Film Reviews and Essays from a Cinephile

New on DVD and Blu-ray - February 7, 2012

2012-02-08T00:36:00.002-05:00

Anonymous - grade A

Roland Emmerich was a visionary filmmaker first and a storyteller second. That was until Anonymous came to life.

Based on a pulp fictional yarn, the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere (Rhys Ifans) grew up in a Catholic household and was never allowed to write anything resembling artistry. As an adult, he passed his work onto another man, Ben Johnson (Sebastian Armesto) in hopes of displaying his plays on the stage; and should anyone inquire as to who the author was, Ben was allowed to use his own name. One day, such an occasion had arrived and before Ben could speak up, another man, an illiterate actor named William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) stepped forward, yelling his name out, and was forever known as the author of Edward de Vere's work. Sure, Edward was slightly miffed but at least he still had a scapegoat to fall back on.

The film's subject is mainly the scapegoat story and it also focuses nicely on Shakespeare's rising ego but the other important aspect of the film, sporadically skipping forward and back in time in a non-linear fashion, is Edward's (as a teen played by Jaime Campbell Bower) relationship with Queen Elizabeth I (Joely Richardson; and as an adult played by Vanessa Redgrave), dating back to their teens. They were intimate and then they were not, rinse repeat. The melodrama is played up but played very well. It feels right, it's played right, and the conspiracies emanating left right and centre from the Queen's right hand man, Robert Cecil (Edward Hogg) are intriguing and make for a believable and sympathetic villain.

Anonymous is one of the best looking films of 2011. There is a tremendous amount of post-production in the film but it's used to colour tint the film in scenes in order to provide the audience with specific emotions and during specific times; there are many beautiful shots, 3D animated of course, that showcase different seasons and what life looked like over five centuries ago; and the overall cinematography is just plain excellent. I have no complaints.

For the life of me I don't understand why the Oscar committee hadn't included this film under the cinematography and art direction categories. It's breathtakingly gorgeous, second only to Martin Scorsese's Hugo (2011).

By the definitions that explain what makes films good or bad, Roland Emmerich has made two actual good films; Anonymous and The Patriot (2000); both coincidentally period pieces. They are character driven tales, depicting fictitious characters or fictitious settings for popular historical figures that just happen to be well shot, well directed, and well told. Well, nothing happens by accident. Emmerich knows exactly what he's doing and I hope that we don't have to sit through another slew of terrible disaster films before he makes another excellent film. Bring on the next Roland Emmerich period piece!

Here are some more terrific images from this beautiful looking film:

________________________________________
Also available now and slightly recommended is:

Project Nim (2011)

I'm not sure why the film exists or what it tries to tell aside from what we all already know, which is that an animal will always remain an animal but I love all kinds of monkeys and it kept me interested until the very end. So, kudos.

New on DVD and Blu-ray – January 31, 2012

2012-01-31T20:09:00.004-05:00

Drive - grade A+

Drive is a meditation on the interpretation of a fairytale. We have a damsel in distress, Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her knight in shining armour, and neighbour only know as Kid or Driver (Ryan Gosling). Irene’s husband, Standard (Oscar Isaac) is in jail because he’s a bad man and Driver falls for her while Standard is away. He hangs around her and her son Benicio and they drive around a lot at night, because it’s the only thing that Driver likes to do. Driver is a sociopath and the more he hangs around Irene the more human he becomes. She opens him up to feelings that he’d repressed and the sun shines upon him. That is until Standard comes back home and reclaims what is his.

Standard is forced to rob a pawn shop for the gangsters that he owes money and Driver, out of love for Irene helps him out. They're also joined by a third-party member. It turns into a double cross and, luckily Driver and the third-party member escape, but barely. Driver’s animalistic and psychotic personality kicks in and even Irene is witness to what he’s capable of, because that’s who Driver really is.

The fable that that the film represents, and also mentions within, is that of The Scorpion and the Frog. Driver represents The Scorpion figuratively and literally - he always wears a white silk jacket with a golden scorpion embroidered on its back - and he’s also the one’s that going to ruin your day because it’s in his nature to do so. Question is, if he hadn’t met Irene, would he have gone on a killing spree?

The film came out a while ago so I don’t have to go into tremendous detail regarding the terrific performances, the gorgeous and literal cinematography, and how well constructed the film is into a sort of perfection. It’s the closest thing to a perfect film and was shot for only $10 million, which goes to show that with a low budget one can still achieve greatness provided that one has a terrific screenplay; then comes a good director, good actors, and terrific cinematography. Imagination is key; then comes the screenplay and then comes the expertise.
____________________________________

Also available now and recommended are:

The Big Year (2011), starring Steve Martin, Jack Black, and Owen Wilson

and The Mill and The Cross (2011), starring Rutger Hauer

Something New

2012-01-29T00:34:00.001-05:00

Each month in 2012, staring February I will be reviewing one film in particular that I've always wanted to watch or that I should have watched by now. It will be posted on the last day of each month. I have chosen 11 films that range from the 1930s to the 1970s, and will be watching and reviewing them in chronological order. The films for this special occasion are:

(February) L'Atalante - Vigo, 1934
(March) Brief Encounter - Lean, 1945
(April) Letter from an Unknown Woman - Ophüls, 1948
(May) Los Olvidados - The Young and the Damned - Buñuel, 1950
(June) The Earrings of Madame de... - Ophüls, 1953
(July) Ordet - Dreyer, 1955
(August) A Man Escaped - Bresson, 1956
(September) Contempt - Godard, 1963
(October) Chimes at Midnight - Welles, 1965
(November) Persona - Bergman, 1966
(December) A Woman Under the Influence - Cassavetes, 1974

I'm looking forward to receiving feedback from you all, my adoring fans!

Top 10 Worst Films of 2011

2012-01-17T01:20:00.001-05:00

In addition to my list detailing the top 10 best films of 2011 I submit to you, my loyal readers my list for the top 10 worst films of 2011. And in order to avoid future headaches, reminiscing about these terrible films I’m keeping the synopses shorter than the usual.
Enjoy!

(please click on the photos to enlarge them, they contain humorous insight)

10. Limitless

A pathetic new take on the “real life” superhero story that goes awry right from the start and delivers a rather cheap and anti-climactic conclusion. There’s no actual point to this film.

09. Colombiana

A boring “action” film starring Zoe Saldana that masquerades as a revenge film while forgetting that it’s a revenge film for most of its long running time (one hour and fifty minutes!!). Also, Zoe: eat a steak or a hamburger!

08. The Mechanic

Written by the screenwriter of the original Charles Bronson cult classic, The Mechanic remake takes every aspect from the original film and delivers the opposite. I’m not kidding; it’s literally the complete opposite of the original film. As a result, it fails with every step and is left open ended (unlike the original film!)! How did this film happen?!

07. Battle Los Angeles

Boooooooring! Shaky camera + Call of Duty Modern Warfare + aliens that we never get to properly see or understand + almost a to hour running time = boooooooring! And crap! And long (one hour and fifty-six minutes!!)!

06. Conan the Barbarian

Boooooooring! What’s less interesting than a skinny version of Conan the Barbarian talking all of the time and not doing anything interesting? This film has a runtime of an hour and fifty-three minutes (is there a pattern developing here?), terrible CGI, and forgettable fights/battles. It just sucks!

05. Immortals

Tarsem’s manages to do the unthinkable: he shoots a film that looks sub-par at best, has no connection to the mythos that’s it’s based on, and doesn’t have any action until its last 15-20 minutes. Plus, it has a two hour runtime (oh, come on!); every set, which btw always looks like a set, is showcased through tiny rooms or corridors; and every exterior shot is a gigantic, flat, barren wasteland. And once again, it's long (one hour and fifty minutes!!) and boooooooring!

04. Horrible Bosses

This was the first comedic film that I’ve watched in 2011 that didn’t make me laugh more than twice. One was a cute, 10 second skit with cars, and the other was an accident. I was the only one in the theatre laughing at the second “accidental” joke. And yet, somehow it wasn’t boring! ...huh...

03. Super

Argh! Another “real life” superhero film! But this one was rather interesting until Rainn Wilson put on that stupid red costume and began bludgeoning bystanders over the head with a monkey wrench. Early on he was assaulted by alien tentacles, if my memory serves me right, and later he is raped by Ellen Page (both in costume). It wasn’t boring but it was wrongfully disturbing and ultimately a piece of crap. Pardon my French.

02. Bridesmaids

This is second comedic film that I’d watched in 2011 but it’s a worse film than Horrible Bosses because it’s OVER TWO HOURS IN LENGTH and DIDN’T MAKE ME LAUGH ONCE! Why is this film being nominated for Golden Globe awards and how did it end up on people and critics’ top 10 best films of 2011 lists?!!! And yes, it was boooooooring!

This film just pissed me off.

01. Sucker Punch

Read my 0.5 stars review to find out why Sucker Punch is the worst film of 2011. ‘Nuff said.
Oh, and btw: it's also over two hours in length.

I thought that compiling this list would be fun but it only reminded me how terrible Hollywood's been getting lately, for the most part. So I've had it (for now)! That's it! I'm outta here!

Top 10 Films of 2011

2011-12-28T02:22:00.004-05:00

(click on images to enlarge)

I don’t like making top 10 lists because it makes me seem like a film snob. But I am a film snob, and somehow I still dislike making top 10 lists! Can't win them all...
So seeing that almost everyone else out there has compiled a top 10 (or 20) list, here is my list for the best 10 films of 2011:

10. Rango

Gore Verbinski’s Rango is hilarious, inventive, and, most importantly unique. It’s ILM’s (Industrial Light and Magic) first 3D animated film (shot and presented only in 2D, thankfully!) and the reason for its great success is that it doesn’t pretend to be an animated film. It’s shot like a real film and sometimes even looks live-action. The story, heavily borrowing from Chinatown (1974) is terrific and so are the performances. This is a jewel of a film, an animated, contemporary classic, and ultimately one of the year’s best films.

09. Midnight in Paris

Midnight in Paris is Woody Allen’s best film since Match Point (2005). It’s remarkably original, fresh, and was shot entirely in digital (Woody was experimenting with the digital medium to see whether he’s want to shot in digital from then on and as a result, it is a pretty looking film). It also boasts terrific performances all around. Most importantly, it's managed put a smile on my face right from its start and it stayed that way all the way to its end. Midnight in Paris (now out on DVD and Blu-ray) also doesn't get old with repeat viewings.

08. The Tree of Life

I love every film that Terrence Malick has made and The Tree of Life is quite an exceptional experience. It not only utilizes Malick’s unique storytelling methods of none linear storytelling but even dares to go back to the beginning of time. That’s right! The film starts in the 1950s, flashes to the beginning and creation of our universe (for a sequence that's more than 20 minutes in length) and then comes back around to continue the story that it began telling. It’s uplifting; magical; beautiful to look at; contains amazing performances; and is Malick’s most ambitious film to date. It needs to seen and our senses need to be challenged. And its cinematography is to die for.

07. Melancholia

I detested all of Lars von Trier’s films until I watched Antichrist (2009). Then with Melancholia I was on board the von Trier train. Melancholia, depicting depression as harsh as it possibly can has its protagonist in such a terrible state that during the magical night of her wedding, she summons a giant planet (named Melancholia) that’s on a collision course with the Earth. It’s a breathtaking and gorgeously shot, remarkable, powerful, and maddening film that works with the ideal of existence and nothingness. It’s quite an experience.

06. The Artist

It’s about time that someone remembered that silent films can be as terrific as talkies. So The Artist is not just a terrific film, it also contains a statement on our current culture and how backwards it is (most people have become lazy philistines).

George Valentin (Jean Dujardin, who’d won Best Actor at Canne) is an egotistic Hollywood silent film superstar who falls from grace because the talkies have arrived. It isn’t mentioned but it’s probably due to his heavy French accent. The Artist combines the central plot of Singin’ in the Rain (1952) and the sad career turn of Rudolph Valentino and still manages to bring a fresh take on the story aspect of the transition from silent films to the talkies and the young taking over for the older. It’s also shot in gorgeous black and white; it depicts the silent and early talkies era with perfection (down to using matte paintings for cityscapes); and it’s shot just like the films were back then. It looks like it was shot on old film stock (I could be wrong, there could be a lot of post production there), seeing that it’s out of focus ever-so-slightly and just where it needs to be, and the actors overact just enough in order to compensate for the lack of sound. The best “silent” performance in the film, aside from Dujardin’s is John Goodman’s, who plays the big-shot producer.

This is a terrific, wonderful, and inspiring film (from France of all places!), and don’t forgot to look out for the Love Theme from Hitchcock’s Vertigo (1958) in the last 15 minutes of the film.

05. Drive

Drive is my favorite film of 2011. Director Nicolas Winding Refn won the Best Director award at Cannes, and rightly so. Here, his take on the mythology of a “superhero” is harrowing and brilliant. What we think a hero would be like in real life is depicted in Drive as a sociopath with psychotic tendencies who likes to drive around at night for no apparent reason except that that’s what he likes to do. He is the shadow of a man, without real emotions or connections to other human beings and when he makes contact he ends up destroying everything that is worth anything, including a relationship.

It’s not the story of self destruction; it’s about an isolated spirit that wants to be a part of someone else’s life and cannot, for he is, as aforementioned, a sociopath with psychotic tendencies.

Did I mention that he’s largely mythological and that the film is gorgeously shot and is hugely stylized?

04. Hugo

Hugo is one of Martin Scorsese’s best films from the last couple of decades. Here we have one of the greatest living directors, a living legend who tackles the quasi-semi-autobiographical (yeah, I split it into thirds) story of the later years of the wizard of the cinema: Georges Méliès.

Hugo is the most competently shot and lit film of the year and every single frame of it is littered with the beauty that can only come from a master on par Scorsese’s caliber. And it's also Scorsese’s first 3D film and it manages to put every 3D film ever made to shame (even James Cameron admitted that Avatar’s been put to shame), on a technical level and as a film, too. If it’s still in theatres and in 3D, I highly recommend that you watch it. And this is coming from a person that abolishes the 3D film process.

Hugo and the following three films are some of best films that I have seen in many years.

03. Take Shelter

A harrowing portrait of a man who may or may not be suffering from schizophrenia is told brilliantly here, without thousands of CGI shots. It centers on a man who, through increasingly unpleasant and bizarre visions believes that a storm is approaching, but one that seems more supernatural than normal; as if an apocalypse is to come with the storm. Michael Shannon plays the man, Curtis and his performance is all powerful and nothing short of astounding; groundbreaking even.

The film never actually tells us what’s going on, whether Curtis's terrible visions are real or are just part of his psyche that's playing tricks on him and Shannon brings forward his best performance to date. He’s only at the start of his career and already he’s on an A-list caliber.

The direction and cinematography are subtle, and the film’s style is that of a slow burn; tension is raised from the start and never lets up and this film is a masterpiece.

02. A Separation

A Separation has the best screenplay of the year. It starts with the separation of a man and his wife, living in contemporary Iran, and we follow the man more as his life tumbles out of control. The film’s focus is on Iran’s legal system, which is remarkably strict and yet simultaneously broken; religion, and how we can actually hurt others due to our strong religious beliefs; taking care of a parent who suffers from Alzheimer's; and living with parents that are separated.

After what transpires in the first 20 minutes, which I won't ruin, the rest of the film depicts several lives that spiral out of control and a snowball tumbles downhill at an alarming speed. The domino effect is also an accurate depiction of what happens in the film and this is masterful complex, and brilliant storytelling.

01. Shame

Director Steve McQueen (Hunger, 2008) showcases a straightforward, no holds barred account of a man, Brandon (played partly with subtlety and partly with brilliant anguish by Michael Fassbender) who suffers from sex addiction. Unlike any other film or television series that's centered on the concept of sex addiction, Shame makes the film almost unbearable to watch.

Brandon needs to “relieve” himself several times a day and the worst part is that he can’t control it; it's become a daily compulsion. He hates that his life has turned into a boring pit of nothingness, filled with hundreds of porno magazines, paid sex websites, and prostitutes galore. He hates that he cannot take pleasure in his own sexual acts and that he hasn’t any feelings, or more correctly emotions towards others. He can’t live with other people, can’t hold an actual relationship, and can never get married. It's a tough life and seeing that Brandon is a successful, wealthy New Yorker shows that this can happen to anyone. Here is a man that has it all: money, looks, and sex appeal and he's can't even go on a normal date with a co-worker.

Shame is a harrowing, painful, and brilliant depiction of a damaged human being that’s remarkably tough to watch but is ultimately a very rewarding experience. This is the best drama that I’ve seen all year and one of the toughest films that I’ve ever watched.

Shame is the best film of 2011. And remember: if you want to stop watching the film at any point out of utter disgust or out of sadness, then Steve McQueen and Michael Fassbender have done their job.

Immortals (2011)

2011-12-01T17:38:00.007-05:00

I am a fan of Tarsem Singh’s cinema for the most part. His first film, The Cell (2000) is a brilliantly conceived and executed film that deals with one’s inner demons while existing almost entirely inside the mind of a serial killer; visually gorgeous, gory, and heavily symbolic The Cell is a masterpiece that barely anyone had watched. His second film, The Fall (2006) is an even more gorgeous looking film; one of the best looking films that I’ve ever seen. And unlike The Cell, it contains almost no CG. It was shot in 26 locations and in 18 countries, and it took somewhere between 4-5 years to shoot, due to budgetary restraints. The end result is a gorgeous, fantastic and melancholic film that contains unforgettable imagery and is Tarsem’s second masterpiece.

His third film Immortals is a shallow, boring, ugly, and terribly paced mess that contains buckets of graphic CG blood and gore and worst of all, it has nothing to do with the mythological story that it’s based on.

Immortals, not based on Greek Mythology, tells the tale of King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke), his hatred for the Gods, and the fact that he wants to release the titans in order to kill them all. The titans, imprisoned within Mount Tartarus eons ago by the Gods above are also types of Gods and therefore, are the only ones able to kill the Gods above. But when the oracle Phaedra (Freida Pinto) envisions that a mortal named Theseus (Henry Cavill) will challenge Hyperion and either embrace or destroy him, she makes it her mission to find him and send him on his destined course; with hopes that he’ll kill Hyperion.

A magic weapon lays in wait between both Hyperion and Theseus, as they each race to find it and claim it. It’s a magic bow, the Bow of Epirus that materializes arrows whenever its string is pulled and those arrows can travel any distance and destroy or kill anything and anyone. Theseus gets to it first with the help of Phaedra, a thief named Stavros (Stephen Dorff), and a few other Greek warriors. They race towards Mount Tartarus in order to meet Hyperion there and destroy him before he sets the titans free. But Hyperion needs the bow in order to free the titans and he does so, using treachery and he frees the titans and an epic battle ensues.

The thing that I like about Greek tales and mythologies, their tragedies in specific is that in them characters never second guess themselves. It’s a rule of thumb. When one gets a certain idea in their mind, they stick to it whether it kills them and that’s why so many Greek stories and mythologies transform into tragedies.

In the popular Theseus mythology, he, a mortal born of man, was sent by the Gods to slay a minotaur. He was instructed to raise a certain flag on his ship’s mast upon his return in order to signify that he’d accomplished his task. Theseus slays the minotaur and as he heads home, he forgets about raising the flag. His father sees his ship arrive without the appropriate flag raised, believes that Theseus had failed and was probably killed, and commits suicide. That’s the gist of a Greek tragedy and what had happened in the story of Theseus that we’re familiar with. In Tarsem’s reinvention of the Greek mythos, Theseus, a mortal born of Zeus (in his mortal version he’s played by John Hurt), bumps into one of King Hyperion’s minions, a man wearing a minotaur shaped helmet, and slays him. Then he proceeds to find and kill Hyperion almost like the previous fight had never happened.

Now onto a more pressing matter: Tarsem’s visual style and cinematography. His style is unique; not because he was a director of commercials but because his style simply is unique. One has to watch The Fall in order to understand why Tarsem’s visuals are so gorgeous, why his compositions are brilliant, and why the costumes are “out of this world”. The same goes for The Cell. But in Immortals, the art direction is similar to that of Zack Snyder’s 300, another tale based on a famous battle between a relatively small Spartan army and an army of Persians numbering close to or more than 10,000. The film is based on a comic book written and drawn by Frank Miller and history was thrown out of the window in order to make the violence bloodier, and the story more character based than it should have been. Seeing that it’s a Zack Snyder film it was chock full of slow motion segments, most of the film to be exact, it was tinted in gold and had a terrible digital grain, and looked and felt like a video game. Immortals is more of the same; its action sequences are shot mostly as slow motion segments and it was shot digitally and always with green screens, but it looked digital and the green screens are mostly visible. The film’s graphic, gruesome violence is entirely composed of CG and tons of CG blood flies here and there in the film’s third act. But maybe that’s due to the fact that the film’s budget was only $75 million.

The costumes, mostly of the Gods, are unique looking, but they’re strange rather than beautiful; actually, they're rather awkward. And aside from the city in which Theseus grew up in, one embedded within a mountain (it did actually look nice) the landscapes throughout the entirety of the film are gigantic, barren, and square. Imagine a giant desert. Now place a gigantic wall in the middle of it. Now enact a battle consisting of thousands of CG warriors on one side of the wall and keep the battle going for more than half an hour. Pretty boring to look at, right? Well, there was also the corridor inside that giant wall in which most of the battle took place, but it was cramped and the bodies that fell and died seemed to have disappeared rather clogged up the corridor, resulting in either a stalemate or a victory for one of the sides. Moments like that, in films irk me and especially when they’re in a film that I’ve been waiting for over a year to watch.

Disappointed doesn’t even begin to cover it. I like nothing about this film. I watched in 2D because, it was shot in 2D and the visuals always looked fake. The sets were small; small rooms, small (and thin) corridors, thin mountain passes, and the rest of the film’s aesthetics contained wide open, barren landscapes that contradicted and contrasted the “small” insert shots of the indoors. The film was also paced terribly; I was straining to remain awake. The first hour contained insignificant dialogue and the final 40 minutes had slow motion, gory, CG violence. I wag my finger at you, Tarsem.

Tarsem may have been bedridden while shooting this film and if he was, that’s an excuse that I would gladly accept over this actually being the final product that he’d truly wanted to have.

Sucker Punch (2011)

2011-06-21T01:27:00.006-04:00

Writer/director Zack Snyder began his Hollywood film career by directing Dawn of the Dead (2004), an unnecessary remake of the original George Romero classic that lacks the fun and social commentary that the original had; 300 (2006), a slow motion riddled, homoerotic throwback to the tale telling of muscular men who are outnumbered and still fight off a horde of freaks; Watchmen (2009), a slow motion riddled, glossy and violent take on a classic graphic novel but one that fails because it’s hyper-stylized and it takes its subject matter too seriously; and The Legend of the Guardians: the Owls of Ga’Hoole, a slow motion riddled, gorgeous looking, character and story lacking, 3D-animated film that features Kung Fu fighting owls. In case one can't tell, I don't like a single one of Zack Snyder's films, thus far.

Now comes Sucker Punch, a slow motion riddled, female empowerment film that does the opposite of what it sets to do because (and this is only one reason) it dresses all of its female protagonists as burlesque stars/prostitutes.

The plot synopsis that follows is not made up; the following is the actual plot of the film:

Baby Doll (Emily Browning) and her younger sister are orphaned and sent to live with their abusive father-in-law. She ties to protect her younger sister and accidentally ends up shooting her instead of the monstrous father-in-law that was attacking her. Baby Doll is then sent to a mental asylum and there she fantasizes that the mental asylum is part prison and burlesque house, because every 20 year old girl that is institutionalized secretly wants to dance in a burlesque house. The dances are not even shown in the film, rather when Baby Doll is about to dance the camera closes in on her eyes and she then finds herself in yet another fantasy land, one belonging to a next-gen video game.

In order to escape the facility, Baby Doll needs to find four items: a map, a lighter, a knife, and a key. In order to retrieve said item she recruits the other inmates of the asylum: Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), her younger sister Rocket (Jena Malone), raven-haired Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens), and Amber (Jamie Chung). Baby Doll dances and the five of them enter a fantasy world, like WWI trench warfare; ancient Japan, where Baby Doll fights 40 foot tall samurais armed with bazookas; and an unspecified medieval time period where the group battles a mother dragon with a helicopter and a Mech. Upon a success mission, the girls manage to, in the burlesque house, steal an item from the list and hopefully get the next one.

There’s not much of a story in this film or even a good moral to tell because closing one’s eyes and wishing that one was in a fantasy land, generated by every 13 year old boy’s puberty-based fantasies is not the proper way to face reality. Also, the end product can only be enjoyed by the typical 13 year old boy because the girls in the film, even though dressed like prostitutes, also look like beautiful young adults who are made up to look like whores; and so anyone over the age of 18 would feel rather awkward watching this film.

The special effects in the film are, for lack of a better word, just a lot of special effects. Almost every scene in the film is shot with green screens, just like 300 was and so we always feel detached from the characters and their actions, and the CGI’s not even that good. It resembles pre-rendered cut scene footage from Playstation 3 and Xbox360 games, much like James Cameron’s Avatar (2009) did.

Lastly, there’s a whole ton of slow motion used in this film, I’d say a good 70% of the film is shot that way so it could have been a 35 minute short. Zack Snyder apparently doesn’t read criticism about his films and so he doesn’t realize that almost everyone who’d watched his films, thus far wishes for him to stop utilizing the technique of slow motion outside of its proper use. For the proper way to use slow motion in film, watch Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai. There’s a lot to be learned from watching that film.

Sucker Punch is one of the worst movies that I’ve ever seen. Nothing is coherent, especially the way that the third act shifts from the second gear straight onto the fourth gear and also it shifts into someone else’s narrative, which is a big no-no when we were following one person’s narrative for nearly 100 minutes. The action sequences are entirely inconsequential and, therefore superfluous, because they mask what happens in the real world (or burlesque house level of reality) and because this film believes that it’s a drama, it should have strayed away from the fantasy world altogether. The performances in the film, also, are lacking energy and conviction and the entire time I felt like I should not have been watching the film at all. For simply watching the film I was a sucker that was repeatedly punched in the face with terrible, clichéd allegories and I didn’t enjoy a single minute of. But I did watch the entire film and here I am, writing to you good people in hope that no one makes the mistake that I did watching this film after the whole world told me not to. I took one for the team so that the team wouldn’t have to.

Oh! And there’s also a cheat ending if the movie isn’t bad enough as it is!

Fast Five (2011)

2011-04-30T12:29:00.005-04:00

As a car enthusiast, I wasn’t a fan of the first movie, The Fast and the Furious (2001); it didn’t know much about cars and the underworld racing culture isn’t interesting to me because drag racing is about as intense as fly fishing. I hated the second film, 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003); I loved the third film, The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006), which is a standalone film; and I hated the fourth film, Fast & Furious (2009).

Fast Five, I kind of like.

There is a story embedded somewhere within this film but it’s not interesting or important, and nor does it really need to exist. There just has to be a reason for random things to happen between one action sequence and the next. And no one really needs to watch any of the other F&F films in order to enjoy this one.

But for the sake of tradition…

Fast Five takes place exactly where the fourth film had ended, in which Dom (Vin Diesel) was escorted via prison bus to serve a 25-year sentence without parole. His best friend and his sister, played by Paul Walker and Jordana Brewster break him out by flipping the bus over (magically without hurting anyone on it!) and they all take off to live in Rio de Janeiro (hopefully they didn’t drive there). Once there, Dom and the gang meet up with his brother, who’d been absent since the first film, and immediately they team up to pull off a job where muscle cars are extracted from within a moving train. It’s implausible and improbable but the film, from its first opening minute, announces its hatred for anything physics related and breaks every rule in the universe. The end result is that it’s fun. Who cares when it’s fun, right?

Dwayne Johnson leads a team of special ops in the US and is called to Brazil to apprehend Dom and the gang. That’s’ really all there is for him to do. Aside from a Parkour chase in the slums and a good ’ol fashion fist with between him and Vin Diesel, there’s not much for him to do.

There’s another story involving the biggest crook in all of Rio and in order to destroy him, the entire cast from every single F&F film joins the current cast and they form a team, turning the second half of this film into an Ocean’s Eleven repeat. But it’s still a fun repeat.

There isn’t any acting power in this film. I know, from the bottom of my heart that Vin Diesel and Paul Walker cannot act and this film is further proof of that, but in order to combat the obvious, Chris “Ludacris” Bridges and Tyrese Gibson offer terrific comic relief, thankfully throughout, and the return of Han (Sung Kang), in a strange alternate universe “the third film will always be the last film in the series” is a nice welcome.

I like the character of Han. He’s actually the only character that I’d ever liked from all five films. In the first film, all of the protagonists were thieves by day and illegal street racers by night. The real hero was an undercover FBI agent who befriended the criminals and eventually they became best friends. There was absolutely nothing to like about any of them; and Dom spouting gospels about family and loyalty got very old, very fast. Han, he’s mellow. He races for fun, for skill, and, obviously for women. But he’s a very nice guy. Clearly he doesn’t belong in this film series but having him in the third film, playing mellow and cool, and bringing him back to this fifth installment is a very nice touch.

There is plenty of action in this film, as absurd and physics defying as it is and, thankfully, almost no racing. There is a short drag race in the middle of the film that doesn’t make any sense and doesn’t need to exist either, but I have a feeling that without it fans of the series would be upset. The pacing of the film is decent, even though the film is over two hours in length, and there is plenty of humor to be found.

This is a film that is almost entirely designed for fanboys of the series. If you liked the first four films, or any of them you will love this film. If not, this is still an improvement over the first, second, and fourth films put together. Within the first 30 minutes, I had a rating of 3 stars in mind; within half of the film I lowered it to 2 stars. By the end, it’s a solid 2 1/2. It’s almost a solid pass. Just remember to check your brain at the door, along with your cell phone.

The American (2010)

2010-11-18T01:00:00.002-05:00

(Click on any image to enlarge)

It might seem unusual for director Anton Corbijn (Control, 2007) to direct a spy/assassin thriller, one that takes place almost entirely at the Castel Del Monte hillside commune. But one would be wrong in assuming that a) this is a spy or assassin film, and b) that this is a thriller. Well, it is and it isn’t. More on that in a bit.

The American is what I like to call a “state of mind” film. It’s a film genre name that I’d created in order to explain, simply, that what we [the audience] are subjected to is the state of mind and state of consciousness a specific character, usually the protagonist. We follow the character around, everywhere that he or she walks, runs, or drives to, we see what they see, and we experience everything from their point of view. Also, we experience how they relate to the happenings that transpire around them and before them, be they good or bad happenings.

The absolute quintessential use of the “state of mind” approach is depicted in Jean-Pierre Melville’s classic 1970s gangster drama Le Samourai, which stars one of Frances greatest screen actors Alain Delon. In Le Samourai, Delon plays Jef Costello and he’s a hitman. Dressed in impeccable taste and to the fashions of the decade, and always armed with a trench coat, fedora, and white pair of gloves, Costello spends most of his time lying or sitting still inside his Paris apartment, listening to his caged bird chirp and awaiting a purpose in life; a phone call with information regarding his next kill. Costello speaks very little throughout the film and Delon almost never carries an expression of any kind on his face, a performance that was made famously into a style by Buster Keaton.

The reason that I’d sidetracked into Melville’s territory is because The American borrows greatly from it in atmosphere and character treatment. George Clooney plays Jack, and sometimes Edward. In the film’s intro we see him living with a female in a cabin, surrounded snow and mountains; they are in Sweden. After an assassin attempts to kill Jack in the open, jacks one-ups him and then shoots the woman that’d accompanied him.

Who was she? And was she really an enemy or did Jack only think that and kill her out of paranoia? Those questions needn’t be asked because they set up the rest of the film, and paranoia is the key ingredient of the film.

We follow Jack as he travels to Italy and we stay with him almost entirely within the confines of the hillside commune. We follow him everywhere that he goes, we watch him eat, and we listen to his phone conversations with his employer who tells him that there’s another job lined up for him and that it doesn’t involve killing. For his new job Jack is to manufacture an untraceable rifle for a woman, and after meeting with her and getting the specifics for the job he begins to assemble the rifle from scratch. The task is showcased in sequences spread throughout the entire film and we see Jack assemble an entire rifle by hand, by feel, and to perfection. Those scenes are wonderful to behold.

Whenever he feels the urge, Jack frequents a brothel and fornicates with only one prostitute, Clara (Violante Placido). What we are subject to is Jack’s inability to experience anything more than lust and all that we get is animalistic sex (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Clara is beautiful and yet her beauty alone is what transpires the lust in Jack. He can’t feel real emotions aside from fright and feeling suspense (or fright) is a state of mind, not feeling therefore Jack, basically, lacks the capacity to experience and/or showcase any and all emotions. What we have is the shell of a man, one that looks, sounds, and physically feels like we all do but can’t experience or express emotions and this film being shot in the “state of mind” approach is essential in inflicting Jack’s state of paranoid mind upon us. We feel his paranoia because he feels it; we see what he does and doesn’t see, and we feel the fear that he feels just by exiting his home.

I don’t believe that I have to mention how good of an actor George Clooney is, seeing that he can play an action hero (From dusk Till Dawn), an intelligent, undercover CIA agent that’s being framed by his own employers (Syriana), and a goofball (‘O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Burn after Reading). In The American, Clooney delivers his best performance to date. He never breaks out of character and I sympathized with Jack throughout the film simply because of Clooney’s depiction of mounting paranoia.

Take a look at this series of shots from the film and take note of Jack’s growing paranoia and Clooney’s depiction of the madness:

If there’s one thing that I’d never seen in a hitman/assassin film is the assassin himself feeling scared. Jack is scared all the time even if he doesn’t show it. He is a professional at his calling and even though he lacks feeling as a whole he shows us that he’s human by fearing for his life. So why is he scared? Why wouldn’t he be scared; he doesn’t even know why he’s being targeted for assassination.

And now onto the visuals of the film: The American is, as mentioned by every viewer of the film, a gorgeous looking film but it’s very easy to shoot gorgeous looking films. Therefore, Corbijn chooses each and every single frame carefully and not a single shot in this film is pointless. Every shot crafts Jacks’ present state of mind and the people that frequent the shots come and go as they please, some simply disappear just in the corner of our eyes. Sometimes a man might be sitting in his car watching Jack and as Jack looks around to try and spot potential danger, upon looking back the man is no longer in the car. Which begs the question: was a man actually in the car all along or did Jack imagine him? Again, we are subjected to Jack’s present state of mind and so we see what he may or may not see. And these kinds of tricks happen throughout the film frequently. The fact that the film is slow in pace is essential in inflicting fear in the audience because we begin to feel for Jack. And even after the film is over, we know nothing about him at all, not even his real name, but the director had managed to make us care for a complete unknown without even providing personal detail about him.

There is no exposition in the film, plot or character oriented; just visual quirks that remind us where we are and why we’re there. Again, it’s very essential to make every single shot in the film mean something: the quiet Italian streets at night, the lack of dialogue that Jack outpours (or doesn’t), and lack of love between him and Clara until the third act, although I am convinced that it’s her beauty and his lust for her that propels him into an “I’ve fallen in love with her” situation. And the fact that she knows nothing about him, just like us, makes for a sad relationship that’s doomed from the start.

This is not a boring film nor is it a pointless film. Every single film in existence has a story to tell and a story behind it. This one tells a sad story very simply, but there is a story here and it’s a good one. If one watches any pointless film that is nothing more than schlock I can guarantee that there is a story to within it regardless; we simply need to find out from the director what the story is. Many directors do a good job of riding their films of plot and visually, or audibly punctuating the story with the talent for cinema storytelling; this is a visual medium after all.

Lastly, The American can be viewed as a silent film. I recommend to silent film era aficionados that this film be watched without any sound, except for subtitles, and they’ll quickly notice everything that they’d missed the first time around. It’s that good of a film that does a terrific job that took me only one viewing to notice how good it is simply by following the craftsmanship behind it. Don’t listen to what people say about this film, it being pointless, boring, and unintelligent. Judge it for yourself by understanding first and foremost what you’re about to watch, prepare yourself for a “state of mind” film, and enjoy the scenery.

Iron Man 2 (2010)

2010-11-17T21:05:00.003-05:00

Iron Man 2 takes off from exactly where the first film ended: Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) revealed to the world that he is Iron Man and is now basking in fame. He’s also dying of palladium poisoning from the Arc Reactor fixated within his chest. But the latter is a secret well kept from the entire world and even from his closest friend Lt. Colonel James “Rhodey” Rhodes (Don Cheadle) and his trusted assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). Downey Jr. is still a fantastic Tony Stark, riddled with ADD but this time focusing more on his alcoholism and Paltrow is great as Pepper, keeping her possible affections for Stark a secret even from the audience. But Cheadle’s Rhodey has almost no chemistry with Stark because of script problems.

To add to the roster of excellent actors and their fantastic performances in this film we have Mickey Rourke playing Ivan Vanko, a Russian scientist who believes that his father was the original inventor of the Arc Reactor technology and who wants to exact revenge upon Tony Stark for not recognizing that fact, and Sam Rockwell playing Justin Hammer, an industrialist who competes with Stark Industries in weapons manufacturing and who hates Tony Stark (and vice versa).

Vanko manufactures a suit that uses the Arc reactor and incorporates a pair of electric whips, walks onto the race track of a Formula 1 race in Monaco, and destroys a few of the cars competing, including one being driven by Tony Stark himself. Stark then meets his match in a menacing, gold tooth capped, tattooed walking wall of muscle. And when Justin Hammer sees Vanko’s destructive style on TV he immediately assists in faking Vanko’s death and recruits him so as to build robots for him and help him destroy Tony Stark.
They’re a terrific duo of bad guys. Their chemistry is evident from the get go and they clearly have fun playing the badass Ivan Vanko and the snaky Justin Hammer.

Here’s the first big problem with this sequel: aside from the two new bad guys that work wonderfully, there are even more new characters. Nick Fury is not a new character but has almost 10 minutes of screen time in this film. The problem with Nick Fury’s existence in this film is that he mostly explains to Tony that he’s being recruited for the Avengers initiative and seeing that The Avengers will have their own film, I don’t understand why an Iron Man movie has to focus on that. It’s an Iron Man movie. The first movie showed an appearance from Nick Fury for a minute, after the end credits where he simply whispered the Avengers initiative. That was enough to excite the fan boys. But he returns and simply focuses on news about another movie and, therefore doesn’t’ need to be in this movie.
The other new character is Natalie Rushman/Natasha Romanoff (Scarlet Johansson) and she is from Stark Industries’ legal department. She’s gorgeous to look at, is deadly in the ring, and secretly works for S.H.I.E.L.D., under Nick Fury’s jurisdiction. As beautiful as she is, she also is unnecessary for this film.

So we have a Tony Stark that’s dying and tries to live life to the fullest. He throws a party, gets ridiculously drunk, and almost destroys his house while showing off to party attendants what his Iron Man suit can do. Rhodey shows up, puts on another Iron Man suit, the War Machine, and beats up Stark. Where that character trait came from, I don’t know. He also steals the suit and hands it over to Hammer Industries. That, also doesn't make sense.

The movie is grossly uneven. It seems to suffer from the ADD that Stark suffers from, except for the middle segment which mostly develops character that was already developed in the first film.
The bad guys are under developed and so the third act doesn’t work well because their true intentions are even kept a secret from the audience.
Even though Cheadle is a better choice for Rhodey than Terrence Howard was, he doesn’t have any chemistry with Tony Stark and that’s the screenwriter’s and director’s faults.
The action is good and the CGI is even better than the first film’s but there is a large lack of physics and the Iron Man seems to lack weight and mass.
The structure is all over the place and yet the beginning, middle, and end are directly borrowed from the first film. This movie has the exact same ending as the first film but doesn’t deserve to because Vanko is not Obadiah; he’s not personally close to Stark. The character arc that Stark goes through in the first film is strong and relates to the overall ending and here it’s just a generic standoff.

I like this film for trying to be bigger and better than the first, I like the action in it, and I like that Senator Stern (Garry Shandling) is trying to persuade Tony Stark to hand over the Iron Man as a weapon. He refuses to do so because he IS the Iron Man and it’s not JUST a machine. The movie has good ideas but the lack of proper structure causes the film to suffer greatly; there are too many peaks on this mountain. The performances are terrific but there are too many characters. Tony Stark is too erratic and although fun, he drains the audience’s energy. The bad guys, again, are underdeveloped. There is too much happening here and within too little time and then there's too much left out.

Many will compare this film to The Dark Knight (2008), in terms of them both being sequels but are incomparable because in TDK, everything that happens there happens for a reason (cause and consequence) and every character that is introduced exists with a purpose. Here, there’s too much happening at all times and some happenings and characters don’t need to be here.

It’s a nice try but is not nearly as perfect as the first film.

Saw VI (2009)

2009-11-30T20:12:00.012-05:00

Jigsaw takes on investment bankers and America’s health care, and it’s pretty darn funny.

I will not recap the previous 5 films because this film series has a history of concocting new characters and having the audacity to pretend that they had existed throughout the series all along, but behind the scenes. In short, Hoffman (Costas Mandylor), the new Jigsaw who’d taken over for John (Tobin Bell), the original Jigsaw who died by the end of the third film apparently was around since even before the happenings of the first film and even before Jigsaw’s “first” protégé Amanda (Shawnee Smith). Hoffman is a cop who is on the Jigsaw case and must juggle two jobs at once, protecting the innocent and murdering the guilty.

Saw VI is about the fact that corporations run the country and that apparently it’s still news. The problem with the script is that Original Jigsaw wasn’t aware that the corporate world had existed until recently and had found out about health insurance the hard way: he was dying of cancer and his health insurance company had turned him down because of company policy: “we are not certain that the procedure, one having a 30-40% chance of success will succeed and also, because you are old we have to turn down your insurance claim, etc... more lawyer speak.”

The film’s protagonist, William Easton (Peter Outerbridge) was the man who had turned John “Jigsaw” down and therefore, must be punished. He finds himself kidnapped and he must survive a series of traps that result in slight personal mutilation, be they physical or mental, that mostly result in others being murdered. The idea, like in the previous Saw films is that the person that pulls the trigger is the one that commits the murders and not Jigsaw and William must learn what it means to actually “live” through the ideal of facing death. However, Jigsaw’s still a tad bit of a jerk because he’s attempting to save lives through the process of teaching and preaching about torture and the possibilities of death. Once again, Jigsaw takes on the corporate world believing that they are unaware of the decisions that they make and in there lies a terrible screenplay.

To add insult to injury, not one of the Saw films was ever directed or lit well, or edited properly; they all exist through strenuous low budgets and won’t have it any other way. The Saw films are incomprehensible, some dumber than even what was thought to be the dumbest, and are always poorly acted. Also, they are always entirely existent throughout flashbacks (this Saw film is at least 50% flashback and they have all been fabricated for this film alone). On all of those notes, the Saw films are consistent and for that I give a very unenthusiastic “yay”.

I don’t hate these movies because on several accounts I laughed and laughed hard. No Saw film had made me laugh more than this one because during its intro Jigsaw was actually heard saying to the investment bankers, and I loosely quote: “You have consistently provided citizens with payments that they could never afford throughout the entirety of their lives and for that you are being punished. How much will you sacrifice in order to set your guilty consciences free?” Again, I did not make that up but someone got paid very well to write that drivel.

I laughed throughout this film and I was also bored in the middle of it for a good thirty minutes. It’s normal for a Saw film to slow down significantly but one never turns it off because some really cheesy special effects are just over the horizon; some really stupid trap is there to make us feel better while reminding us of how stupid we are for watching these ridiculous films.

During this last paragraph I will mention that I liked Saw V more than any other Saw film because of the fact that it was the first Saw film to NOT take itself seriously. It was a ton of fun and was made for laughs and kicks. Then we come full circle and back to this dreck that believes in what it preaches and that was always what made these Saw films suck. It’s like when an Evangelical Christian preaches to one The Word and when listeners don’t like what they hear, or disbelieve in God they are automatically wrong. If one was to go to a forum discussing Saw VI and claiming that it’s one of the worst movies in the series and of this year they, too are in the wrong. Well, soooooory!

Watchmen (2009)

2009-07-21T17:26:00.014-04:00

Alan Moore’s 12-issue, 800 page graphic novel from 1985 was deemed unfilmable for over two decades. Breaking barriers and taboos in the graphic novel realm, Watchmen contains the ideal of superheroes that are average human beings.
In an alternate reality, basing itself in the 1930’s and moving forward through to the 1980’s, average citizens disguise themselves in costumes and parade into the night, fighting crime. They form a group called The Minutemen and are condoned by the police force and government. Fast forward to the present, the year being 1985 because the novel was written and drawn at that time, the Minutemen have changed into The Watchmen and they are a collective of second-generation superheroes, in some cases they are the original members’ offspring.
What is interesting about average citizens fighting crime on their own time is that they have personal demons and problems; drugs and other addictions, for one and the lack of super powers.

In the film, faithfully borrowing from the graphic novel, the Watchmen are Dan Dreiberg/Night Owl II (Patrick Wilson), a scientist who had inherited his father’s millions and designed costumed suits for combat and a floating airship; Laurie Jupiter/Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman), who reluctantly inherited the title from her former superhero mother Sally Jupiter/Silk Spectre I (Carla Gugino); Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) is the self-proclaimed “Smartest Man in the World” who had built an empire through technological wonders, political support and intel, and action figures; Rorschach/Walter Kovacs (Jackie Earle Haley), who wears a mask that shifts Rorschach Test blot images that symbolize his thoughts and feelings, and is slightly on the unstable side; Edward Blake/The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), who supported and fought for his country from WWII to Viet Nam, performed political assassinations, and found out how depressing the American Dream really is; and Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) was a nuclear physicist who, in a freak accident was ripped apart atom by atom, and in a parallel universe had pieced himself back together. Now he is a sort of “demi-God”.
Dr. Manhattan is the most intriguing character because he can see and sense existence in a quantum universe and existence, and sees time in a none-linear manner. He grows bored on Earth, teleports himself to Mars, constructs a fortress out of glass and ponders his own existence and purpose behind his past.

THE performance in the film, unanimously, is that of Jackie Earle Haley’s Rorschach but I think his performance is sub-par because he is masked throughout 3/4 of the film and speaks in a gruff voice, channeling Christian Bale’s Batman. My favourite performance is a split between Billy Crudup and Patrick Wilson. Crudup plays Dr. Manhattan to perfection: he’s calm and speaks in a tranquil voice, channeling melancholy, has the body of Adonis (thanks to decent CGI work), and always looks and sounds depressed. When he says that he had lost faith in mankind and needs a good reason to save them we feel his pain; Patrick Wilson plays Night Owl II like a very average, slightly chunky man who wears prescription glasses and is slightly impotent, but he plays him with conviction. We sense that Dan Dreiberg is average and doesn’t care about his past as a superhero.

Watching this film we notice that it’s entirely a character-driven piece. However, the drawback is that the film is three hours long so developing six main characters while providing intensive back-stories becomes tiresome rather quickly. We do not lose interest in the characters, only in the flow of the film.
There is some action in the film but it’s designed to sound and feel cheesy, and I don’t know why. When someone swings a punch we hear the air whooshing and the connecting punch’s sound effect is like that of a video game; the choreography is similar to Kung Fu flicks’ and director Zack Snyder insists on super slow motion throughout a good half of the film. What results is that we see someone walking towards the camera in normal speed that turns into slow motion, and then the speed slows down even more. Snyder does that many times throughout the film and eventually we realize that we are watching many montages. Every character’s back-story is simply a montage showcasing the time periods changing, and played to appropriate pop cultural music. It’s easy to follow but one cannot take the film seriously. For example the film’s opening credits showcase the 1930’s to the 1980’s in a long, super slow motion montage that plays Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changin’”. It’s a nice piece of cinema but ultimately, Snyder uses that technique throughout the three hours following and we grow tiresome of the film’s style and notice the lack of substance.

The film's substance is in the beginning, where The Comedian is murdered by a shadowy assassin providing the film with a detective story aspect, a flash back structured film, and finally at the end when the “bad guy” is revealed and is revealed to be doing something terrible for the greater good. There is a lot of philosophy in the film in many different aspects, and especially in its third act, but I find the film as a whole to lack substance and decent performances. I liked only three characters and their actors in the film, and their combined determination to find out the truth is muddled by MTV-style music videos, criminally overused slow motion, lackluster CGI, and a musical score that changes styles with each montage.

Fans of the graphic novel will notice that Zack Snyder emulates images from the source material faithfully into his film. Some shots are exactly similar in composition and colour but that‘s just using the novel as a storyboard. The rest is in the screenplay which is faithful and ironically, therefore, doesn’t work as a three hour film.
Maybe if Zack Snyder invested the budget toward a Made-for-TV, 10 hour mini-series we’d see something worth mentioning. As the story is already fragmented in its entirety, a mini series makes a lot more sense.

Watchmen is long and uninspired but contains some very interesting ideals, like the Keene Act: in 1977, Senator Keene passed a bill that outlawed vigilantism and asked all costumed heroes to reveal their true selves. Everyone except Rorschach and The Comedian had done so. Rorschach is slightly nuts and his mask is his actual personality, removing it showcases the true face he had lost in the past and hates; The Comedian still works for the government but under guise, and Dr. Manhattan works for the government as well, until a conspiracy had led him to outcast himself to his Martian fortress.
Good storytelling exists in the graphic novel and it contains drab, primary colours that insinuate a dreary existence. New York City looked like the real one: decrepit, beautiful, and old; not without its ups and downs. But in Snyder’s film, the entire universe is colourful and glossy. It’s not the “film effect” because in post-production everything can change; day can become night and gloss can be superimposed to apply a surreal effect. The graphic novel contains certain realism and the film lacks it entirely.

To sum it up, I should have watched the film before reading the novel. I would have found it to be “full of itself” in style but containing great idealism. Having read the novel first, I thought the novel was, overall pretty good and the film weak. In almost every aspect the film is weak but at least it looks nice, which is ironic because the novel wasn’t glossy and didn’t pull any punches.

Public Enemies (2009)

2009-07-14T19:30:00.018-04:00

We are thrust into the 1930’s without a warning, like being dropped into a cave without a flashlight. You wait for all available light to cast outlines of every object and person and you listen to the surrounding sounds to find out where you are. Such is the style of director Michael Mann’s biopic on John Dillinger and his short lived career. It lacks drama and character but it showcases the period with certain respect.

Public Enemies opens with John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) being thrown into a prison and within minutes he manages to escape with a group of inmates. The group hides out in a house in the middle of a field, in the middle of nowhere; we identify Dillinger as a bad guy. Then we see FBI Agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) chasing a man that’s armed with a Tommy gun through an apple orchard and with his rifle, Purvis shoots the pursued man dead. We identify Purvis as a good guy, as he is surrounded and backed up with cops. We come to understand that John Dillinger is a notorious gangster and that FBI Agent Melvin Purvis is hot on his trail.

The movie’s style is curious because it features the period of the 1930’s but it isn’t shot or directed like a movie from that period; it’s very avant-garde. Michael Mann chose to shoot the movie with an extremely expensive, high definition digital video camera and handheld. Because of that decision two things happen: 1) we have a period-piece that is shot in a semi-documentary style and we feel like we are actually in the 1930’s, 2) we have an ugly looking HD movie that tries to be a period piece but looks like Mann’s traveled back in time with a camcorder. The end-result is paradoxical and is hugely hit and miss; more miss than hit. Audience’s opinion differs greatly on the final product solely because of the choice Mann made of shooting the movie in High Definition.

Depp wisely plays Dillinger like an average Joe. It allows him to portray the character naturally and the audience relates to him as to a normal man. This version of Dillinger doesn’t care about anything, not even his life. He doesn’t even care that he doesn’t care. He never offers more than a smirk and that’s seen only when he’s having fun with the cops. It’s a nice touch but nothing outstanding. Ultimately Dillinger becomes nothing more your average Joe.
Early in the movie, Dillinger picks up a coat-check girl named Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) who becomes his woman because he told her so, and even his pick-up sounds threatening.

The fact that the film offers no background to any character within it is a huge step backwards and we eventually don’t care much for Depp’s Dillinger, either.
Bale plays Purvis like a proficient cop and a competent predator. We notice his determination to uphold the law due to his perfect posture, and his cocky style showcases a hotshot that gets work done. The irony here is that cocky cops in movies end up getting killed because they try to be “cool” at the wrong time. Here Purvis is always in control and Bale pulls off this minor character better than Depp does his, and he showcases Purvis with his entire body.

The weakest link of the film is the screenplay, or as many claim a “lack of”. Between the opening jail-break and second jail-break in the middle of the movie, a nighttime shoot-out later on, and the eventual death of Dillinger outside of the “Biograph Theater” in Chicago, nothing much happens in between that is of any importance to the plot progression. A screenplay must contain a story and within it, possibly a plot. The story itself must have three acts: a beginning, middle, and an end. Public Enemies does not contain a specific beginning, middle, or end because we are not provided with any information about the characters in the movie, save for their jobs. “You are what you do” is a terrible cliché that incorporates itself with this movie and outside of their jobs, these characters to do exist.
Dillinger is a bank robber/cop killer and because we aren’t given insight as to his past or childhood we forget to care. Purvis is a good cop with a great attitude but what had made him so determined to be so good and insistent? And who is Billie? She’s simply Dillinger’s girl for an “X” amount of time. Before Dillinger’s appearance and after his death she ceases to exist.

The movie doesn’t drag because the plot never slows down: there simply isn’t a plot and that’s an enormous drawback. The conversations in the film don't contain any exposition and drama is never actually developed. However, top marks are earned by the art direction department. Like aforementioned, it feels as if Mann and the cast and crew had travelled back in time to the 1930, bought clothes, cars and guns during that time and shot the movie while enjoying their stay. Then they had traveled back in time to the present and edited the movie. I did feel like I was transported back in time a few times but I didn’t exist before the 1980’s and so I also felt a tad detached.
Cinematographer Dante Spinotti shoots almost every shot in a close-up or tight shot and the camera almost always shakes, which reminds us of Mann’s time travel escapades once again and throughout.

I wanted to like this movie or, at least enjoy it but there is too little to offer. Good costume designs and art direction do not make a movie good. In Public Enemies, the performances are natural but they lack a bite because of the lack of drama within the screenplay. The direction is under par because Michael Mann threw all accessible and comprehensible film compositions out of the window in the pre-production stages, and the cinematography is made up of 140 minutes of close-ups showcasing Dillinger, Purvis, and Frechette’s pores.

I like some of Mann’s work but if he insists on shooting the rest his movies from now on entirely in HD I might just skip them altogether, forever and ever.

GREAT MOVIES: Akira (1988)

2009-02-18T23:02:00.007-05:00

"Humans were like monkeys once; and before that, like reptiles and fish; and before that, plankton and amoebas... Even creatures like those have incredible energy inside them. What if there was some mistake in evolution and the progression went wrong, and something like an amoeba was given power like a human's?"

In 07.16.1988 Tokyo, an apparent nuclear bomb is detonated and it destroys the entire city. World War III is in effect and this story takes place 31 years later, in 2019 A.D. Neo Tokyo.
The government of Neo Tokyo is in a type of dictatorship but a megapolis manages to thrive, nevertheless. The citizens need their high-rises and 100-foot tall bridges/promenades that connect between buildings.
Biker gangs rule the city and the police force, surprisingly cannot handle them. The average citizen is terrorized only slightly because most of them collaborate. And the school system has crumbled beyond repair.
The colors of the city are lush and buildings stand taller than needs be. This is the closest and greatest reminder we are given of Fritz Lang’s classic Metropolis (1926).

Akira is about a teenager named Tetsuo whom has a history of being picked on, and his childhood foster-school friend Kaneda who is always there for him. He always helps Tetsuo in any situation and therefore, becomes like a father-figure to him. Kaneda and Tetsuo are in their late teens and they belong to a popular biker gang.
The film opens with a gang battle between Kaneda’s gang and a gang of youths that somewhat resembles clowns. The “clowns” lose the fight and the police is on its way; pity that Kaneda’s bike just got warmed up. Soon after, Tetsuo has a motorcycle accident and military troops come to claim him. They perform tests on him while his biker friends are worried about his well being.
All the youths in Neo Tokyo hate its government, its military, and its police force, and so does a guerrilla troop that attempts to uncover a government conspiracy, one that involves three children that may have telekinetic powers; those kids have gray shriveled skin and Tetsuo is given the same treatment as them. He finds out that he does have telekinetic powers and lets the power go to his head. When Kaneda tries to rescue Tetsuo from the military hospital he is confronted by Tetsuo and is told that he doesn’t need his help anymore, that he can take care of himself now. Tetsuo ties a long red cloth around his neck, like a sort of cape, and flies across the city like a superhero; but he destroys anyone that is in his path. He has single-handedly become Kaneda’s antagonist.

This film carries two major themes: the first theme is of ‘youth gone wild’ in a city that had brought the situation upon itself, and the second theme is of a boy that hates being helpless. Tetsuo hates being helped more than being unable to help himself. The army attempts to destroy him using riot squads and tanks, and even resorts to firing a particle-beam satellite onto him from space. Tetsuo then flies out of the atmosphere and destroys the satellite with his new found powers. The themes collide well: we see bikers roaming the street with blunt metal instruments at hand, and later we see a teenage boy (Tetsuo) destroy an entire bridge using only his mind. The first group rebels against authority and Tetsuo rebels against everyone that stands in his way.

The first act of the film is the bikers and the youths, the most “violent” part of the film. The second act is of the powers that were vested within a few individuals and of the system being brought down from within. The third act is the most strange and gruesome one, like when Tetsuo loses his right arm to the particle-beam satellite and replaces it with metallic component (wires and such). My favorite act is the first one: it may be the most violent but it feels the most free. It packs a wallop to see such young people terrorizing citizens simply because they have nothing better to do. It reminds me of the first act of Kubrick’s classic A Clockwork Orange (1971): we do not condone what these youth do to their elders but we simply cannot look away. It’s fascinating to see what triggers certain people and we almost forget that what is happening on screen is terrible because the filmmaking has so much energy to it.

The ideal behind Akira is that Akira has become pure energy. As a child he was unable to control his mysterious powers and the scientists who were in control took measures of securing his powers from overtaking him and destroying the city. Some say that the nuclear bomb was Akira. Tetsuo is on the same path Akira was and cannot control his power because human beings cannot have such power. The tragedy is that even if we have it we simply cannot control it, for it is not designed for us. The power takes over Tetsuo and the three other “special” children team up to revive Akira in order to stop Tetsuo.

Akira premiered in 1988 to the world and became an instant landmark in animation, animated graphics, and storytelling that was geared for adults. Claiming that the rating for this film is “Restricted” is an understatement but because it is animated the rating is suitable; we all need suspension of disbelief.
I mentioned that the animation is fantastic but that, too, is an understatement. It is due to the arduous work of animating frame by frame. When viewing the film shot by shot one notices that buildings and walls are present in almost every shot. It gives off the feeling of being closed in, of being a part of an organized machine, and when we see the open road and the bikers, the sides of the frames are empty signifying a feel of escape[ism].

Akira is the most famous anime of all time, in North America and probably the most popular anime in the world. It is a pinnacle in animation and imagination and is the father of many other popular anime films and series; most distinctly Dragonball Z. Many segments from this film are copied outright; especially what Kaneda does with his awesome motorcycle. This film has received the Blu-ray treatment and is being released on that medium on February 24, 2009.
Trust me, buy it at any cost. This one is truly a keeper.

GREAT MOVIES: Fireworks (aka “Hana-Bi”, 1997)

2009-02-14T06:14:00.014-05:00

Nishi (played by “Beat” Takeshi Kitano) is a no-nonsense but quiet man, and is the quintessential protagonist found in most of Kitano’s films. He’s a cop whose daughter had suddenly died, a fact mentioned only in gossip by co-workers and whose wife, Miyuki (Kayoko Kishimoto) had developed leukemia; possibly any disease would suffice the screenplay in order to signify that a mental illness can cause a physical one. Nishi wears dark sunglasses and sits around most of the time, smoking and contemplating the quiet brought forth by sudden death. However, he’s never suicidal because of his strong bond with his wife.

The film sees Nishi as a normal person but he can also be seen as a psychopath, due to his tendency to suddenly attack others and decimate them quickly. Be they Yakuza punks or straightforward, undisciplined youths Nishi is quick to anger and he strikes as quick as lightning. But he always wears a blank expression. He’s simply a wall, lacking all emotion yet somehow that we know he means well.

Nishi is indebted to the Yakuza and refuses to pay them back simply because he doesn’t want to, nor does he like to be hurried; the Yakuza apparently don’t frighten him. He’s even audacious enough to ask the block leader’s boss for another 4 million yen (approximately $40,000 USD) so that he could place it towards his wife’s medical bills; nothing is more important to him than the well being of his loved ones, an admirable theme that is present in most of Kitano’s tragedies.

Nishi’s best friend Horibe (Ren Osugi), also a cop, is shot in the line of duty and is crippled and in the process, left wheelchair bound. Horibe’s wife and daughter leave him and he tries to commit suicide, but his friends save him in time. He eventually agrees to see the brighter side of life and does what he can, taking up painting; his paintings depict bizarrely beautiful people and creatures with flowers for heads.

The shooting of Horibe and the later killing of another cop on the police force are showcased, with some realism throughout the film in fragmented flashbacks, adding to the film’s dramatic arc and sense of gratuitous violence. There is a puzzle for the audience to solve and the film unravels it ever so eloquently. There are many layers to the story of the film and the use of a fragmented timeline is very suitable towards making this an arthouse project not a Michael Bay movie.

The actual “plot” of the story involves Nishi quitting the police force, where he eventually contemplates robbing a bank so that he could pay off the Yakuza once and for all. But because he’s no longer a cop the Yakuza doesn’t take his games lightly and pursues him further. But before more graphic violence can ensue, Nishi takes Miyuki to the beach and they have a wonderful and, ironically melancholy time.

The robbery is ironic in that it consists of Nishi dressing up a stolen taxi cab as a police cruiser, dressing himself up as a cop, and walking into a bank with a pistol and simply demanding cash without even speaking. I will say nothing further on the matter except that it’s brilliant and is entirely within character.

Does this film sound exciting or depressing? Well, Kitano’s cops and Yakuza epics are filled with philosophical intrigues, the contemplation of death or suicide, murder, brutal beatings, and above all a mysteriously poignant and startling beauty. He uses a minimalist approach in his filmmaking: his characters do not walk or talk much; they barely react to happenings outside of their surroundings. And when all a character must do in a single scene is walk the camera is fixated upon him or her for minutes on end until he or she leaves the frame. Kitano also likes to leave the shot on screen after said character had already walked out of frame for a few seconds more so that the audience can feel the time go by, and also to punctuate the scene with a moment of minimalist serenity. I believe that he’s borrowing from the great Yasujiro Ozu and Andrei Tarkovsky who are, personally the greatest masters of minimalism.

The violence in Kitano’s films, as I’d mentioned earlier is like a flash of lightning; we never see it coming. And when it does, it lingers in our minds for a few seconds while we slowly process what we’d just witnessed. By the time the following scene takes place we understand exactly who had died and who did the killing and why. As an example, early in the film Nishi is seated in a bar and two Yakuza youths approach him. They pester him about overdue payments until he grabs a pair of chopsticks and stabs the Yakuza youth that’s standing behind him in his eyes. In the next shot, we see that the other Yakuza youth had fallen off his stool and as Nishi stands up he kicks the youth in the mouth and walks away; all in one swift movement. The youth on the ground is bewildered and spewing blood. There is a story in the violence that’s on screen and the film’s story is dependent on violence depicted within.

I love Kitano’s cinema. His movies look and feel like they were directed and shot by young, indie filmmakers who know how to tell their stories without having to resort to clichés or unnecessary dialogue. The minimalism approach is used in all of Kitano’s films and while watching any of his films we should embrace it with all our hearts. So what if the film is violent? Through the way it is constructed not a single shot goes to waste and everything means exactly what need it needs to; no punches are pulled. I am reminded of style of the French New Wave, the way that useless actions and pointless dialogue are cut out.

Kitano is a superstar and had made a great impression on me from very early on. I will follow his cinema until he stops breathing and I hope there’s still a long way to go.

GREAT MOVIES: No Country for Old Men (2007)

2009-02-10T00:35:00.017-05:00

"There’s this boy I sent to the electric chair at Huntsville here a while back. My arrest and my testimony. He killed a fourteen year old girl. Papers said it was a crime of passion, but he told me there wasn’t any passion to it. Told me he’d planned to kill somebody for as long as he could remember. Said if they turned him out he’d do it again. Said he knew he was going to hell. Be there in about 15 minutes. I don’t know what to make of that. I sure do don’t."

That’s part of a speech heard in the film’s opening voiceover narration, spoken by the tired sheriff of a Texas-Mexico border town; Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones). The sheriff believes that in his life of work one must always be prepared to put his life on the life, but he doesn’t want to confront whatever it is he cannot comprehend. That’s his philosophy, a sound lesson, and he can be interpreted as the film’s protagonist.

No Country for Old Men is the story of a simple man, Llewellyn Moss (Josh Brolin) who stumbles upon a drug deal gone bad. He finds the blood money belonging to the two murdered factions in the middle of desert and decides to keep it for himself.

Enter Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem who’d won an Oscar for this performance), an assassin hired to retrieve the money. Chigurh sports a mushroom hair-cut and wears black clothes; he is tall and pale, and sometimes lets out a creepy smile. His is a personality that one cannot comprehend, for Chigurh is literally evil incarnate. When he speaks he does so without suggestion, always meaning exactly what he says and he carries with him a very unusual weapon, a makeshift cattle prod: a hose is connected to a canister of compressed air on one end and on the other end is a metal piece that protrudes a 6 inch spike and then retracts it. It is normally used on cattle but Chigurh uses it on fellow human beings.

Chigurh is a murderer who is methodical but his actions are not predetermined, therefore Chigurh is not a psychopath but a compulsive killer. At the start of the film, while choking a cop with his own handcuffs and slitting the cop’s throat in the process, he showcases an emotion like that of sexual gratification; he is wide-eyed and ecstatic. He then walks over to the bathroom and washes his hands and bloodied wrists. It’s brutal in nature and tough to watch but we take note that Chigurh is basically a homicidal fetishist.

Llewellyn, Chigurh, and the sheriff never meet throughout the entirety of the film. Llewellyn comes across Chigurh a couple of times in exquisitely shot, extremely tense, lightning quick shoot-outs but never actually sees him in person because in both instances he’s fleeing for his life; that and the directors never show the attacker. The sheriff wants to find Llewellyn and to protect him from Chigurh and the three are always on a merry chase throughout.

This is the first film in which the Coen Brothers use the film technique of realism as its style. The scenes with the shootings are bloody and somewhat realistically gory and the film has no musical soundtrack at all, which allows us to immerse ourselves in its atmosphere and to insert own subconscience to the atmosphere and situations; in short we feel like we’re there with Llewellyn, Chigurh, and the sheriff. The feeling of hopelessness grows deeper within us because the Coens use constant shots of barren, searing landscapes.

If Llewellyn had been city born and bred and had come across the money in a city like Austin or New York, then this film would be a much more action packed and brainless film. What this film offers is a huge visual metaphor of hopelessness in the face of an unstoppable force and Llewellyn tries to become an immovable object, but he is a mortal man and Chigurh and is the personification of evil.

The moral is simple: know what you’re doing or whom you’re dealing with. If one sees a shotgun around the corner then it’s best to keep one’s distance from the gun and if one sees a rifle then it’s best to stay completely out of site. Llewellyn tries to hide from Chigurh and outrun him but he is never able to kill him. The best advice that Llewellyn should follow would be to avoid a fight or a war altogether; heck, he could simply give up the money. But it’s not in his nature to do so and when Chigurh is metaphorically described to the audience we understand that Llewellyn will grow into a tragic figure. And the sheriff always tries to protect Llewellyn instead of fighting against Chigurh because he’s the wisest of them all.

For Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem the performances are career defining. The actors embody their characters in a “realistic” manner, that is to say not in the traditional theatrical sense. We know that we are watching a film but we feel that we are watching people and not actors. And Tommy Lee Jones can never give a bad performance.

The shot compositions are terrific and the Coens are the types of directors that don’t waste a single shot. Every shot in the film is meaningful and the film can be studied shot by shot to verify my claim. I should know because I have an excellent comprehension of shot compositions and because I’d watched this film several times since its initial theatrical release.

This is a perfect movie in every aspect. The performances are excellent, the direction and cinematography are masterful, and the editing and the use sound effects, and lack of raises the hairs at the back of one’s neck. It’s also excellent exercise in shooting a film with a moderate budget. Fargo (1996) is also a perfect film but was only the beginning. No Country for Old Men is a longer, bigger, meaner, and deeper philosophical masterpiece and is therefore, easily one of the best movies of the past decade.

GREAT MOVIES: The Road Warrior (a.k.a. Mad Max 2, 1981)

2009-02-06T05:03:00.012-05:00

Mel Gibson drives a turbo-charged Ford Falcon throughout a punk infested, post-apocalyptic desert world in Mad Max 2.

The first movie from the late 70’s, properly titled Mad Max, is about a cop whose job is to “intercept” criminals that are on the run. After a biker gang, who are completely insane, runs over his wife and baby child, Max loses his sanity and murderously seeks revenge against them all. When the movie premiered in the United States it didn’t make any money because it was just so “out there” that audiences simply could not “get it”. And when director George Miller (Mad Max Trilogy, Babe, Babe: Pig In the City) made a sequel he was afraid that it would receive the same consensus overseas, and so he decided to call it The Road Warrior instead of Mad Max 2. Good thing also that he did not treat it as a “technical” sequel because it soared in the North American box office and became an instant cult hit. Fast-forward 28 years and the film continually receives critical praise and has been added to many “1,000 movies you must watch” lists.
It’s quite a praise to be placed on such a list, seeing that there are, probably, over a billion movies out there. And I certainly would place it in my top 200, if I ever decided to not have a life and start such a list.

In The Road Warrior, Max is still driving his turbo-charged Falcon, which most none-Australians confused for a Pontiac Trans Am, and he still has his dog with him. Only this time he simply is on the lookout for gasoline. That's all that's left to do on Earth. He is leather clad and shotgun toting and in the intro to the film he is being chased through a desert highway by punks. He outmanoeuvres most of them and drives on. Eventually he sees a small colony that surrounds an oil pump in the desert, and that they are surrounded by those same desert punks. The punks are lead by a hockey-masked wearing, buff, homicidal maniac who calls himself Humongous. Max decides to help those poor folkes, but only because they can get him gas.

This movie features breathtakingly fast car chases performed with real cars and real stuntmen, and toward the end is a 13 minute chase that involves a semi truck, dune buggies, a gyro-copter, and motorcycles. The movie is brutal, fast, and most importantly, extremely fun. It’s easily one of the best action movies to ever grace us.

There’s really not much else to say except that the stunt work will make audiences cringe. In one scene, a man riding a motorcycle while driving 120 km/h smashes into a car and goes flying at an incredible distance. You see the bike get smashed and you see the biker fly through the air toward asphalt. It’s even crazy just thinking about it but this movie was shot entirely on location and outdoors, and every stunt is real. Except, of course I doubt that there were stuntmen during the one-on-one collision between a semi truck and a dune-buggy. I can only hope that dummies replaced the real drivers.
Watch what a 23 year old Mel Gibson can do with a shotgun, a hungry dog, a really fast car, and the determination to remain alive.

Passchendaele (2008)

2009-02-04T18:34:00.010-05:00

Paul Gross will forever be remembered as that Mounty who rode on that brown horse in that Canadian television show Due South. But now he comes out of left field with a Canadian war film about the battle of Passchendaele, also known as the Third Battle of Ypres, in Belgium. The British were trying to destroy the German forces there with brute force and were backed by, eventually, up to 600,000 Canadian troops. I wish all of this was in the film; at least a mention of it would have been nice. I had to look that up on Wikipedia.

The first 7 minutes of the film take place in France where Sergeant Michael Dunn (Gross) and a platoon of soldiers, whose number you could count with one hand, are outgunned and outnumbered by German soldiers. They fight back until Dunn is left alone with only one other German boy. When the boy asks for a truce Dunn stuffs his bayonet in the kid’s forehead, because earlier he had asked for a truce and didn’t get it. Dunn is hospitalized and diagnosed with Neurasthenia but pretty much everybody, including the military doctors use it as innuendo, calling him a coward for not wanting to return to battle.

Paul Gross’ grandfather is the owner of the aforementioned story and he died some time later while he was still incarcerated in the hospital. But in film terms, the show must go on.

Dunn falls immediately in love with Sarah Mann (Caroline Dhavernas), the nurse that is treating him, and she plays hard to get for a very long time. Her brother David (Joe Dinicol) is old enough to join the army but can not, for he is asthmatic. He wants to prove to his girlfriend’s father that he’s a real man but alas, it was not in the cards for him. That is until a doctor (his girlfriend’s father) describes him as medically eligible and he goes off to war in Belgium.

Throughout the previous sentence I skipped 75% of the film because between Dunn meeting Sarah and David joining the army, I am sad to say, not much happens. Throughout those ninety minutes we learn that Sarah and David’s father was of German descent and when he joined the army at the start of World War I he joined the Bavarian side. Prejudice ensues through the town and Sarah and David begin to hate their heritage.
Dunn and Sarah develop a great physical and mental relationship and can not be separated again. That is until David leaves the country and Dunn feels obligated to look over him on the front, entirely for Sarah’s sake, not David’s.

I really wanted to like this film because a) I am a Canadian citizen and have lived in Canada for most of my life, b) I heard that it’s a wonderful or excellent film, and c) I like Paul Gross as an actor. But when I was bored nearly to tears watching grass grow I found myself laughing throughout the last 20 minute battle sequence.
60 Canadian soldiers, containing Dunn and David are dispatched to a German battlefield and the 800 that were situated there think that they are their backup. Dunn asks a random soldier, “Where are you going?” He replies, “We’re leaving. We’re tired and hungry and have been sitting here for 8 hours.” Dunn then says, “But there are 800 of you and only 60 of us.” The soldier shrugs and the entire platoon leaves.
Dunn tells his men to wait for the Germans to come closer and when they’re 10 feet away a brawl takes place. The fight consists of bayonets, shovels, and big rocks to smash heads with. I will say nothing further except that what followed made me laugh and shake my head; just think The Passion of the Christ (I am not kidding).

An actual photo from the Battle of Ypres

It’s a well made film; Gross received a $5,000,000 grant from the Province of Alberta and the overall budget came close to $20,000,000. The war scenes are shot well, with plenty of grit and dirt and high helicopter shots, but the actual choreography was laughable. Whenever a mortar struck the ground, soldiers spun horizontally in the air as they flew away from the blast. And not once was the word “mortar” actually used, they called them missiles.
The music is of a nice orchestration and Paul Gross plays his character well, but everybody around him were complete morons. A love story was a necessity but it did not have to hog sixty minutes of our time and, personally, Joe Dinicol is a terrible actor. He lacks conviction and looks like a fourteen year old boy.

I don’t hate this film but it is hugely overrated. I am surprised that I managed to stay awake the entire time. Whenever Dunn speaks to Sarah they are either seated or standing. You can cut to another ten minute scene involving other characters but when you return to them they are still either sitting or standing and simply are having a different conversation. Either make it a wartime film or make it a war film. The advertisements showcase a lot of warfare but that is what’s greatly lacking from this film, and I wish it took place entirely on the battlefield and not behind the scenes because it had great potential.
It’s not a very patriotic film either; I did not see a single Canadian flag throughout.

This is what they call Hell

GREAT MOVIES: Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)

2009-01-28T18:38:00.013-05:00

I have a feeling that for as long as I live the two greatest movies (to me) will always be Orson Welles' Citizen Kane (1941) and F.W. Murnau’s Sunrise (1927). On a technical level both films bring out the impossible and although the techniques used today in standard filmmaking are different and more advanced, it still looked more impressive back then.

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans is the heartwarming and breaking story of a farmer (George O’Brien) who is unfaithful to his wife (Janet Gaynor). He has an affair with a city woman (Margaret Livingston) and she is wicked; wearing her exotic city clothes just the right way, teasing him with fresh lipstick and promising to take him with her and live in the city. The farmer, of course refuses to leave and so she drops the bomb on him: she proposes the farmer drown his wife in the lake and run off with her. The thought of murder is extremely cruel and the farmer becomes angry. He strangles the city woman but then, ironically, realizes that he might just have it in him to do exactly what she had proposed. He yells at her and orders her to leave him be and takes a walk around the swamps surrounding his farm. The sun is fast approaching and he must make an important decision.

The farmer tells his wife in the morning that he would love to take her on a boat ride. She, suspecting his affair with the city woman through village gossip, still accepts his invitation believing that he has changed. While drifting in the river on the boat, the farmer stands erect and his angry fists reshape into claws. He approaches his wife, hands toward her throat and with a wild look in his eyes...
She yells and he awakens. Recognizing the look on her simple but dainty face he feels like the worst human being on the planet and immediately begs her for forgiveness. He rows the boat to the nearest shore and she runs off. He takes chase.
They arrive in THE CITY. After almost being run over by several cars the farmer protects his wife and they proceed to have the greatest day of their lives.

In 1926 Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau moved to the United States. After receiving critical praise for his film The Last Laugh (1924) he was given carte blanche and Sunrise was his first American film; but unlike Orson Welles he did not lose his career. Worse than that, he passed away due to a road accident in 1931, 4 years after the release of Sunrise.

Sunrise had stood the test of time because when Hollywood was fast approaching the talkies, many directors still wanted to continue in the silent form. But most wanted to transfer over and quick. The talkies started appearing in 1927 with The Jazz Singer and by 1930 the whole world was aware of their phenomenon. Charles Chaplin released City Lights (1931) and astonished the world because it was a silent film. Rightfully it's still considered his best film and one of the best silent comedies of all time.

Many call him Murnau the master of German Expressionism and his greatest combatant is Fritz Lang (the discussion is still on), but most prefer the artistic style of Murnau because Lang's films were either too far fetched or had too much overacting (if that's even possible). Try comparing M (1931) and Nosferatu (1922): you can't. I say they're like apples and oranges. They're both of the same medium but are of different species.

The cinematography in Sunrise is worth noting even today because some shots seem impossible. How can one possibly dolly track in a swamp? Well Charles Rosher, Karl Struss and Murnau figured it all out and used a platform that hovered over the swamp with the camera locked on it, and it was suspended by cables. There is also plenty of forced perspective, much like how Lang shot Metropolis (1926). Mirrors were strategically placed around the sets providing the illusion that certain people were on different areas in the frame, sets that were much smaller than others were also placed in the background of certain shots. The sets physically got smaller as you walked through them. Sometimes midgets were used for wide shots from afar (like the airport runway in Casablanca, 1942).
This film is a pioneer in special effects, much like Citizen Kane was when it later came out. If Kane is THE textbook on how to make films then so is Sunrise. Kane is as much a special effects picture as Sunrise is but Sunrise lacks sound, and it still gets the job done (emotionally) with every frame.

In 1929, the first ever Oscars ceremony was held and Sunrise won 3 awards in the categories of Best Cinematography (Charles Rosher, Karl Struss), Best Actress In a Leading Role (Janet Gaynor, and also she won for Seventh Heaven and Street Angel), and Best Unique and Artistic Production (Best Picture).

Every time I watch this film I see something new. Whether it's a gesture someone made or a camera movement I had missed before, Sunrise feels new every time.
Just remember: this is an American film with an American cast and it was directed by F.W. Murnau, who made Nosferatu (1922) and Faust (1926) famous. It's more than a triumph, it's a primary example of the genre and it provides audiences with emotions they forgot they had.

GREAT MOVIES: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1919)

2009-01-27T22:21:00.011-05:00

Fritz Lang bailed out on “Caligari” to work on Die Spinnen (The Spiders), and when Robert Wiene took over the project he opened the doorway to feature films that incorporate the flashback setting, the horror setting, and this still being the greatest example of German Expressionism. With its H.P. Lovecraft-like architecture, its political standings and satire of the German government, and the pale-faced psychopathic somnambulist from Hell, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari stands among the best horror films to ever have been made.
Of course having read the blood chilling origins of the Caligari tale, we know that Hans Janowitz and Carl Mayer did not write a screenplay about a government that brainwashes and puppeteers its citizens, and there is no Nazi symbolism here either. The Nazi party was formed in 1933 and this film was made between the years of 1919 and 1920, for starters.

According to Wikipedia, in 1913 Janowitz had the unfortunate luck of witnessing a stranger exit a row of bushes and disappearing into the shadows of the night. The next morning a young woman’s body was found ravaged. He told that tale to Mayer and it scared them stiff. Also, many times they would enter a fair and one night they had witnessed a sideshow called “Man and Machine”, in which a man did feats of strength and predicted the future, supposedly under hypnosis. They combined those elements into a horror film screenplay and tried to get Erich Pommer to greenlight the production. After hearing the origin tales he was convinced and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was underway.

Werner Krauss plays the deranged Dr. Caligari and he approaches a fairground in the mountain village of Holstenwall. He appeals to present his performance in the fair and receives a grant. That night, the audience of the fairground witnesses a pale, mushroom cut, somnambulist, played creepily by Conrad Veidt, who apparently had been sleeping for 23 years; and he can also foretell the future. He exclaims that someone in the crowd will die before sunrise, and boy is he right. That night the protagonist’s (Francis, played by Friedrich Fehér) best friend is murdered in his own bed.

The somnambulist (Cesare) and Dr. Caligari are not immediately suspected because there are rumors around of a serial killer on the loose as is. Was Caligari using that knowledge as a front for hiding his own murders?

Cesare is just plain creepy. He wears full body black spandex and walks like a marionette, but without the strings. He has deep penetrating black circles around his eyes and they hypnotize and creep people out.

One morning the lovely Jane, an acquaintance of Francis, ventures into the fairgrounds and bumps into Dr. Caligari; he decides to showcase Cesare to her. Encased in a vertically erect coffin, Cesare opens his eyes and stares into those of Jane. He becomes entranced and she frightened. She runs off. That night Francis decides to spend the night outside of Caligari’s house to monitor him and the somnambulist. Plausibility unbeknown to anyone, Cesare pays Jane a visit at the same time and kidnaps her. A chase ensues: Cesare with Jane in his arms, clinging to walls in the streets and almost dancing freakishly, the police hot on his tail. The morning comes and he passes out letting go of Jane. Francis can not believe that Cesare is caught because he was sleeping inside his coffin the entire night. He must have been!

Now that I got your attention this is all I will say about the story. The origins and ideals of German Expressionism work mainly through the actors’ body language and strange architectural backgrounds. Usually, a tormented soul or dementia is involved, much like in this classic film. Seeing that the film opens in an insane asylum and that the story is told though the flashbacks of Francis, one can only guess what goes on in his noggin.

Fritz Lang’s Metropolis (1926) is another great, classic example of German Expressionism but it’s not a horror film so dementia in not present. The actors throw themselves around the sets; they throw their arms towards the heavens and decree that something is wrong with the system and must be righteous again. Rudolf Klein-Rogge plays professor Rotwang, the evil scientist that built the man-machine (an early version of an android). Equipped with black leather gloves and wild white hair he throws his right hand toward the heavens in a cry of insanity, clutching his heart with his left, many times throughout the film. You can smell the passion that the actors portray and especially the one of Gustav Fröhlich.

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was seen by many, probably millions, and is almost unanimously a great example of its genre. By today’s standards the makeup in the film is dodgy and the sets look like bristol paper cutouts, which they were. But the film is so atmospheric that one does not notice the “fake” of it.
There is no perfect angle or straight line, per se, in this film. Windowpanes are crooked as are the houses themselves. One almost feels confined and prays that another’s house will not fall on them. But the crooked architecture in the disturbed psyche stands on its own and frightens its citizens by remaining as is. There is also a great use of shadow-play in this film, reminiscent of Murnau’s Nosferatu (1922.) Seeing a tall shadow creep along a wall, disembodied and alone until the creature, its master emerges into frame. The creature is more frightening than its shadow. That was Count Orlock (played cautiously and mysteriously by Max Schrek), that was Cesare (Conrad Veidt), and even now they are The Strangers from Dark City (Richard O’Brien, Ian Richardson, and Bruce Spence).

Film noir, another genre that I love to death, needs to provide special thanks to German Expressionism: Dutch angles, superimposed shadows, hard lights, lots of night scenes, and the feeling of dread and evil around the corner. German Expressionism will live on as a lesson in atmosphere and silent storytelling. Visually grand and rich in character, Fritz Lang’s Die Nibelungen (1924), Dr. Mabuse the Gambler (1922) and The Testament of Dr. Mabuse (1933) are long going to fill voids and enter uncorrupted minds alongside this pinnacle of perfection [Dr. Caligari]. And Cesare will never be forgotten; like his successors Gwynplain (also played by Conrad Veidt in Paul Leni’s The Man Who Laughs (1928)) and The Joker (from the Batman series).

Quarantine (2008)

2009-01-27T17:36:00.009-05:00

This movie is some kind of bad. Last night I'd watched REC for the second time just to admire the filmmaking of it. Then I'd watched Quarantine and what can I say that hasn't already been said? This is a carbon copy of REC to the tee, except REC involves a subplot about a scientist who has been decreed by the Vatican to find the cure to a certain girl's possession, which is centered on a certain virus. This movie talks about evil cults and the virus that infects everyone is, get this: rabies. A mutated therefore, accelerated version of rabies that causes frothing at the mouth, tears, dementia, and a lot of screaming. So where's the zombie aspect? Are we truly supposed to be scared about a few tenants who are running around with mutated rabies? Oh, Please.

Now for the technical aspects. This film is shot with a lot of darkness so let's begin a check list:

* Claustrophobia (check)
* Screaming (check)
* The Shaky Camera Syndrome (check)
* Nauseatingly bad cinematography where the cameraman always records what is chasing him rather than where he's running to (check)
* The cameraman not turning off the camera when being chased but rather shaking it as much as possible and even taking it off his shoulders sometimes (check)

This is a concoction headed for bad results. And the results are: this movie is literally too dark at all times, the American cameraman overuses the aspect of zooming in and out quickly and quite frequently, and every actor overacts too much that it becomes embarrassing; even for Jennifer Carpenter who is excellent in the series Dexter.

I didn't want to hate this movie but it's EXACTLY THE SAME AS REC. This is an almost shot by shot remake, just like when Gus Van Sant ruined Psycho. But at least he made up for it with Milk. I wonder what director John Erick Dowdle (who?) has in store for us next?

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

2009-01-27T02:11:00.006-05:00

I will attempt to refrain from making comparisons between this film and Forrest Gump by stating one simple and short sentence: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button IS Forrest Gump. Screenwriter Eric Roth is being honored at this year’s Oscars ceremony with a nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay for this film. He wrote Forrest Gump 15 years ago and when recently asked about the similarities he, astoundingly answered with: I had CCBB on my mind when I wrote Forrest.
How? What does one have to do with the other? I read the F. Scott Fitzgerald novella, all 21 pages of it, and I ask myself “how did Eric Roth adapt a 21 page book into a 2 hour and 45 minute film about a man who ages backwards?” And unlike the book, this Benjamin Button is not born old in physical and mental terms, only physical.
Knowing that, if you take out the reverse aging aspect from the story you have THE SAME FILM.

!!!SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

Benjamin Button is played ordinarily by a bland Brad Pitt and he is, as stated above, born old. He is a baby but has very shriveled skin and his bones are weak. He is such an abomination that his father, upon first glance, steals the baby from the hospital and drops him off at a retirement home. Because he is physically old he can not walk but, guess what? Neither can a baby. Infants and the elderly are almost one and the same: they lack hair and teeth, they can barely walk, and they have a weak skeleton. So if Ben Button was to be born an infant this film would still be the same.

Button befriends a young girl named Daisy and they hit it off. She finds him strange, an old man who hides under tables and plays with little girls, and he finds her to be what he wishes he was. Then again, Button (Pitt, that is) is so bland that whenever you look at his face or into his eyes you see nothing; it’s like running into a brick wall. He is a simpleton, recently dubbed a Southern Naïf and therefore, completely and utterly uninteresting. That is when the supporting players must come into play and make everything around Button interesting. But alas, we already saw Forrest Gump. I am not kidding when I say that you will know everything that is going to happen.

Button grows up with a walking disability and overcomes it and then he decides to travel the world. He cruises on a tugboat with a drunkard and witnesses the follies of World War II. Upon returning home, in his early 20’s and looking like he’s in his late 60’s, he reunites with his slowly aging mother and with Daisy who now looks like a prettied-up Cate Blanchett. They hit it off well, but only as acquaintances, and she leaves to pursue her career of dancing the ballet.
Time goes by where nothing happens. Button’s dad decides to meet him and to give him his button-making company before he dies. Then Daisy returns home and decides to live with Button as a couple.

That’s an hour and a half of the film so far. In the next hour and ten minutes not much else happens except that Button grows younger, Daisy grows older, they have a child and grow apart. Then they reunite again and again they can not be together. Then Button is an infant, The End.

The cinematography, the second-most notable aspect in this film is truly fantastic. Giant superimposed shadows like in noir pictures, flashbacks that look like footage from the 1910’s with flickering images and color tinting, long tracking shots that seem impossible but we know that in the movies nothing is impossible! The most notable aspect is somehow invisible to the general audience and it is that Brad Pitt is entirely computer generated for the first half hour of the film. From when Button is born until he is as tall as Brad Pitt he is entirely computer generated. I can tell because his features are perfect, he is constantly shiny and glossy, and when his clothings wrinkle they wrinkle in a repeated sequence. This means that for cinephiles, this movie should be rather annoying. Why not use the Lord of the Rings approach (a film series I greatly dislike) and simply shoot those difficult scenes twice? Or how about makeup? I’m quite certain that this film is being nominated for an Oscar for its makeup but it lacks it a bunch.

Don’t let my rating for this film fool you, it’s not a 50% deal. I am not recommending this film at all to anyone who likes original films that stand out due to having a great story and great performances.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is being nominated at the Oscars this year for 13 awards and I think it only deserves one: Best Cinematography. But hey, film students and experts can not be in the Oscar committee so my say is immaterial. I don’t hate this film I just think it’s an hour too long and is grossly unimportant in film circles.

Shame on you David Fincher: you are one of my favorite living American filmmakers. Now you have two good-looking BAD movies: the first one is Alien 3.
I love Zodiac and placed it as my #3 movie of the year in 2006, behind Letters from Iwo Jima (#1) and The Departed (#2). I also love Fight Club, Se7en, and The Game. So what happened to substance in your films, is it no longer important?
Do me a favor and read the novella. It’s a satire and it’s really neat. Forget about The Curious Case of Forrest Gump.

*REC (2007)

2009-01-27T00:06:00.006-05:00

REC is a great example of how a film can be made with little special effects, per se, and a moderate budget. Spanish films have had their ups lately with this film and with another excellent horror flick called The Orphanage. Both films are fueled by atmosphere and good performances, leaving the “plot elements” to be gathered and put into place properly in the third act where they belong.

REC is about a television reporter and her cameraman who are shooting a piece about what firefighters do when everybody’s asleep. Of course it’s late at night and they grow bored stiff. That is until the alarm goes off and a crew of firefighter is dispatched to the scene where a woman is locked in her apartment. The TV reporter and her cameraman are allowed to tag along and in the three-story apartment building they arrive at an old woman is bloodied and out of her mind. She attacks one of the firefighters and bites him severely in the neck. It’s gruesome and it’s awesome and it’s still early in the film, and we immediately subconsciously know that it’s going to be a zombie film.

The firefighter is carried downstairs to the lobby, where he is to be escorted to the paramedics unit that is waiting outside in the street but the group find themselves locked inside the building along with all its tenants. A police force is waiting outside the building and they quickly quarantine it while yelling into a megaphone what is happening outside. They tell the crew and tenants that the officer locked inside the building with them will be issuing orders to them while they instruct him on the situation via his dispatch radio.
Minutes later another police officer’s body plummets from the stairway onto the lobby floor, crashing with blood spraying everywhere.

From here on out it’s not your usual zombie flick because you only have about 10 characters and the building has 3 floors, one of which is unexplored until the end. One by one, some become infected and run amuck trying to bite others and infect them and the main crew find themselves running up and down the stairs quite frequently:

“We must go there and find this person”
“Oh no! She’s disappeared!”
“Wait, there she is! Run!”

You hear that a bunch but it never really repeats itself because there is only so much you can do inside a small building. From here on I will reveal nothing further that happens in the film except to say that the last 15 minutes are some of the creepiest, scariest minutes I have ever seen in a film.

REC is shot entirely through the perspective of the cameraman, which is a familiar growing style but only some movies pull it off well, like George A. Romero’s Diary of the Dead, and some fail miserably, like Cloverfield (IMHO).
It looks like it’s been shot with only 5 or 6 takes but I know filmmaking and I know that there are many hidden cuts. Whenever there is a dark segment on screen that lasts for even a couple of frames an edit can be hidden in there, but viewing the film a second time I honestly could not find so many hidden edits and that is a sign of great filmmaking and editing.

This movie was made 2 years ago and it finally makes its way onto North American video. It also has an English dub so weaklings and egoists can watch it, too. Last but not least, a similar film called Quarantine has hit theatres a few months back and apparently it’s a shot by shot remake of this film. Why? I ask you. Was this movie so bad that it had to be remade? If you make your way to the IMDB or Rottentomatoes websites you’ll see that everybody hated Quarantine and loved REC. Why? Because REC came first, that’s why. Nobody likes a lazy remake.

GREAT MOVIES: Dark City (1998)

2009-01-19T15:03:00.005-05:00

A little over 10 years ago I watched “Dark City” in the theatres for the first time and I remember distinctly being absolutely astounded. The cinematography is breathtaking: the olden buildings, the elevated streamlined trains flying over pedestirans' heads, the 40's/50's noirish shadows and Dutch angles, and of course, the feeling of a contemporary version of Fritz Lang's “Metropolis” (1926). This city also reminds me of the one in “Blade Runner”, but this one, ironically, has a bit more life to it; it has less of the hustle and bustle of an overpopulated mega-polis and the atmosphere of a properly captured forgotten moment in time.

“Dark City” is a detective story, a story of identity and finding oneself, a science fiction classic, and in its center lays a love story. John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) suffers from lack of memories and he tries to piece his past together, but nothing connects because whatever memories are in his mind are not real (more on that soon). Emma Murdoch (Jennifer Connelly) is John's wife, who finds it hard to believe when John's doctor, Doctor Schreber (Kiefer Sutherland), tells her that John suffers from a psychotic break and has total memory loss.

John finds in his overcoat pockets newspaper clippings that suggest he is a serial killer, and inspector Frank Bumstead (William Hurt) is on his case. Bumstead follows leads and ends up nowhere. In fact, he ends up further away from the truth and so do Emma and John.
To add to Bumstead’s case running in circles, I am reminded of an early scene in the film where John Murdoch awakens and emerges naked from a bathtub, and he accidentally knocks over a fishbowl. He picks up the fish and places it in water in the bathtub. Later, when Bumstead inspects Murdoch's apartment, he asks a fellow police officer: "What kind of a killer stops to save a dying fish?" Inspector Bumstead is the tired but alert kind of cop, who’s been on the beat for a while and still plays by the rules.

On the other hand, Dr. Schreber is more of a Nazi scientist that follows orders. Wearing his blond hair parted and round metal-framed spectacles, a crooked eye and a limp, he does everything he is told by The Strangers.

The Strangers are a race of aliens that had come down a long time ago and began to experiment with human test subjects. We learn that their race is dying and that they want to study human beings to find out what makes them tick. To that end, they borrow human corpses and use them as vessels. The Strangers look very pale. They have an affinity to strappy leather clothing and they wear overcoats and fedoras outdoors just like we do. They're kind of like vampires with their leather fetish and sensitivity to sunlight, but there is nothing erotic or exotic about them. They also have the ability to "tune", which is a form of telekinesis; it allows them to fly in between buildings, create non-existent doorways within brick walls and even push people back without laying a finger. The Strangers have found out that John Murdoch has the same abilities they do, and they are terribly worried about it.

The city literally changes shape every time the clock strikes 12 and every human citizen mysteriously falls asleep: everyone, but John. He wanders around the dark city and watches as buildings erect from the ground up and some others simply disappear back into it. Some buildings even slide horizontally across the streets and merge with other buildings. In one incident John Murdoch was on a fire escape and noticed another building sliding towards him. His coat has caught on the corner of the fire escape and he managed to free himself at the last second and enter the building before being crushed.

Upon the citizens falling asleep, The Strangers invade their homes and change their identities. Dr. Schreber injects new memories into the subject's foreheads creating "new" personalities, and then life goes on for another twelve hours. There is a wonderful scene in the film where a night watchman shares with his wife that his boss will take him off night duty (a personal joke from the writers) and within seconds the couple fall asleep in their soups. The Strangers enter their home and change them into elitist, rich snobs. Their house gains a few stories, a huge foyer with gargantuan support pillars appear and so does a beautiful skylight. The dinner table is stretched three times its size, in reminiscence of “Citizen Kane” but much quicker, and finally the couple awaken. The man begins to speak and says that he'll fire someone from the company the next day, ironically speaking about the man that he used to be.

The film is called “Dark City” mainly because The Strangers removed the sun from sight. Nightfall is always present but no one seems to notice. The citizens drone around in their meaningless jobs from day to day (pun intended) and The Strangers follow their every movement like rats in a maze.

Such an imagination this movie has! Alex Proyas (who directed “The Crow” beforehand and “I, Robot” afterwards) is the visionary genius behind this film. It was co-written by Lem Dobbs (“Kafka”, “The Limey”) and David S. Goyer (“Blade”, “Batman Begins”). The film works on many different levels. Multiple viewings only enrich the atmosphere and experience of the film even more.
Recently a director's cut has been issued on DVD and Blu-ray. The director's cut is 15 minutes longer than the theatrical version; the intro monologue from Dr. Schreber is cut out and some of the soundtrack has been removed from the background of select scenes and replaced with sounds of buildings being “tuned”. The original special effects in the film were magnificent in general, and they were never placed there for the sake of having special effects. They were minimal and they assisted the storytelling. The director's cut has the film treated for high definition and the special effects were tweaked as well. A few more special effects were added and, somehow, it makes the final climactic showdown in the film even more epic.

I love this film and have viewed both versions of it multiple times. I have also studied it frame by frame. I love the reoccurring motif of a spiral: when Inspector Bumstead falls asleep at his accordion, a spiral of milk spins in his coffee; when Murdoch inspects the subway system routes he notices that they lead in spirals; spirals are cut into the flesh of "Murdoch's victims", the serial killer version anyway; and when The Strangers inspect what aspects of the city to change their miniature model of the city is spiral shaped. Every little thing that can occupy time and space does so meaningfully, in every frame and without waste. This film is perfect, and I believe will be remembered for a long time to come.

Blindness (2008)

2009-01-16T02:14:00.010-05:00

Director Fernando Meirelles has reached critical fame with his film “City of God” (2002) and has then continued gloriously with the film adaptation of John Le Carre’s novel “The Constant Gardener” (2005). Now he tackles another adaptation, “Blindness” (2008): based on the novel by Nobel Prize winner José Saramago and a screenplay that is written by Canada’s Don McKellar, “Blindness” is a movie I grew to hate as it continued to exist.

DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM, THIS IS A HUGE SPOILER. THE FOLLOWING IS THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THE FILM.

A Japanese man goes blind while awaiting a green light at a cross intersection. Another man (Don McKellar) drives him home and decides to steal his car in the process. The Japanese man eventually goes to an optometrist (Mark Ruffalo).

*Note* usually when one goes blind it means that one ceases to be able to see, therefore nothing is seen but darkness. But the Japanese man sees all white. *hint hint*

The blindness apparently is infectious so the car thief, the Japanese man’s wife, the doctor and his wife, and all the patients in the optometry clinic turn blind because they all came within relatively close contact. A quarantine is then issued on the city. The patients pack their suitcases and are dropped off at a vacant prison. The optometrist’s wife (Julianne Moore) can still see, however. This is what is referred to as a metaphor. Why does the infection not affect her? Because from that moment of revelation and on she must remain the characters’ and audience’s eyes. But there’s a huge fault there because throughout the film she doesn’t seem to be in every single scene. So the relevance of her character’s importance drops down to zero. But this also means that I could be wrong…

In the prison, the “prisoners” (I will use this term from now on) are forever unattended, for fear of spreading the infection to other doctors and military personnel that might come in contact. Seeing that no one can see, per se, no one cares anymore about appearances and half of the prisoners waltz around in the buff and take shits and urinate in every available corner.
The doctor and his wife keep their little secret to themselves because if they were to reveal it to the others and to, God forbid, those in charge they might be able to find a cure. Or not.

Time goes by slowly and more prisoners are loaded into the facility until all 3 wards are entirely occupied. In comes ‘the nuisance”, played well by Gael Garcia Bernal. He hears from Ruffalo that in their ward they take turns burying the corpses that pile up outside. Bernal objects to Ruffalo being “the boss” and pulling out a gun, decides to decree monarchy on the entire prison. Here’s where I began to hate the film.

Everybody in ward 3 automatically agrees with everything that Bernal says and he rules the prison with an iron fist. He confiscates all the food and decides to “sell” it back to ward 1 for whatever they are carrying. After all the money and jewelry is disbursed comes another week where prisoners must eat. So “King” Bernal decides to take women for a single evening. 9 women get raped, one is killed.

Where is Julianne Moore in all this? Well, she just sits back and watches everything come down hard. Oh, and “King” Bernal rapes her of all the women and they become mortal enemies.

Eventually she stabs Bernal in the neck with a pair of scissors and a giant war is raged between wards 1 and 3 (what ever happened to ward 2?). After a fire erupts a chain gang of prisoners is formed, led by fearless leader [Moore] and they march on outta there. Reaching the city by foot they notice that the blindness has spread to every single citizen in the city and maybe even the entire world has become infected (like “The Happening” all over again - pun intended). They reach Moore and Ruffalo’s old home and decide to live there as blind mice until the first man to go blind, the Japanese man, regains his eye sight. Soon after everybody is able see again and the credits role.

Now for my interpretation of the lesson that the film never speaks out and that we must figure on our own: white is purity in and of itself. An act of God grants one man the “ability” to truly see and it infects others because everybody has the potential to be good. In turn, we lose faith in humanity, enslave one another, and rape all the women around us. Homosexuals are absent from this film so I guess they can not be good people or become pure.
According to sources, “the blindness is an allegory for human beings' innate moral blindness, the capacity for prejudice, selfishness, violence and willful indifference due to the inability to share another's point of view”. That’s a great idea for a potentially great story or movie and I do believe that the book had it built in. But I could not find that allegory lying anywhere in this movie. I do not see why the blindness wore off because the main characters do not become better people, they remain the same except that they eventually choose to live as blind people and accept who they have become; proof that my theory was right and that the "sources" were kind of wrong.

Watching “Blindness” I did not enjoy the story or the filmmaking. Rather I grew restless and annoyed because in this story “people” do not act like real people do. They choose to be disorganized and they choose to lazy about, and when one man decides to rule all with an iron fist, or a gun, everybody simply gives up. Where is the Julianne Moore character in all of this (again) and what does she represent? She represents the audience. She sits back and says nothing of importance. That’s my interpretation again. In actuality (the sources), she is empathetic and thus, represents what is good about man. But alas, that, as well is not shown in this film.

People try to convince me that “this is only a movie and movies do not mirror real life” and I totally agree with that fact. Even documentaries are just media inspired representations of others’ interpretations. Realism and reality differ like bananas and radios; one’s a food and the other is an electronic device. They have nothing in common except that everybody knows what each is. When a film makes the audience think, the plot is metaphoric and the happenings are symbolic, it’s a type of interpretation of what should be. In many cases it is accurate. I hate this film because it stamps ideals that are wrong and presumes to know what the human condition really is. So I recommend that those who read this review see the classic “The Human Condition” films.
Let’s all hope that Fernando Meirelles picks up a better script next time.