good Floridian accent too. And although I was mostly distracted with what an odd casting choice John Travolta is for his role, by the end of the film I almost didn't notice. Without them, I imagine the film would've been an impossible to stomach piece of Southern-fried corn.
I think A Love Song with Bobby Long would've been better with a much tighter script. As it is the script is rather vanilla. Also for a film that seems like it's trying to reverent of the South for some reason there's one scene that's very questionable. When we first meet Pursy, she's in Flordia sitting in a trailer eating M&Ms with peanut butter on them. They might have as well dressed her in a wife beater.
So I guess my biggest problem with it all is that it's all been done before. Little risks are taken (Although I liked that whenever Bobby Long dropped obscure literature quotes in conversation for Lawson to guess, he never stopped for the audience by saying something like, "That's right, Lawson, and they wrote...") There's nothing here you couldn't find in a different movie. Well, maybe you won't see Travolta looking like this any time soon. :)
House of Flying Daggers
(2004)
Beautiful, but something's still lacking plotwise
20 April 2005
House of Flying Daggers is one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. In addition to possessing a keen eye for aesthetic beauty, there must've been plenty of blood and sweat put into making it. Zhang Yimou manages to convey his vision even with little CGI evident. Like Hero though, the ending falls back on melodrama and the romance in HoFD is not as fleshed-out as it could be.
To be fair, it does a number of things better than Hero (which was a good movie to begin with). The fight scenes have a distinct personality to them, whereas Hero largely felt like a more efficient version of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon's. House of Flying Daggers gives the beautiful Ziyi Zhang a meatier role than her supporting one in Hero. And the Rashomon-esquire flashback device has been discarded.
Other than that, it's very similar to Hero. So that means that it's visually delectable but it tries to pull one too many twists for my taste. The fight scenes are fantastic (including a scene where Ziyi Zhang and Takeshi Kaneshiro are ambushed amidst bamboo stalks by guys who crawl the stalks like caterpillars). There are a lot of other visual moments to savor, from the gorgeous cinematography of the nature around the characters and an "echo game", apparently the old day equivalent of Simon).
This isn't a great movie per se, but it's greatly crafted and is enjoyable to sit back and watch exactly what Zhang Yimou and those involved with HoFD have accomplished.
To be fair, it does a number of things better than Hero (which was a good movie to begin with). The fight scenes have a distinct personality to them, whereas Hero largely felt like a more efficient version of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon's. House of Flying Daggers gives the beautiful Ziyi Zhang a meatier role than her supporting one in Hero. And the Rashomon-esquire flashback device has been discarded.
Other than that, it's very similar to Hero. So that means that it's visually delectable but it tries to pull one too many twists for my taste. The fight scenes are fantastic (including a scene where Ziyi Zhang and Takeshi Kaneshiro are ambushed amidst bamboo stalks by guys who crawl the stalks like caterpillars). There are a lot of other visual moments to savor, from the gorgeous cinematography of the nature around the characters and an "echo game", apparently the old day equivalent of Simon).
This isn't a great movie per se, but it's greatly crafted and is enjoyable to sit back and watch exactly what Zhang Yimou and those involved with HoFD have accomplished.
The Upside of Anger
(2005)
There's more than one upside to the Upside of Anger
2 April 2005
For some, The Upside of Anger will be little more than a beep under the radar. I guess part of the blame belongs to New Line Cinema's marketing campaign. With the prolific cast on board this doesn't seem too hard of a task (Or has Kevin Costner still not been forgiven for Waterworld?). Anyways, for those who do have the chance of seeing the film, they might find themselves enjoying the low-key romantic comedy. It's rather surprising a man directed The Upside of Anger, as it is more than anything else about female companionship. Director Mike Binder's look at these five women ranges from the ordinary (a character who has the ridiculous notion she's repulsive and fat) to the confusing (an utterly confounding where the women start laughing while a guy sits as oblivious as me). In a way, I feel like Kevin Costner's character- not always fully comprehending, yet oddly compelled.
Joan Allen plays Terry, a mother who suspects her husband is fooling around with a perky Swedish secretary. She finds comfort in the company of a retired baseball player (Kevin Costner) that she drinks with. It doesn't take too long for their relationship to turn physical and then something deeper yet. Terry has four daughters. The eldest (Alicia Witt) wants nothing more than to distance herself from Terry after college. Emily (Keri Russell) is a dancer workaholic who Terry is worried doesn't eat enough. Andy (Erika Christensen) is hired as a production assistant by the lowlife producer of Costner's radio show. And the youngest Popeye (Evan Rachel Wood) has a crush on a new kid.
Although it doesn't stray too far from the conventions of the genre, the film does try new things. Perhaps most notably, the Upside of Anger is a romantic comedy where the two characters rolling in the sheets (so to speak) aren't two attractive twenty-year olds. Also, while Terry and her daughters share a close relationship, they're rarely confidantes. A number of times they aren't even friendly to each other.
Also, Mike Binder effectively underplays the film. Something as mundane as a character slurping soup becomes an exercise in tense feelings. And the underplayed and relaxed nature helps draw attention to the performances. Kevin Costner's character could be imagined as the character in Bull Durham or Field of Dreams once the magic has gone. Although he's a drunk slob, he is also a kind and likable guy. All four daughters (particularly Evan Rachel Wood) give good performances. This movie however belongs to Joan Allen. Somewhat paradoxically with the film's underlying message, Allen's best scenes often draw from anger. In one scene, she catches Andy in bed with the producer and unable to say anything, she huffs off in Olympian fury.
For most of its one-hundred-thirty-five minute length, The Upside of Anger is a pleasant romantic comedy with something to say.
Joan Allen plays Terry, a mother who suspects her husband is fooling around with a perky Swedish secretary. She finds comfort in the company of a retired baseball player (Kevin Costner) that she drinks with. It doesn't take too long for their relationship to turn physical and then something deeper yet. Terry has four daughters. The eldest (Alicia Witt) wants nothing more than to distance herself from Terry after college. Emily (Keri Russell) is a dancer workaholic who Terry is worried doesn't eat enough. Andy (Erika Christensen) is hired as a production assistant by the lowlife producer of Costner's radio show. And the youngest Popeye (Evan Rachel Wood) has a crush on a new kid.
Although it doesn't stray too far from the conventions of the genre, the film does try new things. Perhaps most notably, the Upside of Anger is a romantic comedy where the two characters rolling in the sheets (so to speak) aren't two attractive twenty-year olds. Also, while Terry and her daughters share a close relationship, they're rarely confidantes. A number of times they aren't even friendly to each other.
Also, Mike Binder effectively underplays the film. Something as mundane as a character slurping soup becomes an exercise in tense feelings. And the underplayed and relaxed nature helps draw attention to the performances. Kevin Costner's character could be imagined as the character in Bull Durham or Field of Dreams once the magic has gone. Although he's a drunk slob, he is also a kind and likable guy. All four daughters (particularly Evan Rachel Wood) give good performances. This movie however belongs to Joan Allen. Somewhat paradoxically with the film's underlying message, Allen's best scenes often draw from anger. In one scene, she catches Andy in bed with the producer and unable to say anything, she huffs off in Olympian fury.
For most of its one-hundred-thirty-five minute length, The Upside of Anger is a pleasant romantic comedy with something to say.
Sergio Leone's Evocative Spaghetti Western
13 March 2005
Sergio Leone's 1966 sprawling western epic The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is, to me, undeniably epic. People define epic in all sorts of ways: it can mean it's ambitious, it can mean its running length is long, it can mean it's a visual spectacle, it can mean its anticlimactic, etc. And although I think The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly are all those things, that's not why it's epic to me. For a movie to be epic to me, it has to not only be ambitious, but pay off greatly; so great that after the film, I wish I could've been in the mind of that filmmaker when they thought up that film. And imperfect as it can be, The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly is certainly that.
The Good is Clint Eastwood, a nameless drifter who goes by the name Blondie. I like him because he's certainly cool, but no to the point of ridiculousness. The Good is pursued by The Ugly (Eli Wallach), a greedy bandit who seeks revenge on Blondie for leaving him out to hang dry. However, his motives eventually change when Blondie tells him he has been told by a man the graveyard that holds enough gold to last someone for the rest of their lives. Eli Wallach does a superlative job in disgusting us with his character, only letting his human side spill out in a confrontation with his priest brother. The Bad (Lee Van Cleef) is also aware of the money, but only Blondie supposedly knows where the gold is hiding. Lee Van Cleef doesn't get much time to be more than the "bad guy", but he's ably menacing.
"The Man with No Name" trilogy to which The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly belongs is considered the seeds of the spaghetti western genre, and it also marks a beginning of less admirable Western heroes. While the Good is still likable and we root for him, his motive, like the Bad and the Ugly, is the gold. He isn't the old western hero who stands up for the woman and throws material possessions away. Clint Eastwood will not go to the lengths of greed the Bad and Ugly sink to, but it's not like he doesn't want the gold.
Sergio Leone often takes the western out of its conventional definition over the nearly three-hour length of the film by often going in new places. Although the first half-hour or so is slow (the biggest flaw of the film), it quickly picks up after that, with The Ugly dragging Blondie across the desert, visits to a church and a Civil War prison camp, and on the front lines of a Civil War battle. It all leads up to the final three-way shootout, which manages to still stay tense by some well-handled editing that cuts rapidly to suspicious eyes and hands nearing pistols. It's a great ending, and certainly one of the coolest of all time.
Also worth noting is Ennio Morricone's score. The opening theme is still classic even after thirty-eight years have gone by, and "Ecstasy of Gold" (the song playing as The Ugly runs across the cemetery searching frantically for the grave) is nothing short of swelling. The whole score plays like a tumbleweed rolling across a sandy town.
The Good is Clint Eastwood, a nameless drifter who goes by the name Blondie. I like him because he's certainly cool, but no to the point of ridiculousness. The Good is pursued by The Ugly (Eli Wallach), a greedy bandit who seeks revenge on Blondie for leaving him out to hang dry. However, his motives eventually change when Blondie tells him he has been told by a man the graveyard that holds enough gold to last someone for the rest of their lives. Eli Wallach does a superlative job in disgusting us with his character, only letting his human side spill out in a confrontation with his priest brother. The Bad (Lee Van Cleef) is also aware of the money, but only Blondie supposedly knows where the gold is hiding. Lee Van Cleef doesn't get much time to be more than the "bad guy", but he's ably menacing.
"The Man with No Name" trilogy to which The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly belongs is considered the seeds of the spaghetti western genre, and it also marks a beginning of less admirable Western heroes. While the Good is still likable and we root for him, his motive, like the Bad and the Ugly, is the gold. He isn't the old western hero who stands up for the woman and throws material possessions away. Clint Eastwood will not go to the lengths of greed the Bad and Ugly sink to, but it's not like he doesn't want the gold.
Sergio Leone often takes the western out of its conventional definition over the nearly three-hour length of the film by often going in new places. Although the first half-hour or so is slow (the biggest flaw of the film), it quickly picks up after that, with The Ugly dragging Blondie across the desert, visits to a church and a Civil War prison camp, and on the front lines of a Civil War battle. It all leads up to the final three-way shootout, which manages to still stay tense by some well-handled editing that cuts rapidly to suspicious eyes and hands nearing pistols. It's a great ending, and certainly one of the coolest of all time.
Also worth noting is Ennio Morricone's score. The opening theme is still classic even after thirty-eight years have gone by, and "Ecstasy of Gold" (the song playing as The Ugly runs across the cemetery searching frantically for the grave) is nothing short of swelling. The whole score plays like a tumbleweed rolling across a sandy town.
Be Cool
(2005)
Not that Cool
12 March 2005
Be Cool isn't cool in the way that you would call The White Stripes or Sergio Leone-era Clint Eastwood cool. It's not even cool in the same way that The Matrix Reloaded is where the film's so cool stylistically that you almost forget just about nothing else about it makes the vaguest bit of sense. Be Cool is more of a mellow or nonchalant kind of cool. It can be appreciated by someone who has two hours to kill on a Saturday night. Which is why I can't hate Be Cool: If I hadn't gone out to see it, I probably would've just cleaned around the house anyways.
There will probably be a portion of people who will see this film because it's arguably being marketed as similar to Pulp Fiction. But really besides the Travolta/Thurman/Keitel reunion, there isn't much to celebrate. The dance sequence isn't nearly as good as Pulp Fiction's, and Pulp Fiction benefited from not being restricted by a PG-13 rating.
Be Cool is not necessarily a good film by any standards, but it is a way to kill two hours. Maybe why I seem to be a little less angry with Be Cool than some other critics is that I have never seen the original Get Shorty. But regardless, it does have occasional inspired moments. One of them is early in the film, where Chili (John Travolta) bemoans that to get a PG-13, you can only say f- - - once, and says "F- - - that", never to use the word again in the whole running length. The Rock plays a gay bodyguard who has one great scene doing a monologue from Bring It On, and there's a conversation between Chili Palmer and Harvey Keitel that has the same idea of the music industry as I've always thought (If you're a modern band that rips off an older band, you're somehow contemporary).
There's a conversation in Be Cool where Chili Palmer tells Steven Tyler what "Sweet Emotions" was about his daughters, proving there's nothing more pretentious than telling an artist what their own song was about. True, at about the time Steven Tyler had written "Sweet Emotions" he probably was so drugged-out he had no idea what he was writing, but that's not the point. Most of Be Cool's flaws are irritating, but this one exchange is probably the one thing about Be Cool I hated.
For the most part, though, most of the film is not so bad as it is unmemorable. Vince Vaughn is irritating as the token "white guy who thinks he's black). Gary Oldman did the same thing much better in True Romance, maybe because he was alive for about five minutes. Cedric the Entertainer (who's otherwise pretty good) has a monologue about racial stereotypes that loses much of its impact considering he does the same thing to a Russian gangster about a minute before that. There's some prominently placed close-ups of Nokia's logo on cell phones (But don't call it product placement!!) And Limp Bizkit has an inexplicable cameo: He isn't part of a joke, has no lines, or any relevance. He's just there because's he Limp Bizkit.
There is certainly worse you could do than Be Cool, but don't expect much.
There will probably be a portion of people who will see this film because it's arguably being marketed as similar to Pulp Fiction. But really besides the Travolta/Thurman/Keitel reunion, there isn't much to celebrate. The dance sequence isn't nearly as good as Pulp Fiction's, and Pulp Fiction benefited from not being restricted by a PG-13 rating.
Be Cool is not necessarily a good film by any standards, but it is a way to kill two hours. Maybe why I seem to be a little less angry with Be Cool than some other critics is that I have never seen the original Get Shorty. But regardless, it does have occasional inspired moments. One of them is early in the film, where Chili (John Travolta) bemoans that to get a PG-13, you can only say f- - - once, and says "F- - - that", never to use the word again in the whole running length. The Rock plays a gay bodyguard who has one great scene doing a monologue from Bring It On, and there's a conversation between Chili Palmer and Harvey Keitel that has the same idea of the music industry as I've always thought (If you're a modern band that rips off an older band, you're somehow contemporary).
There's a conversation in Be Cool where Chili Palmer tells Steven Tyler what "Sweet Emotions" was about his daughters, proving there's nothing more pretentious than telling an artist what their own song was about. True, at about the time Steven Tyler had written "Sweet Emotions" he probably was so drugged-out he had no idea what he was writing, but that's not the point. Most of Be Cool's flaws are irritating, but this one exchange is probably the one thing about Be Cool I hated.
For the most part, though, most of the film is not so bad as it is unmemorable. Vince Vaughn is irritating as the token "white guy who thinks he's black). Gary Oldman did the same thing much better in True Romance, maybe because he was alive for about five minutes. Cedric the Entertainer (who's otherwise pretty good) has a monologue about racial stereotypes that loses much of its impact considering he does the same thing to a Russian gangster about a minute before that. There's some prominently placed close-ups of Nokia's logo on cell phones (But don't call it product placement!!) And Limp Bizkit has an inexplicable cameo: He isn't part of a joke, has no lines, or any relevance. He's just there because's he Limp Bizkit.
There is certainly worse you could do than Be Cool, but don't expect much.
Hotel Rwanda
(2004)
Powerful stuff
16 February 2005
Terry George's Hotel Rwanda is a deeply compelling film about the Rwandan civil war that resulted in an enormous genocide (over a million dead). It is the true-life story of Paul Rusesabagina (Don Cheadle), a Hutu hotel manager who sheltered over a thousand Tutsi refugees from the other warring Hutus. People have complained Hotel Rwanda isn't brutal enough and too selective in its view of a much larger genocide. Although I concede that it may have benefited from its original R rating, the latter seemed intended. Hotel Rwanda does show the genocide as a whole but its also a personal story.
Paul has a few helpful people to look to: a Red Cross worker (Cara Seymour), a sympathetic hotel owner (Jean Reno), and two cameramen recording footage (it also leads to the film's most brutally honest realization that people will look at this footage, say "Oh my god, that's terrible", and keep on eating their dinners). However, these aren't alone enough to stop the machetes of the Hutu. And since he is married to a Tutsi, Tatiana (Sophie Okonedo), his family is in constant danger as well.
Hotel Rwanda works just as well as an account of man who in desperate times becomes less concerned about himself and more about helping others. The most obvious comparison would be to Oscar Schindler. Paul bribes Hutu officials with beer and money, hides Tutsi orphans, and is frustrated by the United Nation's inability to physically fight back the Hutu forces. The poignancy of the character is helped by a quiet and dignified performance by Don Cheadle, one of the best I have seen all year. Sophie Okonedo is also great if not a little more underplayed.
It may hard to swallow at times, but this is the point. Hotel Rwanda is a reminder of just how much pain human beings can inflict on one other and how much good one can bring to another.
Paul has a few helpful people to look to: a Red Cross worker (Cara Seymour), a sympathetic hotel owner (Jean Reno), and two cameramen recording footage (it also leads to the film's most brutally honest realization that people will look at this footage, say "Oh my god, that's terrible", and keep on eating their dinners). However, these aren't alone enough to stop the machetes of the Hutu. And since he is married to a Tutsi, Tatiana (Sophie Okonedo), his family is in constant danger as well.
Hotel Rwanda works just as well as an account of man who in desperate times becomes less concerned about himself and more about helping others. The most obvious comparison would be to Oscar Schindler. Paul bribes Hutu officials with beer and money, hides Tutsi orphans, and is frustrated by the United Nation's inability to physically fight back the Hutu forces. The poignancy of the character is helped by a quiet and dignified performance by Don Cheadle, one of the best I have seen all year. Sophie Okonedo is also great if not a little more underplayed.
It may hard to swallow at times, but this is the point. Hotel Rwanda is a reminder of just how much pain human beings can inflict on one other and how much good one can bring to another.
Clockwatchers
(1997)
Like Office Space meets the Breakfast Club
9 February 2005
Clockwatchers is similar to my own perception of what it would be like to work at an office: sporadic moments of excitement in between periods where nothing really happens and occasionally boring. I do realize that the humor is supposed to be subtle. But it asks the question how far can a satire go before it stops being comedic and starts becoming an imitation of real life? Here. Brian Cox's character in Adaptation. said that something has to happen in a film in response to an innocent question from Charlie Kaufman. Something tells me he would have hated this film.
I'm reluctant to say that Clockwatchers effectively captures what it's like to be a temp, mostly because I have never worked as a temp. But only a few minutes into the running length, it started to at least seem like someone had done their fair share of suffering as a temp in the past. Clockwatchers presents temps as the plankton of the office space food chain, people who are only noticed when they do something wrong. This point is driven home when Toni Collette's character Iris is told to wait for someone to give her instructions on her new job, and ends up waiting two hours. Finally, a woman comes, and she asks Iris why she didn't tell someone she had been waiting for two hours. This question is rhetorical to everyone but the oblivious woman. Even if she had, would anyone have had actually responded?
The four characters are each an archetype of the office workspace that prove to be more complex as the film progresses (sort of like the Breakfast Club). In fact, one thing that I noticed about Clockwatchers is that the way it depicts office life is strikingly similar to high school. Iris eats her lunch in a bathroom stall in the hopes no one will discover her, the new temps are ignored, and everyone is quick to point fingers. Iris represents the new temp, while Margaret is the sardonic temp less than happy with her surroundings (and I also noticed: Margaret acts insulted when she is considered as the possible office supplies thief, yet early in the film she takes a set of shot glasses from a bar without much thought.), Lisa Kudrow plays an aspiring actress, and Jane is the meek worker.
Also in Clockwatchers are the people around these four characters, all of whom seem weathered by the monotony of office life. They hoard their staples and rubber band balls as if they were priceless treasures, and only emerge from their cubicles to scold the temps and leave. Even something like disappearing office supplies is enough to have tongues wagging. If the four temps represent Molly Ringwald, Judd Nelson, and Emilio Estevez, the office workers represent the parents who desperately try to stay hip.
In the end, Clockwatchers provides some interesting points, but it is nearly overshadowed by its flaws. Its most present one to me was the fact it's virtually plot less, and not in a good way at all. In addition to being boring, it provides another question: When the film is over, are the workers going to realize the waste office work is and stop ignoring the temps? Like the one question said early in the movie, the answer should be pretty obvious.
I'm reluctant to say that Clockwatchers effectively captures what it's like to be a temp, mostly because I have never worked as a temp. But only a few minutes into the running length, it started to at least seem like someone had done their fair share of suffering as a temp in the past. Clockwatchers presents temps as the plankton of the office space food chain, people who are only noticed when they do something wrong. This point is driven home when Toni Collette's character Iris is told to wait for someone to give her instructions on her new job, and ends up waiting two hours. Finally, a woman comes, and she asks Iris why she didn't tell someone she had been waiting for two hours. This question is rhetorical to everyone but the oblivious woman. Even if she had, would anyone have had actually responded?
The four characters are each an archetype of the office workspace that prove to be more complex as the film progresses (sort of like the Breakfast Club). In fact, one thing that I noticed about Clockwatchers is that the way it depicts office life is strikingly similar to high school. Iris eats her lunch in a bathroom stall in the hopes no one will discover her, the new temps are ignored, and everyone is quick to point fingers. Iris represents the new temp, while Margaret is the sardonic temp less than happy with her surroundings (and I also noticed: Margaret acts insulted when she is considered as the possible office supplies thief, yet early in the film she takes a set of shot glasses from a bar without much thought.), Lisa Kudrow plays an aspiring actress, and Jane is the meek worker.
Also in Clockwatchers are the people around these four characters, all of whom seem weathered by the monotony of office life. They hoard their staples and rubber band balls as if they were priceless treasures, and only emerge from their cubicles to scold the temps and leave. Even something like disappearing office supplies is enough to have tongues wagging. If the four temps represent Molly Ringwald, Judd Nelson, and Emilio Estevez, the office workers represent the parents who desperately try to stay hip.
In the end, Clockwatchers provides some interesting points, but it is nearly overshadowed by its flaws. Its most present one to me was the fact it's virtually plot less, and not in a good way at all. In addition to being boring, it provides another question: When the film is over, are the workers going to realize the waste office work is and stop ignoring the temps? Like the one question said early in the movie, the answer should be pretty obvious.
Before Sunset
(2004)
A Pleasant Summer Film Worth Catching
24 November 2004
Before Sunset, 3 out of 4 stars 80 minutes Ethan Hawke, Julie Delpy Directed by Richard Linklater
A Review by Jimmy Geurts
Before Sunset can be seen as movie-making in the moment- a film that requires the audience to focus their attention on the movie for a meager 80 minutes if they hope to find themselves swept away by this pleasant albeit fleeting piece of film. And those who let their minds wander from the amiable characters and their coincidental meeting may notice some of the script's shortcomings and as a result might not enjoy Before Sunset to its highest potential. Despite myself I found myself enjoying the sequel to 1995's indie favorite, Before Sunrise. One of Before Sunset's strengths is that it is not a sequel made for financial reasons, so it as a film does not need to be held by a need to satisfy commercial demands. (It was made on a budget of only $10 million). Rather, I like to think that Linklater, Hawke, and Delpy, like many of us, wondered if Jesse and Celine ever met again in Vienna six months later like they promised each other to after that unforgettable night. When we see Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy on screen, the two seem to be reuniting with the characters of Jesse and Celine just as much as they are acting them.
Before Sunset picks up nine years after Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) parted ways. It turns out for one reason or another, the two never did meet up in Vienna. Jesse is now married with a kid, and Celine, while not betrothed, is currently dating a photographer. Jesse has still not gotten over Celine, and has written a book about the trip to Vienna in the past few years. He is in Paris on a book tour when at a press conference Celine appears into his life again. The two make small talk, about everything from idealism to sex, and try to avoid bringing up the inevitable question: why they never met again after that one magical night in Vienna.
There is a sense of urgency to Before Sunset's proceedings because instead of sharing a day together, Jesse and Celine only have eighty minutes to reunite until Jesse must take his plane back to the United States. Hawke and Delpy play off each other very nicely, and share a chemistry that hides just below the surface. Hawke as usual does a very good job, and Julie Delpy is just radiant as Celine. The way Delpy plays Celine I could see how someone could become smitten with her.
For the most part I found Richard Linklater's script to be well done, but especially later in the movie, the conversation between Jesse and Celine does occasionally feel stilted and uneven. In addition, the transition between friendly chat and long-held feelings seems to be a little rough. I can appreciate that this probably intended on Linklater's behalf to emphasize the sudden shift of heart of the two characters, but for a director who I see as having such an ear for earnest truth in his films' dialogue, I would hope he could find a more natural way of changing the mood of the film. Only minor complaints but they did hurt the film for me nonetheless.
The film plays out as if we were right there with Jesse and Celine, being careful not to cut away from the conversation of the two. Before Sunset is shot with a steady camera and fairly successfully manages to balance both an intimate feel and a good sense of Paris' beauty. And while the movie does use transitions but not to the point where it becomes a distraction. In other independent movies like Running Time, it might've benefited the film's strengths more. Before Sunset is not of those movies.
Before Sunset is like a light meal: pleasing, light, and ultimately forgettable. Fans of the original who wondered what ever happened to the two after the credits rolled will probably enjoy the sequel. Anyone that disliked the first Before Sunrise aren't going to find much here that will change their minds. For everyone else, it provides a healthy alternative to the Hollywood action blockbusters of the summer.
A Review by Jimmy Geurts
Before Sunset can be seen as movie-making in the moment- a film that requires the audience to focus their attention on the movie for a meager 80 minutes if they hope to find themselves swept away by this pleasant albeit fleeting piece of film. And those who let their minds wander from the amiable characters and their coincidental meeting may notice some of the script's shortcomings and as a result might not enjoy Before Sunset to its highest potential. Despite myself I found myself enjoying the sequel to 1995's indie favorite, Before Sunrise. One of Before Sunset's strengths is that it is not a sequel made for financial reasons, so it as a film does not need to be held by a need to satisfy commercial demands. (It was made on a budget of only $10 million). Rather, I like to think that Linklater, Hawke, and Delpy, like many of us, wondered if Jesse and Celine ever met again in Vienna six months later like they promised each other to after that unforgettable night. When we see Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy on screen, the two seem to be reuniting with the characters of Jesse and Celine just as much as they are acting them.
Before Sunset picks up nine years after Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) parted ways. It turns out for one reason or another, the two never did meet up in Vienna. Jesse is now married with a kid, and Celine, while not betrothed, is currently dating a photographer. Jesse has still not gotten over Celine, and has written a book about the trip to Vienna in the past few years. He is in Paris on a book tour when at a press conference Celine appears into his life again. The two make small talk, about everything from idealism to sex, and try to avoid bringing up the inevitable question: why they never met again after that one magical night in Vienna.
There is a sense of urgency to Before Sunset's proceedings because instead of sharing a day together, Jesse and Celine only have eighty minutes to reunite until Jesse must take his plane back to the United States. Hawke and Delpy play off each other very nicely, and share a chemistry that hides just below the surface. Hawke as usual does a very good job, and Julie Delpy is just radiant as Celine. The way Delpy plays Celine I could see how someone could become smitten with her.
For the most part I found Richard Linklater's script to be well done, but especially later in the movie, the conversation between Jesse and Celine does occasionally feel stilted and uneven. In addition, the transition between friendly chat and long-held feelings seems to be a little rough. I can appreciate that this probably intended on Linklater's behalf to emphasize the sudden shift of heart of the two characters, but for a director who I see as having such an ear for earnest truth in his films' dialogue, I would hope he could find a more natural way of changing the mood of the film. Only minor complaints but they did hurt the film for me nonetheless.
The film plays out as if we were right there with Jesse and Celine, being careful not to cut away from the conversation of the two. Before Sunset is shot with a steady camera and fairly successfully manages to balance both an intimate feel and a good sense of Paris' beauty. And while the movie does use transitions but not to the point where it becomes a distraction. In other independent movies like Running Time, it might've benefited the film's strengths more. Before Sunset is not of those movies.
Before Sunset is like a light meal: pleasing, light, and ultimately forgettable. Fans of the original who wondered what ever happened to the two after the credits rolled will probably enjoy the sequel. Anyone that disliked the first Before Sunrise aren't going to find much here that will change their minds. For everyone else, it provides a healthy alternative to the Hollywood action blockbusters of the summer.
Tell Your Friends