theconservativeliberal Reviews

Rebecca (1940)

Captain Misogynism or the master of predictability? Take your pick.

[2/10 · 27 June 2008]

These lines of dialogue are a good summary of why Rebecca sucks.

• I'm not beautiful, or intelligent. - But you have other, better qualities. Like kindness and sincerity. - So let me ask you, what was Rebecca like? What did people see in her? - Why, she was the most beautiful creature I've ever seen.

Either this is the worst writing ever, the worst character development ever, or a really pathetic attempt to be mysterious and complex, making it again the worst writing ever. Hitchcock is so blindly driven by his technicality that he actually forgets to read the screenplays he's turning into films. And if that's not the case, if he wasn't hearing impaired on set, he has the intelligence of an infant and the creative energy of a euthanised walrus.

On top of this hysterical delinquency, I can't believe women's rights groups haven't tried to bury Hitchcock under the insurmountable pile of celluloid he cost the world. Every female character in his films is either retardedly stupid, socially inept, cruel and backstabbing or insane. I can almost see sometimes the bruises on these actresses faces from the beatings he must give them in their trailers each night.

In the Realm of the Senses (1976)

Embarrassingly bad.

[1/10 · 27 June 2008]

I felt compelled to write a comment in response to the stupid amount of "this is not porn it is beautiful art, if you don't like it you're just prudish" comments I just sifted through.

This is not beautiful, it is not art. It looked cheap and nasty. It looked as if it had the production values of an amateur porn session, lit by whatever broken desk lamps found in your average erotic dungeon. The fake snow looked like fake snow. The kids throwing snow at the old man's exposed privates made me want to punch the director for trying to make the rest of the movie anything but a comedy.

To top its woeful aesthetics off, the absolute drivel that came out of these character's mouths was nauseating. Every single time they'd have sex, which would be 85% of the film, the woman would say the same banal, generic "you inside me is beyond words" without fail.

There are some movies that are so bad that they become entertaining. Like Plan 9 from Outer Space. This was not entertaining. It was mind-numbingly boring. film. If you thought this was any good I recommend you re evaluate your life. Because something is very wrong. Probably a lot of things are very wrong.

The Sacrifice (1986)

Tarkovsky's last effort is hard to place, but gorgeous to look at.

[8/10 · 27 June 2008]

This is a film is in a tough spot - I'll either meet someone who holds it as one of their all time favourites, or I'll find someone who knows Andrei Tarkovsky inside out and sidelines it as one of his lesser efforts. Either way, it is worth watching. If all else fails and nothing grabs you at all, Sven Nykvist's cinematography is gorgeous. Arguably the best he's done. You could just drug yourself up and turn off the subtitles and smile for a few hours.

This is why I don't love it: its visual similarities with Ingmar Bergman's films make the acting seem sub-par. It sounds really horrible, because Erland Josephson is one of my favourite actors and I admire Andrei Tarkovsky's earlier films. But Bergman has this special knack for getting out perfect performances, especially from women. When The Sacrifice's dramatic scenes flared I felt uncomfortable because I'm used to a stupidly high standard.

My second and lesser reason has to do with the absence of grounding within the first hour of the film. Tarkovsky's philosophical musings on art and faith have always had a strong and fundamental world to exist it- Andrei Rublev has its medieval Russia, Stalker its post apocalyptic wasteland, The Mirror exists within the tendrils of memories. The Sacrifice doesn't give you a platform to make its ideas relevant, so the first time you watch the film it is distracting trying to find out actually where we are. Some praise this dreamy ambiguity. I disliked it. It's actually more enjoyable the second time around.

The disappointing thing is, if Andrei Tarkovsky and Ingmar Bergman didn't exist, and this film was the first film made by some random director, it'd probably be an all time classic. But because it is at the end of two very rich and talented filmmakers' careers, it suffers in comparison.

Autumn Sonata (1978)

Ingmar Bergman at his most transparent and direct.

[10/10 · 13 June 2008]

Autumn Sonata is more transparent and direct than his other films. It deals with the tension between a neglected daughter and self-centred mother with his poetic style, but also with a personal familiarity that makes the whole film hit a slightly different nerve. I know people who've had to cope with similar circumstances, and their experiences were represented boldly, without the watering down or trivialisation that you'd expect from something from the past 15 years.

There is one quite brief scene in this film that makes the whole thing worth watching multiple times. I count it as some of Ingmar Bergman's best writing.

Eva plays for her professional pianist mother Charlotte one of Chopin's preludes she had been practicing for some time. Whilst playing her mistakes and stiffness sets a tense tone, as Charlotte is a critical and inconsiderate nightmare of a mother, who at any minute would burst out with a cutting criticism. She instead begins a monologue about Chopin's music, blending together her experiences of playing his piano music, as well as the emotions he evokes. Chopin's emotional strength is not sentimental, she says. It's far more credibly affecting than music designed to be manipulative.

This begins the downward spiral of the two characters' immediate relationship. It speaks to each of the characters, their style of playing representative of their emotional makeup. Charlotte's aversion or ignorance towards affection is displayed clearly.

It also plays on another level, which I found the most resounding. Bergman's films always deal with heavy emotions, but they are never sentimental. They never dress emotions up to be more affecting for the audience than they are for the characters. This honesty in the way he makes films is explored in Charlotte's speech, I see him speaking to us, saying that he tries hard not to be fake. Not to manipulate us in cheap ways that don't exist in the real world.

Bergman is a great director. Autumn Sonata reminded me that at the heart of his talent is his powerful writing. I don't think we'll see a finer writer and director for actresses for a long time to come.

Ray (I) (2004)

Fake portrait of a real man.

[5/10 · 19 March 2008]

This movie is a serious disappointment. Jamie Foxx and Ray Charles's raw talent just deserved better. This is really one of the finest performances I have ever seen, and I think in years to come it'll be remembered. On top of this, the music, that's this backbone of all of our musical history's- whether we're 50 or 15- is at the top of its class. People debate the character of Ray Charles all the time. He did some screwed up things, screwed a lot of people over, had a colourful history of transgressions - but his music is flawless. It's the definition of accessible, fun, real music. i have never heard anyone claim that Ray Charles is overrated, because it almost seems obscene.

Which is I think why this movie fell down. It had a legacy to uphold. And then piled on top of that, it had a piece of acting that blows your mind. The music of Ray Charles is so real, yet this movie was constantly so fake. Every single one of the flashback scenes to Ray as a boy was laced with laboured, preachy crap. Every single argument he had with his wife was semi-reconciled by him mentioning how much it sucks to be blind. Above all else there were so many alienating historical inaccuracies that were totally arbitrary. I wasn't a Ray Charles biographer, but I knew he had another wife before his wife in the film. I also knew the history of his cancelled concert in Georgia, and that he was never banned from the state, yet for the sake of a heartfelt final scene he was in the film.

It just took the definition of genuine music and turned it into a contrived film.

Taxi Driver (1976)

Just missed a cab? There will be blood.

[9/10 · 19 March 2008]

This is one of those classics i've always missed out on seeing- everyone has a few movies that they get yelled at for having not seen, this was mine. Finally i've caught it and as is universally accepted, it's a keeper. Writing a review for Taxi Driver is a bit useless because I can't think of many more American movies that are so often critiqued or referenced.

One thing that totally blew me away though I will share. It was incredibly simple, and I'm going to say that it was intentional on Scorsese's part, because it's pretty genius.

Towards the end of the film, after Travis has geared up and is driving off to his bloodbath, we see a shot of someone trying to flag him down, which he ignores and drives away towards his targets. Now how many movies have you seen where a character tries to pull a cab unsuccessfully, with the cab driving away into the night? I tell you, every American movie set in a city. Taxi Driver made me think, holy crap, is every American cab that ignores a fare going off to shoot a few gangsters? I realise this is a big leap, but it was the first thing I thought of, and I thought it was insane. This repeated image (that i'm sure this movie further influenced) of a cab driving off after being called is given a huge new light. If you've lived in a monkey cave your whole life and don't know Taxi Driver ends in blood, the film itself builds and gives many clues to a very violent conclusion, still placing this image of the perpetual lost cab a nasty light.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

Let No Country for Old Men choose your friends.

[10/10 · 7 February 2008]

I love this movie because I love arguments about movies. Being the elitist that I am, I have come to use this as my polarising stick when seeing what others' taste is like. If you don't find No Country for Old Men fascinating, I'll prescribe you some sedatives and send you to bed. If you do, you're allowed inside. I've found it hilarious to listen to people complain about how boring it was, how long-winded and stale it was. How they thought American Gangster was the best movie they've ever seen, and why No Country for Old Men should have been more like it.

I could both write and read essay upon review or even a PhD or two about this film given the time. I can't think of any other film I have seen that balances philosophy and plot so well without having a shade of pretentiousness about it. You can talk about the moral decay of America. The pervasive and relentless evil and how that is realised today in society or like Anton Chigurh, in people. You can talk about fate and destiny. What Anton's coin means for his victims. Whether fault lies in chaos, the flip of the coin. Or whether fault is in the person, Anton. You can grab any piece of history, religion or philosophy and see what this film has to say. It's fascinating. A film like this is one that you can't "look too far" into, because the way that it is crafted invites its viewers to do exactly so in as invasive fashion as its main antagonist. I think to come away satisfied and content you will need to.

Beware to all, though. This has also become a movie that people who think they are pro cinema have taken to be one of theirs. If someone professes their love for it, ask why. If they do nothing but outpour their love for the Coen brothers, they are your enemy. This is one movie that anyone can put some thought into and have a perspective on. If they don't, they're full of crap.

I read in a news article recently that this Australian film critic thought that 2007 was the beginning of another golden age in cinema. He talked about the 40s and the 70s. The relatively short time periods that consistently produce incredible films. While he did write like an essay by Kevin Smith about Magnolia, I am beginning to agree. 2007 had two American films that everyone is talking about. They're not films that we'll talk about, buy on DVD and forget about. Time will tell, but I am confident that this is a landmark in the nearing 100 odd year tradition of cinema,

I Am Legend (2007)

I Am Legend is unique in that it will satisfy no one.

[5/10 · 7 February 2008]

Like The Golden Compass, I Am Legend is another movie that could have been. Will Smith: "I could have been a contender!" The first half of the movie is great. It shows that Smith is actually a pretty fine actor. It also gives us the best pick for best non-human supporting actor since Wilson the volleyball. But the movie takes a sharp downturn into mediocrity, all too obviously turning out a boring, conventional, studio-driven end. Should I have expected any different? Probably not.

The movie is unique in that it will satisfy no one. If you want a big-budget action hit you'll be bored with the first hour. If you want a good movie you'll be bored with the second hour. If you're one of those people who is a sucker for advertising in movies you'll be financially ruined after buying every Apple-related product and a Ford Territory to drive them home in. And if you read the book that this was apparently based on you'll wonder "why?!" until you can get to the video store and rent The Omega Man.

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (2007)

Filmmaker Christian Munglu doesn't tell us what to say, he gives us the tools to have something to say.

[9/10 · 7 February 2008]

This movie has been gaining a lot of momentum internationally. I think its exclusion from the 2008 Academy Awards has almost been a bigger marketing boost than a nomination would have gained. The transparent sterility of its title 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is the first clue to the interesting reception it has had.

The name Stanley Kubrick is thrown around way too often. Whenever someone does something even vaguely like the handwriting on the walls of the Shining it's dubbed as Kubrick's vision or something equally stupid. 2007's "Kubrick" has been PT Anderson for There Will Be Blood. Whenever I read it in a review I feel as if Kubrick is the only other director's name the critic knows so he throws it in a few times with a copy-paste on the computer.

With that being established I think to compare one specific element of 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days to some of Stanley Kubrick's movies is warranted and worthwhile. Kubrick's films are very precise. They are filmed and edited in a way that creates an incredibly crafted world, controlling the viewer every step of the way. I find specific control more obvious in Kubrick's movies- 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket are the most resonant. Nothing is an accident. Or more importantly nothing seems an accident.

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days feels equally as unflinching in its control. In its sparse, very cold direction it takes a firm grip of whoever is watching and manipulates them into just how they are meant to feel. Because of the film's dark subject matter, and the harsh communist- life backdrop, this makes it very hard to watch. Director Cristian Mungiu knows what he is doing to his audience.

There is an extended scene in the film that has become famous for frustrating its audience. I've read few user group comments as well as professional reviews about the film, specifically mentioning this particular scene, that have taken to it with quite a bit of hostility. The key character Otilia has dinner with her boyfriend's family and their friends. The conversation is idle, and without explaining details, the scene ends and the film continues along. i have read that people have become bored, become angry, almost outraged. Some found it to be frustrating in its displacement, both from the perspective of a scene from the movie and of a character within in. Some found it fascinating- and I am in that camp. I mentioned Kubrick's name because the style of his intense control in this scene becomes almost brutal. While Otilia simply sits for 10 minutes, we are sat down. Munglu has us feeding out of his hand. After coming of out the film, I felt like a child being guided through some kind of wet abandoned street. This was the only rest stop along the way,

While having such a firm grip, the film is careful not to be restrictive in its theme and philosophy. There is much to talk about, and debate over. It doesn't tell us what to think. Its primary subject matter is abortion, and telling its audience which side of the camp to sit would have been received terribly. The meticulous precision of Christian Munglu doesn't show us what to say, it gives us the tools to have something to say.

There is a lot to say about 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days. It is a very rich film and does not simply tell the story of abortion. I've focused on how beautifully purposeful each frame of this film so hopefully anyone who watches it to take it in accordingly. And take from there the issue or theme that resonates with them and a platform to work from.