Advertisement

The Rants of Dog Breath [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Mike

[ website | My Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Links
[Links:| Geocaching LMGA BCGA GVRDParks BCParks ParksCanada Fark Photobucket1 Photobucket2 MyTelusMovies RogerEbert Criterion StrictlyFilmSchool VIFF PacificCinematheque QuestionableContent WhiteNinja Achewood Patches MarsRovers LeisureTown RhymeZone CliffhangerForums MyEbayItems4Sale FriendsFriends MyMemories MyTags ]

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #93 [Oct. 25th, 2007|02:27 am]
[Tags|, ]

Alphaville (Alphaville, une étrange aventure de Lemmy Caution) (Jean-Luc Godard, 1965)
****1/2
There's an eerie, unsettling disjointedness to how Godard tells a tale. And it's to Godard's supreme credit that he's able to tell his stories in this manner, yet still able to make them compelling, intriguing, riveting. Even when you're wondering what the hell is going on, you're interested enough not to shut down, you simply try harder to figure out what Godard is doing. I can't think of any other director who is (or was) able to do this with the consistency that Godard did, especially during his heyday in the 60s. You have Breathless, Alphaville, Pierrot le fou, Contempt, Band of Outsiders, and Masculin feminin. All films highly regarded from that great Nouvelle Vague period of French cinema, yet all very different from any of the other greats from the same period. Alphaville might be the strangest of them all (though Pierrot le fou might argue the point). This is a science fiction film with very few visual science fiction trappings. It's about ideas. Dystopia. Lemmy Caution, an investigator, of the Raymond Chandler school of investigation, travels to the Alphaville with three specific missions, locate a missing agent who precursed Lemmy to Alphaville, kills Professor Von Braun, the creator of Alphaville, and disable the computer that controls Alphaville, the Alpha 60. Very film noirish in cinematics and dialog. All of Godard's usual messages are here undisguised, the fight against complacency in a population, anti-consumerism, love.

Pierrot le fou (Jean-Luc Godard, 1965)
****
I'm still trying to figure out this film, baffling to be sure, yet I still loved it. A lot of the reviews I've been reading try to focus on the plot, yet as I watched Pierrot le fou the plot seemed entirely secondary to the film as a whole. I'm beginning to think the film is really about experiences, experiences wrapped around whims. The biggest whim is the plot, mostly because Godard only wrote the day's shooting script the morning before the actual shoot. Coupled with the screenplay unfolding backwards through time, the shooting began in Nice and finished in Paris, so in essence Godard was writing his story from finish to start, and then edited it start to finish. Obviously it was the idea that was most important to Godard, as the state of the plot will attest. The plot mostly strings together, but it's more a series of vignettes tied to an overall road movie theme than an arc from start to finish (or finish to start, as the case may be). So the film is about experiences, creating experiences, for the characters and the audience. As Godard once said about Pierrot, "it is not really a film, it's an attempt at cinema." It encompasses everything ever put to film, thematically, it's a musical, it has dance numbers, it has comedy of the more intellectual variety and comedy of the Laurel and Hardy variety, it has action, car chases and gunplay, murder and intrigue and mystery, and romance. The film makes small statements on our consumer culture, on the state of cinema, on love. Pierrot le fou is everything at once, and yet it can feel like it was nothing. It's strange wonderful conundrum.

The Darjeeling Limited (Wes Anderson, 2007)
****
The opening shot is of Bill Murray racing to catch his train, somewhere in India, running along the platform, reaching for a railing that is ultimately moving a little faster than he can. Adrian Brody runs by, hops on the train. Bill is left on the platform. Since Rushmore, Bill Murray has been a mainstay of Wes Anderson films. This opening is perfect, for a film that does not feature Bill Murray at all. Hell, perhaps Bill has decided to move in a different direction artistically, and this is his Wes Anderson swan song, his farewell (only time will tell, but it would make for a perfect send off). But this is only the movie's opening (it matters nothing to the rest of the film), and it was perfect. The remainder of the film? Well, it's Wes Anderson, though at a much smaller scale. You'd think a road movie through India would be large and grand, but no. This is intimate, smaller than Rushmore even (a film that opened up its limited environs through the stage productions of its main character). Even though Darjeeling traverses some grand environs, and has shots worthy of any Merchant Ivory film, Anderson negates largess through cramped train sets and screen-filling closeups. Though he doesn't let us forget we're in India, like any Wes Anderson film, this is a film about characters who have lost their way, trying to rediscover the path they've strayed from. In this case, three brothers reconnecting for the first time, a year after their father's accidental death, trying to locate their mother, who has vanished to a remote catholic monastery in northern India. Wes isn't reaching for new ground here, if you enjoyed Rushmore or The Royal Tenenbaums or The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou, you'll enjoy The Darjeeling Limited.
LinkRant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #92 [Oct. 17th, 2007|04:17 pm]
[Tags|, ]

The Big Sleep (Howard Hawks)
The Big Sleep finished filming in February 1945. It wasn't released theatrically until August 1946. There were two reasons for this delay. The first was that WW2 was coming to a close, and the studio decided to fast track all their current war-related projects while they still had relevance (a hard-boiled detective thriller would still be relevant a year later). The second reason was that Lauren Bacall's career was on a downslide after her film debut in To Have and Have Not. To get her career back on track the studio decided that The Big Sleep needed more elements from To Have and Have Not that made it so popular. So reshoots were ordered in February and March of 1946. In the end, fifteen minutes of changes were made, through complete cuts, reshoots of existing scenes, and the addition of completely new material, basically all in an effort to heighten the interplay and chemistry between Bogart and Bacall. The Big Sleep is often referred to as a seminal noir film, yet it contains few elements of classic noir (but for the hardboiled detective thriller.) The most strikine aspect of both films is Bogart's dialogue, razor-sharp and fast and furious at all times.

The Big Sleep (Pre-Release Version) (1945)
****
The convoluted plot actually makes more sense in this version. The dialogue is still spot on, but Bacall is not quite as insolent with Bogart, more demur, not quite as challenging to him verbally or emotionally.

The Big Sleep (Theatrical Version) (1946)
****
A couple of key expository scenes were shuffled aside to add more flavour to the Bogart/Bacall relationship. Would probably take an extra viewing to really figure out what is going on here. The alteration in dialogue between Bacall and Bogart creates a more consistent verbal flow throughout the film. It's really hard to rate one version above the other. What might be missing from one version is made up for in other areas.

Grindhouse (2007)
A double-feature release (in North America) by Tarantino and Rodriguez, with the express purpose of capturing the tone and feeling of the exploitation films of the 1970s, those films that had limited distribution and limited film prints and limited budget, that circulated through small film grungy theatres across the United States. Both these films, in my opinion, are high-octane feminist films. Each deals with a female protagonist (or protagonists in the case of Death Proof) kicking ass in what is normally a male dominated medium. Each film is filled with tiny touches that distinguish it as a grindhouse experience (I assume, since I never had a real 1970s grindhouse experience): damaged negatives, missing reels, over-the-top action, nudity. As well, as a number of fake grindhouse movie trailers are included, the best of which are Don't and Hobo with a Shotgun. Even given all that, it is still a lot of glossier than any grindhouse film ever was. Fifty million was spent on these two films after all, not twenty thousand per.

Death Proof (Quentin Tarantino)
****
Stuntman Mike is a serial killer. His preferred method of murder is his death proof car (outfitted with the latest stunt tech in roll cages, five point harnesses, and that ilk.) He picks up a passenger, scares the bejeezus out of them by driving like a maniac, then crashes. He meets his match when he decides to terrorize four stunt girls, unbeknownst to him that they are stunt women. Comeuppance? And then some. Some of the best, most edge-of-your-seat stunt driving I've seen put to film. The only downside is that the film is unbalanced ... far too talky at the beginning, far too action ladened at the end. (Which is the same problem that Kill Bill experiences when parts one and two are watched back to back, though in reverse.) If it wasn't for the spectacular action that this film closes with, it would have likely earned three and a half or even three stars even.

The DVD version is not the theatrical version, but an extended cut. Which is likely a shame (I've not seen it yet.) Usually what ends up on the cutting room floor is dialogue, what makes it theatrically is the expensive action. Since the theatrical version is already long in the tooth on dialogue, I'm going to guess that this isn't an improvement.

Planet Terror (Robert Rodriguez)
****
Basically a zombie film of the Resident Evil variety. Military bio-weapon is accidentally released. Small town residents become enraged mindless killing machines. A small group of diehards defend themselves at the local greasy diner. Trailers were a bit misleading (and might have attributed to the general population avoiding these films in the theatre), Rose McGowan doesn't get her machine gun leg until the final 15 minutes. And it's really not as ridiculous as it looked in the trailer, Rodriguez definitely makes it work. Much more balanced than Death Proof, but doesn't finish in quite the same sliding-out-of-your-seat manner as Tarantino's entry.

Koko, a Talking Gorilla (Koko, le gorille qui parle) (Barbet Schroeder, 1978)
***1/2
Who hasn't heard of Koko by now? Heck, she was in the news three or four years ago on sexual harassment charges. No, really. But that's a different story (and one you can Google). This film was made when the world was just becoming aware of this "talking" gorilla. Yes, I put "talking" in quotes, because the documentary makes no claims one way or the other. It's not edited in such a way that it's pushing the view that Koko can speak via signs, not is it edited in such a way that it tries to reveal Koko as doing nothing more than performing "tricks". It's a balanced view, showing us Koko's on days, when we actually double-take at some of the communication she is doing. And it shows her off days, where we pause to wonder exactly how much of what she is doing she actually understands, what is simply the result of repetition repetition repetition. There's no denying that some level of communication is occurring between Koko and her handler (Penny Patterson), but the documentary leaves it to you, the viewer to try to determine how much. Is an exchange of communication occurring as Penny explains? Or is Ms. Patterson simply deluding herself to some degree, making much more out of the communication than what is actually taking place? Perhaps the documentary could have used a tad more third party analysis, instead of relying on the viewer to make decisions alone. I'm certainly no expert in American Sign Language or the intricacies of communication itself, so I'm still on the fence about Koko.
LinkRant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #91 [Oct. 15th, 2007|12:29 am]
[Tags|, ]

The final installment of my VIFF (Vancouver International Film Festival) and VLAFF (Vancouver Latin American Film Festival) viewing.

Chronicle of an Escape (Chronica de una fuga) (Adrian Caetano, 2006)
****1/2
A new repressive regime change in Argentina and anyone who opposes the government is rounded up and sent to detention centres, even if their opposition is based solely on hearsay, rumour or spite. Such is the case when the government kidnaps the goaltender from a local football (soccer) team. Torture ensues as they try to extract names from him, even though he has none to give them. His name was given by another inmate, forced by the government spill anything, even if complete fabrication. A treatise on the value of the write habeas corpus. Eventually, after months of lockup, four of them plan their escape. Based on a true story. The film really gets at the feelings of paranoia and of a caged existence.

Bliss (Mutluluk) (Abdullah Oguz, 2007)
****
Meryam is raped, and as such has brought shame upon her family for her lost chastity. One of the village heads decrees that old customs must be adhered too and orders his son, Cemal, to obstensibly take Meryam to Istanbul (she believes she's to enter into an arranged marriage), but to dispose of her along the way instead. He can't bring himself to kill her though, and the two eventually find refuge in a fishing village along the Sea of Marmara, on the run from others in the village who have learned of Cemal's "betrayal". In the fishing village, they eventually cross paths with a professor, and they embark with him on his yacht. A bit of a love triangle forms as the two men's affections grow toward Meryam. It's a really simple story overall, but entirely engaging. The performance by Meryam is scintillating, and is perhaps the one thing that truly makes this film work.

The Champagne Spy (Meragel Ha-Shampaniya) (Nadav Schirman, 2007)
****
A documentary about Wolfgang Lotz (half German, half Jewish), the Israeli spy that infiltrated the highest levels of Egyptian society as an ex-Nazi. Examines the psychological impacts of long-term undercover work, on the spy and on their family. Most of the intimacy of portrait is gleaned through interviews with the son (who was around the age of twelve during his father's missions in Egypt). Follows the story from the onset of the mission, through to his capture, incarceration, and eventual release (in a prisoner exchange after the Yom Kippur War). Through Super 8 video of the son's, we actually witness the father's estrangement from his own family during his infrequent visits from Egypt back to Paris, it's palpable. The film also covers the difficulty of deep cover spies integrating back into normal society after the close of their mission. This is a tragedy of a Shakespearean sort, the downfall of a Israeli hero, a hero from the Israeli perspective at any rate, but a failure to everyone else around him.

After the viewing we were treated to a Q&A by the director. I was a little disheartened by this, as he revealed some omissions in the story told, most notably that of Lotz's trial in Egypt. Wolfgang was tried as a German, and great effort was spent trying to maintain this ruse, for if the Egyptians were to discover that their captured spy was Israeli, he would have been sentenced to death quite swiftly. The film is unapologetic in it's portrayal that Egypt was complete hoodwinked in this regard. Yet, in the Q&A, the director revealed that Egypt did in fact know that Lotz was Israeli, but for reasons of honor and saving face, decided to keep that fact to themselves, not wanting to go through the embarassment of having had an Israeli spy who had infiltrated some of their highest levels of goverment and society out in the open. (Syria had just gone through a similar debacle a year earlier, having lost a lot of face among other Arab nations). I felt a little betrayed by the film finding that out, feeling as though this Israeli director was trying to embarrass Egypt 30 years gone past, even though Egypt knew full well their prisoner's heritage and loyalties from the outset.

Hotel Very Welcome (Sonja Heiss, 2007)
***1/2
Have you travelled the world? Been to foreign countries? If so, then you'll get a real kick out of this effort, which details the travails of four separate groups of travellers. Two groups in Thailand. Two groups in India. Language issues. Cultural issues. They all come into play in amusing vignettes on the travel experience. But the film goes beyond that, as each group has selected to travel to escape some problem back home, with the view that the travelling experience will answer and solve those problems. The ultimate message being that a vacation can't solve personal problems, it's only a momentary escape from them. Further, upon reflection, the film is about relationships, each character (or group) experiencing or escaping from or searching for a relationship. I use the word group loosely, since the "groups" in question are generally single people, they are: in India a fellow escaping the impending birth of a son via a one-night stand, in India a girl trying to find herself at a Bagwan institute and dealing with a possessive boyfriend back in Germany, in Thailand two English blokes who discover the breakdown of their friendship of money and control, and in Thailand a girl who seems perpetually stuck in her hotel room, trying to catch a flight to anywhere who somehow develops a relationship with the travel agent she speaks to daily.)

Faro: Goddess of the Waters (Faro, la reine des eaux) (Salif Traoré, 2007)
***1/2
Science and faith underpins this African offering. A young man, now a civil engineer, returns to his village with the hope of bringing increased prosperity via plans for a small dam and canal system. The young man, Zanga, is treated with distrust, and since he does not know who his father is (his mother refuses to tell him), and as such is a bastard, as a bad omen. Then when a near drowning occurs on the river, the villagers take it as a final sign that Faro, the goddess of the river, is angry. Thus the clash between new and old begins. The film never takes a heavy-handed approach in its themes and the director treats both faith and science in equal measures. Light comedy and light drama. The performances, even though mostly by non-professional actors, are generally strong. The cinematography is, as one would expect, gorgeous. Good use of the colour palette in most every frame. The film itself can be a little slow at times, a tad meandering, but overall an interesting and enjoyable viewing experience.

The Girl Cut in Two (La fille coupée en deux) (Claude Chabrol, 2007)
**1/2
An uncohesive romantic comedy that takes a very unexpected (and unwelcome) dark twist at the end. Early during the viewing, a friend commented that the film had a 60s feel to it. And viewing the remainder the film I started to look at it in that perspective. And she was quite right in a number of ways, the staging of scenes, a couple of the characters were of that 60s sort of caricature, the music during some of the comedic moments, the soft desaturation of colours. But it was never very consistent. It sometimes felt like a 2007 film, sometimes like something from the late 1960s. I'm not even sure I should be banging the film on this idea, since I'm entirely unsure if a 60s verve was his intention at all. But on reflection, it certainly would have been a better film if it had paid a more consistent homage to seminal 60s films such as Breakfast at Tiffany's, or The Party, or even Stolen Kisses (by Francois Truffaut). The film, this subject matter, needed to be taken less seriously than it often was, a lighter more airy approach would have benefited it greatly. And that dark twist, even in hindsight, there was a bit of foreshadowing, but I don't think anyone in the audience took it for the gravity with which the director and writer intended. It was out of place here in this film. The story: a local weather girl gets involved with two men, one of whom she obsesses over, while the other obsesses over her. Hijinks ensue? Not really, which is a shame.
Link1 rant|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #90 [Oct. 5th, 2007|01:08 am]
[Tags|, ]

Some films that I've seen recently at VLAFF (Vancouver Latin American Film Festival) and VIFF (Vancouver International Film Festival). There'll be another installment next week.

In the Pit (En El Hoya) (Juan Carlos Rulfo, 2006)
****
A documentary about a handful from the thousands of workers building the second deck of Mexico City's Periferico Freeway. There's nothing at all political about this film, which is a refreshing change of pace. Nothing about pay or benefits or health or injury statistics. It's documentary about working class personalities, those people willing to do the jobs that most of us don't want to do. Often amusing, but sometimes tragic in its personalities. The film is not apologetic though, and simply lets the voices of these workers speak to the camera. There's a touching honesty here that you don't often find in these sorts of documentaries, the documentarians all too often attempting to make grand, bold political statements. The latter can often be fine and helpful and necessary, but sometimes you already know their situations without it being shoved down your throat, and instead of the political message, getting to actually know the people involved is more important. A film about humanity.

The Counterfeiters (Die Fälscher) (Stefan Ruzowitzky, 2007)
****
It's probably the height of disrespect to describe it this way, but simply put this is Schindler's Bank Notes. A Jewish counterfeiter, Salomon Sorowitsch, is transferred to a special unit of his concentration camp, where he oversees the counterfeiting of British pounds and American dollars, in a Nazi attempt to destabilise their economies with an influx of fake currency. Based on Operation Bernhard (information which can be found at Wikipedia). Salomon is both torn between trying to survive, along with the guilt of actually helping his enemy. The film is perhaps a little misleading at the end, as only a pittance of the $132 million pounds was ever successfully inserted into the British economy.

Paper Dove (Paloma de Papel) (Fabrizio Aguilar, 2003)
***
The story of a young Peruvian boy kidnapped by Marxist rebels and conscripted forcibly into their cause. The film started off fine until it became obvious that the director was trying to make a political statement. The rebels are characterized as nothing more than cartoony buffoons, and nothing at all about them can be taken the least bit seriously. Not that I'm defending any cause that kidnaps (and attempts to brainwash) children to its way of thinking, but a little more intelligence could have been inserted here. It's a hamhanded and all-too-obvious approach to making a statement against such rebels. Given the amateurishness of the characters, I'm apt to wonder how much of this is even reality in Peru (i.e. the kidnappings), perhaps it's just a plot device to further vilify their ideologies. Some wonderful cinematography though, and very good performances by the children.

Redacted (Brian De Palma, 2007)
**1/2
A quasi-documentary about a military squad in Samarra, Iraq. Based on a story of a similar squad who raped a 15 year old girl and then killed her family. Not particularly graphic, but certainly disturbing in the mindsets and rationalizations of the soldiers. This would have made a better three or four act play, than a film. The dialogue was too overwrought, projected, thoughtful and lengthy for these men. That's the sort of thing you expect from a play, versus a film of this variety, where it's the visuals and actions of the characters, rather than their language and soliloqueys, that effects the emotional response from the audience. Some interesting ideas and experiments here though, if not always effective within the film, such as the story playing out through a variety of mediums, such as a French film crew, the personal diary of one of the soldiers, or the video web pages of the insurgents.
Link2 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #89 [Oct. 4th, 2007|01:32 pm]
[Tags|, ]

Bourne Ultimatum (Paul Greengrass, 2007)
***1/2
If it wasn't for the horrendous editing, which amounts to sheer laziness on the filmmakers behalf, this would have ranked higher. This fast staccato editing style really takes away from the action, you never quite know what the hell is going on. And you wonder if they even filmed a complex action scene at all, instead relying on this editing style to hide the fact that they didn't know what the hell they were doing. The story itself is reasonably strong, and harkens back to the previous films in meaningful ways. Heck, the closing shot of the second film (which always kind of bugged me and seemed out of character for Bourne) is actually a scene from the middle of this film, giving it some actual credence. A couple of plot failings here and there, such as how Bourne gets into the CIA cover office undiscovered. A fine finale to the trilogy.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (David Yates, 2007)
***1/2
This is how Goblet of Fire should have been adapted, filmed and edited. Instead of trying to mash together as many storylines as possible, never quite giving any of them the attention they deserve, Order of the Phoenix instead focuses on just a few of the story threads from the lengthy novel, excising anything they can't adequately cover. This makes for a much stronger film. And is certainly a lesson in how to adapt a novel whose length precludes it from being fully covered in the two hour timespan of a film. Completely does the novel justice, whereas the previous entry in the series did not. Along with Prisoner of Azkaban, the strongest entries in the series thus far.

Transformers (Michael Bay, 2007)
***
Definitely the highest rating I've ever given a Michael Bay film, by a long shot. I used to watch the afternoon cartoon all the time, so was a little leery of how Bay was going to approach this. He's not exactly known for sticking to source material. Granted, there were quite a few changes here from the original, but they're mostly superficial. What works in a cartoon, does not necessarily work on film. For the most part the film is true to the cartoon, retaining the mood and comedy of the original. The FX are also really well done. My only complaint is that it's overly long in a couple of places (outside the parent's house, for instance) and could have benefitted from some tighter editing.

300 (Zack Snyder, 2006)
**
I still don't understand what the hype is about this film. It's an empty shell. Nothing more than a 2 hour battle scene, with the misplaced shards of a romance thrown in because someone noticed that it lacked any amount of story. Some nice visuals, some nice action, but overall nothing at all memorable about this flick at all.

Live Free or Die Hard (Len Wiseman, 2007)
*1/2
It's become far too over the top. McClane used to be the everyman. And the situations and damage he took were somewhat believable, it wasn't a stretch to think that he could have survived the messes he got himself into. At least in the first film. Each succeeding film took it a little bit further each time, but not to the extent that this one does. From start to finish there wasn't an action setpiece where you thought McClane could have survived, he should have died in each and every one of them. It's taken it too far to the extreme, and McClane has become more of a superhero than just a regular cop getting himself into dangerous situations. As well, when Willis attempts to reprise certain amusing McClane character traits, his heart doesn't seem to be in it all.
Link2 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #88 [May. 23rd, 2007|01:00 pm]
[Tags|, ]

I haven't done one of these since December? Holy smokes. That's not good. That's not good at all.

The Departed (Martin Scorsese, 2006)
*****
Scorsese is a technical genius. Even his ho-hum films are wonderful too look at. But it's been awhile since he had a real script he could sink his teeth into. The Aviator? Blah. Bringing Out the Dead? Boo. But with The Departed, this is the sort of material that Scorsese has the most fun with. The criminal element, people struggling with their own ethics and morality, in a world that doesn't often reward such. Good and evil, their ambiguity when placed in different environmental contexts. This is probably the first time in 20 years that Jack Nicholson has acted on-screen, instead of just continuing to spoof his Easy Rider and The Shining roles over and over again. DiCaprio too, he's not his usual emo self here, actually pulling in a performance. And continuing stand-outs from Damon, Wahlberg, Sheen, Baldwin and Winstone. It's been awhile since Scorsese has gotten this level of performance out of all his actors. Deserving of the Oscar? Definitely. A film about infiltration and death, to sum it up unsuccinctly in one short sentence.

Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone, 2006)
****
Seriously. This is a good film. Entirely on par with the first Rocky, from 30 years ago. Same tone. Same storytelling style. It isn't so much about the big boxing match or the training sequences, as it is about a character trying to discover himself again. This isn't Rocky's 2, 3, 4, or 5. Only remember the first, and if you enjoyed that, then you'll definitely enjoy this. Ends perfectly too (although in the deleted scenes, Stallone, or perhaps the studio, thought that a more traditional Hollywood ending might be preferable, but thankfully they didn't go that route). This film isn't gloss or pomp & pageantry, it's stark and washed-out, dark and moody. It's the true successor of the first film. Try to forget the bunk that came in between, even if they were somewhat fun in their 80s excesses.

Little Miss Sunshine (Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris, 2006)
****
I was kind of at odds at what to rate this. Four stars or three and a half. Should I err lower or higher? How will I feel about this in four years? I'm gonna err high. Little Miss Sunshine is a light comedy about a dysfunctional family on the verge of falling apart. Little Olive has made it into the Little Miss Sunshine beauty pageant (under the tutelage of her highly cynical and misanthropic grandfather) due to an illness from another contestant. The entire family embarks on a half-cross-country trip to see her dream fulfilled. Lots of quirkiness here, but it's never overdone or overwrought or overplayed. It's not quirky to be quirky (like in a pile of crap like The Squid and the Whale), it's quirky because, really, that's how most people are (we just never really see the absurdity that surrounds us).

Trailer Park Boys: Seasons 1 through 7 (Mike Clattenburg, 2001-2007)
****
I refrained from watching this series for a long long time. I just assumed it was some derivation of the Red Green Show, and I really hate the Red Green Show. What the Trailer Park Boys is in fact, is pretty brilliant. It's filmed mockumentary style, with a fake film crew following around a rag-tag band of wannabe criminals from the Sunnyvale trailer park (with a fair amount of humourous interaction with the film crew itself, as they often get in the way of the crimes). The show features lots of pot smoking (nothing stronger ever, thankfully), lots of boozing, lots of cussing, some gunplay, and oodles of low-end crime. It stars Julian as the thinker and ringleader. Ricky, as the guy just wanting to be a good father. And Bubbles, as the go-between who wants to remain out of crime, but always ends up entangled in Ricky's and Julian's schemes. It's about friendship, it's about family, but with a highly dysfunctional air. The show even presents hot-button issues (such as homosexuality) in such a matter-of-fact manner, that it's never at issue (as these things should be), which is kind of the opposite of what you might assume from something from a show like this, you'd assume that it would be homophobic in nature (sure some situations are played up for humour, but never in a mean-spirited or negative way). Each season generally ends with the boys going to prison and each season generally starts with them being released. Canadian sit-coms (and it's hard to categorize TPB as a traditional sit-com) have come a long way.

Trailer Park Boys: The Movie (Mike Clattenburg, 2006)
***
The series just does not translate to the big screen. Not at all. The characters are the same. The themes are the same, but something is lost in the translation. Mainly the endearing mockumentary feel. This feels like a movie, and for the Trailer Park Boys, that is not a good thing. The mockumentary feel is totally lost in the translation. Everything feels too big, too broad, that intimacy you get with the television show, is also gone. It is funny, it is amusing, and the characters are true. It's not a bad experience, and if you're a fan, it is worth watching. It's just not the same experience as the television show.

Spider-Man 3 (Sam Raimi, 2007)
**1/2
The same tone as the previous two. Nothing much different. Aunt May now bugs the hell out of me, the only time she appears is to spew forth shallow platitudes and clichés that spell out for the audience what the theme of this year's movie is. Revenge. It's bad, by the way. Which I'm pretty sure we all knew, but thankfully we had Aunt May there to drill it into us every 40 minutes. Whatever happened to SM's spidey sense? He gets caught by surprise constantly in this film. The action was actually kind of boring. I didn't feel any tension where there should be some. And the special effects seemed sub-par, especially that first fight with "hobgoblin". On par with the previous two, but that makes it a little worse, since they don't really go anywhere new with the characters. Some will disagree, and you might think they try, but the character development is so shallow I don't think it amounts to much of an attempt. Whatever happened to the richly drawn villians of the first two films (Green Goblin and Doc Octopus)? These villians (Venom and Sandman) are about as hollow as you could possibly write them. Worth seeing if you liked the first two, but don't expect anything beyond what the first two offered. I wasn't, but it still seemed a disappointment.

The Squid and the Whale (Noah Baumbach, 2005)
**1/2
Noah Baumbach co-wrote The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou and Wes Anderson's upcoming The Fantastic Mr. Fox. Noah, with The Squid and the Whale, seems to be trying to emulate Wes Anderson, but without any success. Whereas Wes has a knack for effortlessly weaving quickiness throughout his films in such a way that it all seems somewhat normal, almost blasé, Noah does not have that same talent. Here the quirks all seem forced, out-of-character, painfully egocentric at times. The story revolves around two boys who must cope with the divorce of their parents: the father a once successful writer who's long lost his muse, but continues to live on long past success, and their mother, a newly discovered writing talent. A stock story that isn't made all that interesting by Noah's misuse of Andersonisms, perhaps he would have been better off telling his story in his own way rather than through emulation.
Link10 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #87 [Dec. 16th, 2006|05:57 am]
[Tags|, ]

Miami Vice (Michael Mann, 2006)
***1/2
Strangely, even though the tone of the film is very much different than the tone of the original TV series, it reminded me entirely of the TV series. Concerning tone, the TV series was mostly irreverent, the characters were cocky and never really took their jobs all that seriously, you never really believed that they were ever in any imminent danger. The movie changes this, the characters taking their jobs and the situations in which they are placed very seriously and the element of danger is always present. The similarities to the TV show some in the cinematography and choice of camera angles, as well as how the two main characters (Crockett and Tubbs) relate to each other as partners. Strangely, music never takes an omnipresent role in the film as it did in the television series, even though they use In the Air Tonight near the end (a poor remake, versus the much better Phil Collins version). A good stylish crime film, even if the story elements themselves aren't all that engaging, good characters to fill out the story, but a story lacking any real substance.

An Evening with Kevin Smith (J.M. Kenny, 2002)
***1/2
Smith is like Cosby on stage, in his ability to spin a really funny yarn. Of course Cosby and Smith are incomparable with respect to material, but they have the same storytelling skills. This DVD set is 4 hours of filmed Q&A appearances that Smith made at universities around the U.S in 2001 and 2002. Smith is downright hilarious, and he doesn't pull many punches when discussing his Hollywood experiences, from bashing on Tim Burton to ridiculing producer Jon Peters. The only downside is how often Smith spends disparaging his size and weight: a few times it's funny, to the extent he does it, he needs to seek out some therapy.

(Apparently I already reviewed this Sep 15 2004, giving it the same mark and basically pointing out all the same strengths and weaknesses. At least I'm consistent, two years later.)

An Evening with Kevin Smith 2: Evening Harder (J.M. Kenny, 2006)
***
More Q&A with Kevin Smith, this time a show in Toronto and a show in London. Extra hilarious when Smith starts commenting on either Canadian or British culture, and his ability to do an accent in either tongue is superb. Although still funny, not quite as strong as the original simply because Smith doesn't seem to have as much dish to scoop as he did previously. That, and Smith is still having huge self-esteem problems with his weight issues. Seriously dude, seek some therapy, or join Jenny Craig. Something, I'm getting tired of the "I'm a fat disgusting slob" humour.

Clerks II (Kevin Smith, 2006)
***
I was disappointed with this. It's worth watching, has some truly funny bits, and strings along a real story (versus a series of montages as per the original film), but I think Kevin Smith is trying too hard. The serious dialogue is unnatural sounding, and when Smith is trying for the gross-outs, he seems less intent on just being funny and more intent on trying to top previous gross-outs (this is a trend I hope he stops in successive films). The boys are now working at Mooby's, due the QuickStop burning down. They are having crises of conscience as they try to figure out their lot in life. Standouts are the character Elias (who pretty much steals the film), the Lord of the Rings versus Star Wars banter, as well as a good ending that maybe (or at least could) put the Jersey series to rest.

The Da Vinci Code (Ron Howard, 2006)
**
I don't know if the book is garbage, but the movie certainly is. An ancient puzzle that seems to be solvable with English only? If many of these artifacts are hundreds of years old, and originate within the Catholic Church, wouldn't the puzzles all be Latin-based? As well, if you're a secret society hiding the location of the Holy Grail, why would you scatter clues to its location around the world? If you want it to be a secret, why would you go through the trouble of creating an elaborate treasure hunt? The film raises some interesting questions (questions that aren't new, of course, but popularity has brought exposure to these age old conspiracies), but deals with them rather ham-handedly (I can't speak about how ham-handed the book may or may not be). The strange thing is, this is the type of material that should make a good exciting popcorn flick, but this is neither.
Link2 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #86 [Nov. 20th, 2006|03:53 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

The Queen (Stephen Frears, 2006)
****1/2
A fictional look into a stressful week (a week based on factual events) in the life of Queen Elizabeth II. Touching and humourous, light fare not heavy, neither entirely damning of the Queen, nor entirely complimentary (though the rest of the family doesn't get off very easy). Elizabeth comes off as someone who wants to do the right thing, but is stuck in a past that's no longer applicable to the Royal Family of the almost-21st century. The people no longer want codes and conduct and hundreds of years of Royal etiquette and custom, they want to see humanity in their monarchy. Probably not all that far off the mark, with regards the Royal Family. (Probably well off the mark with respect to Tony Blair's relationship to The Queen -- I can't imagine him being quite that fawning or concerned about them.) Well worth the ticket price.

Casino Royale (Martin Campbell, 2006)
****
Shades of Sean Connery, shades of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and shades of For Your Eyes Only. But darker and grittier than any of those were allowed to be (or wanted to be). I can imagine Pierce Brosnan is a little ticked. This is the sort of Bond he wanted to make, but was never allowed to make. After Goldeneye, they kept pushing him towards the bubblegum Roger Moore style. Pierce had his torture scene, but it was done over the title credits and wasn't nearly as gritty as it should have been. It certainly isn't the torture scene we get in Casino Royale. In terms of filmic torture, it's not particularly shocking, but for a Bond film it's certainly something we haven't seen before. This is the non-continuity story of Bond's beginning. Maybe the filmmakers are rebooting the series (we'll know for sure come Bond 22). A lot of the signature Bond moments aren't here. Q is absent. Moneypenny is absent. The "Bond James Bond" introduction is absent until the end. The shaken not stirred is given its creation. The opening titles lack silhouettes of nude women (though it's an excellent title design) and the song by Chris Cornell is a little lacking (though using one of the forerunners of 90s grunge sets the mood).The dun-duh-duh-dun theme song is absent until the very end (though the music slowly builds to that moment). Thankfully they've stepped away from CGI stunts (which annoyed me to no end in Die Another Day) and gone back to the practical, if you can't accomplish something practically, it's really not worth doing in a Bond film. The most interesting thing about this film is that it contains actual character development. They show us Bond from the moments when he first gets his double-0 status, through to the development of the more suave, sophisticated Bond we're more familiar with. How he turned from simple single-minded thug to someone who thinks before acting. Even the action sequences work in setting up and developing his character. The first Parkour sequence is amazing, but the opposing styles of the bad guy versus Bond throughout the sequence really set-up the type of character Bond began as (as seen through the eyes of the writers). He's brutish and hulkish versus stylish and graceful. This is definitely up there as one of the better Bond films of all time, but only time will decide if it ranks as one of the best within the pantheon.

Go back to July 2004 to read DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #20, my list of ratings for the rest of the Bond films.

Mission: Impossible (Brian De Palma, 1996)
***1/2
A fair number of logic holes and impossible action sequences, but still good fun to watch. Exciting. Not entirely worthy of the old Mission: Impossible series, since in the first 15 minutes Cruise kills off the entire team, so that he can emerge as more of a singular Bond-like hero (the television series was all about teamwork, no one character really took precedence over any other). De Palma is generally thought of as a hack, and it's true that most of his style is stolen from other great directors, but he does know how to use that theft effectively and stylishly.

Mission: Impossible II (John Woo, 2000)
**
Another lacklustre HollyWoo effort. Ever since Woo left Hong Kong (where he had total control over his films), he's been a slim shadow of his former self. He's no longer directing greats like Hard Boiled, The Killer, A Better Tomorrow or Bullet in the Head (films that defined his Hong Kong career). This is too short on action, and too long on the face-mask trick which is used two times too often in this film.

Mission: Impossible III (J.J. Abrams, 2006)
***
A long episode of Alias. Better production qualities, but not much different from Abrams' TV show (which I loved for the first two seasons). Hell, he even inserts his Marshall techno-geek from Alias into this movie (different actor, but same character). That said, it's certainly better than II. I go to watch action films for great action, and this certainly has that. About the only thing lacking is any real suspense or overall style.
Link14 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #85 [Nov. 5th, 2006|02:01 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

Sense and Sensibility (Ang Lee, 1995)
****1/2
Ang Lee + Emma Thompson + Kate Winslet all equal one marvelous film. After the BBC five hour version of Pride and Prejudice, this is my next favourite Jane Austen adaptation. I'm not even quite sure why I'm not giving this five stars. Maybe because it's not quite the masterpiece that Pride and Prejudice is. But then it's not really a fair comparison. One is a 5 hour adaptation, while Sense and Sensibility is a 2 hour affair. S&S is certainly more gorgeous to look at than P&P, even though both were working on limited budgets. The writing in both is stellar. Maybe it's the commentary track that had me knock off a half-star, when I learned that Emma Thompson retained next to none of the original dialogue in her screenplay and that a few other liberties were taken (although this is no smack on her screenplay itself, which is sparkling). P&P is certainly the better adapation by comparison. They're both equally well-cast. I don't know, maybe consider it a 4 and three-quarter star film. The story is a familiar one to Austen: middle class family finds itself in financial straits, and an overbearing, though well-meaning mother, tries to marry off her daughters as best she can. Another treatise on the state of affairs for women during the time period, that all they could really aspire too were financially rewarding marriages (and the really lucky women were able to find love as well).

The Philadelphia Story (George Cukor, 1940)
****1/2
The British always did class satire better than the Americans, simply because the British class system was so much better defined, it was institutionalized. That said, this still does a bang-up job in a purely American fashion. Audiences were fascinated with the nouveau-riche, even moreso when they exhibited traits and characteristics of the working and middle classes. The film is about the evolution of the Katherine Hepburn character, from snotty ice queen (British-like) to a more humble, fun-loving gal (American-like), all this while she struggles with her attraction for three different men, each of whom offer her something on the road travelled.

Extras: Season Two (BBC, 2006)
****
Definitely darker than the last season, perhaps on par with the second season of The Office. This season doesn't focus so much on the "extras" aspect, since main character, Andy Millman, now has his own TV show on BBC. But he's unhappy, because his creation has been yoinked from him and turned into the type of comedy that he despises, although he still gets to take the brunt of the attacks from the media. Andy is in a depressed state through the entire series, not happy with his show, not happy with the type of fame he is receiving, not happy with the people around him (especially his mostly incompetent manager ... actually his manager seems to go through the character arc that Andy did in the first season). Lots of guest appearances here, the best of which are Orlando Bloom, Daniel Radcliffe and Sir Ian McKellen. The saddest episode is the fifth, when Andy is cast in a play by McKellen, although entirely capable of the performance, his own insecurities and prejudices get in the way.

Thank You For Smoking (Jason Reitman, 2005)
***1/2
Very nearly a great satire. What makes a great satire? Keeping true to the source, ensuring that the story and acting don't deviate from the reality of the situation. Not letting the premise get away from you by focusing too much on the inherent message or the comedy. Far too often in satires, the writers end up ruining their initial ideas by going to far into maudlinism or comedy. Satire requires a delicate balance between comedy and drama, the comedy has to be situational, based on the reality, rather than screwball. The best satire is usually more tragicomedy than anything else. Thank You For Smoking mostly maintains that fine balance between reality and comedy (except for a sub-plot that ends at the Lincoln Memorial, which seems out of place and isn't really necessary). It's about a man who is the spokesman for big tobacco. He's completely unapologetic about his job; someone has to do it, why shouldn't it be him? It's mainly about what drives a man to do work like this, work that requires one to actively lie and deceive the public.

Jackass: Number Two (Jeff Tremaine, 2006)
***1/2
It's fucking retarded. There's no arguing that. But it's hilarious. I haven't laughed so hard at a movie in a long time. My cheeks were hurting by the end of it. There were some moments in which I couldn't watch (anything involving defecation or vomiting), but everything else is a riot. Jackass isn't just stupid stunts (and pranks) per se, but stupid stunts (and pranks) set up in clever and ingenious little ways. It takes a warped mind to force a shark hook through their cheek and then thrown themselves into hammerhead and mako infested waters. I have no problem watching and laughing at idiots on-screen.

V for Vendetta (James McTeigue, 2005)
***
I never read the comicbook, so I can't comment on the accuracy of the film to the source material, so I'm not rating this on that aspect at all. As a film and a story, I enjoyed it. It holds together well and has something to say with respect to contemporary society (especially with respect to current Britain, which is the most surveilled population in the world.) The story: a Batman-like hero decides to bring down a Guy Fawkes revolution upon a corrupt, 1984-like government.

Poseidon (Wolfgang Petersen, 2006)
*
Just a bunch of upside-down sets populated by uninteresting characters dealing with hack-writer backstories. Not even shot interestingly. Worse than the original? Why remake a bad film? To make an even worse film. At least the original had cheese going for it. This has nothing, because it takes itself too seriously. A little tongue-in-cheek camp and cheese would have made this a better film, instead the camp and cheese is unintended which makes for unbearable viewing. These types of films are always better when the cast and crew know they're creating bunk, but fun bunk.
Link3 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #84 [Oct. 8th, 2006|12:17 am]
[Tags|, , ]

The Wire: Season One, Two and Three (HBO, 2002 - 2005)
*****
One of the greatest television shows ever created. It's a visual novel. Each episode a chapter in a grander palette. This series requires intelligent viewing. You have to pay attention to the details, the show doesn't spend time explaining away everything, it involves the viewer in the process of the storytelling, much as a good novel does. The opening episodes of each season might seem a little slow for those groomed on network television cop shows such as CSI, the opening episodes introduce the themes, add colour to the palette, before application of the first brush strokes. This is not so much a cop show as it is a story about the city of Baltimore. West Baltimore is the main character here, there are no other main characters, everyone else are supporting actors. Yes, there are recurring characters, but those characters rarely get time above and beyond any other character or story element. It's Baltimore and the variety of social structures that make her tick that is the focus. In the first season the theme is the drug trade, the interrelationship between the police force and the drug traffickers. The second season focuses on the waterfront, the unions, the politics, and the police. The third season is about reformation, how a city might change and does change, how people change as well. (The fourth season, currently airing is about education, the inner city school system.) Stories from previous seasons carry-over into succeeding seasons, as do characters. Each season is not a universe unto its own, and the series builds a broader palette, a series of novels, all of which build upon each other. If you've not seen The Wire, you're missing one of the truly rewarding viewing experiences. (Beware, the show does not gloss over finality, there aren't life affirming moments for the sake of them, they either exist or don't, all part of a realistic picture of Baltimore.) (Factoid: Baltimore has the highest murder rate in the United States, perhaps the world. It averages over 275 murders per year. If Baltimore had the population of New York City, extrapolation would give it 4000 murders per year.)

United 93 (Paul Greengrass, 2006)
****1/2
I enjoyed Greengrass' Bloody Sunday, but disliked his Bourne Supremacy (mainly the action editing with this one, since the story was solid). United 93 is what Paul Greengrass does best, pseudo-documentary filmmaking. This isn't exploitative. This film doesn't dwell on character. This is about events, built around the 9/11 Commission Report on what was known about the flight and the morning before. The strength of this film is that it doesn't devolve into disaster movie tropes, the film doesn't open on characters leaving their homes, kissing their wives and children, dealing with their morning issues, in an attempt to create false sympathy with the audience. The characters barely have names in this film, we don't spend time with them in a personal manner. The film moves between three main sets, the airplane, the air traffic control centre, and NORAD. It basically recounts the confusion on the ground the morning of 9/11, and then tries to piece together those events into a whole that explains why United 93 went undetected for so long. And then pieces together what might have went down on the airplane itself. A really good film and powerful in its telling. Requires careful viewing, since little is explained as the story is told. This is no World Trade Center Oliver Stone horseshit.

X-Men 3: The Last Stand (Brett Ratner, 2006)
***
I thought the story here was better than the second film, and key characters given more to do (and say) this time around. The story stands together about as well (or slightly better) than X-Men 2, but nowhere near as well as the X-Men 1 (and I'm not huge fan of the franchise having found all the films to be pretty unfocused patch jobs ... too many characters, not enough minutes in a film). I wasn't particularly surprised when Xavier was taken out of action early, since that seems to be what happens to him every film (I guess because his power isn't action oriented, writers just don't know what the hell to do with him, so best to knock him out of the majority of a story.) It's an easily watchable comicbook film, and even though directed by a hack like Ratner, it's really no better or worse directed (writing is another matter) than the previous two films. At least Ratner doesn't resort to fast-cutting of action, so in the action genre he's bearable. About the only failing of the film are the "two" endings, both of which really weaken everything that came before. This is film, a trilogy, so there's nothing wrong with finality. Hell there's finality in the film's title alone -- "The Last Stand". Finality affords impact, gives extra punch to the story. Pulling the rug out of that finality, as they did with their endings, is both cheap and demeaning, especially to the audience. Those "holy shit" moments afford no reflection afterwards.

The L Word: Season Two (Showtime, 2005)
*1/2
A huge disappointment from the first season. Boring would be the best way to sum it up. The characters have become wholly uninteresting. Their problems and relationships mediocre. The storytelling clichéd (if you have two characters who've broken up, everytime you show one of those characters hooking up, you don't have to immediately cut to the other at home, alone, being mopey and sad ... that sort of storytelling is so network television ... if you're attempting to do something different Showtime, then try to do it in how you tell stories too ... take a page from HBO ... please.) Oh, and the character of Jenny ... please get rid of her. A character who cries in every single scene in which she appears in hugely fucking annoying, scratch-your-eyeballs-out annoying.. Involve her in a car accident in the third season, please. But if you don't, at the very least, drop the whole pretentious carnival dream shit and stop involving her in storylines that allow the actress to showcase her skill of shedding a tear at the drop of a penny. Not much else to say about this, not even sure it's worth the effort. I barely made it through the season. Not even sure if I'll bother checking out Season Three (even though I've heard it's a vast improvement over the second season). I'm not looking for murder plots and whoredom out of L Word, that's not a requirement for absence of boredom, I'm just looking for characters I can invest some emotion in. This season I could have cared less about any of them, especially the ones I really liked from the first season.
Link6 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #83 [Sep. 15th, 2006|03:00 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

Deadwood: Season One and Two (HBO, 2004 - 2005)
****1/2
I'll review the first two seasons of Deadwood in a single shot here, since it is a continuing drama based on real overarching historical events. A number of historical characters are portrayed in the series, but are largely fictionalised (i.e. Wild Bill Hickok, Seth Bullock, Sol Star, Calamity Jane, Al Swearengen, Wyatt Earp, E. B. Farnum and George Hearst). Wikipedia greatly helps in understanding where they've been true to the history (the events surrounding Wild Bill's death for example), versus taking dramatic license with the facts (the Al Swearengen character for example). The grander historical events, such as the political events that moved Deadwood from a lawless town on Indian territory to a town annexed back into American territory, being the backdrop for moving the smaller storylines and characterisations forward. The profanity on Deadwood has been the most controversial aspect of the show, but as David Milch explains, the producers and writers had their reasons for using more modern vernacular: "Originally the characters were to use period slang and swear words ... [however] the results sounded downright comical ... [making] everyone sound like Yosemite Sam." Instead, it was decided the show would use modern profanity so that the language would hold weight with a current audience much as the older vernacular held weight in the 1870s. An excellent drama, an excellent western. On par with many of the great Westerns from Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood. Deadwood is dirty, raw, and very real.
Note: Season three recently aired and HBO has decided not to renew the show for a fourth season. Instead, Milch (the producer) will create two two-hour telefilms to tie up all the loose storylines.
Rome: Season One (HBO/BBC, 2005)
****
Very historically accurate, in terms of the events as written. Many of the historical characters are fictionalised in their day to day existence and thoughts. Wikipedia describes the show's first season best: "The first season depicts Caesar's civil war and Julius Caesar's rise to absolute dictatorship over Rome, and his subsequent fall, between the end of his Gallic Wars (52 BCE) and his assassination on (42 BCE, the infamous Ides of March). Against the backdrop of these cataclysmic events, we are also shown the young Octavian, growing up as the young man who is destined to become the first Emperor of Rome: Caesar Augustus." Augustus is probably the biggest anachronism in the show, as he's played by the same teenager throughout the first season, even though 10 years pass from start to finish (but understandable, as it would have only confused audiences to have had the actor change mid season.) Wikipedia is a great source of what was fictionalised in each episode, but thankfully, for the most part, only minor elements were altered. What happens happened historically, and in the order it happened at the time it happened. A real tour-de-force epic. Every detail is lovingly crafted and presented on screen. If you like history, you'll likely love Rome.

Extras: Season One (BBC, 2005)
****
Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant's (both from BBC's The Office) newest comedy. Here Ricky is a struggling actor, mainly getting extra roles in films. Each episode features someone famous, playing a twisted version of themselves (the best starring role is by Patrick Stewart, who pokes fun at Trekkies as well as discussing a script he's written, which is mainly just a collection of set-ups for female breasts to be bared). Extras, while not nearly as funny, is more upbeat and not as cruel as The Office. This is much more in the sitcom vein than The Office, which was in a mockumentary format. It's probably not fair to compare the two, but since Gervais stars in (and co-wrote) both, comparisons are hard to avoid. A very good comedy nonetheless, and stands heads and shoulders above 95% of the comedies that US network television produces. Worth seeing.

The L Word: Season One (Showtime, 2004)
***1/2
Sort of like Sex and the City, but with lesbians. Strikes me as a male fantasy version of lesbianism, but then who wants to watch a show filled with butch lesbians. Lots of eye candy here and nudity. The nudity and sex are just the cherry on top, because the relationship arcs and the characters turn out to be quite addictive viewing, even if those storylines aren't fanciful or overly sensationalised, as is done with a lot of TV drama. My favourite characters would have to be Dana (the closeted tennis player) and Shane (the cool nympho- masculine figure, about the closest the show gets to butch.) Entertaining viewing, if not overly dramatic or exciting, but that's really its selling point.

Prison Break: Season One (Fox, 2005)
***
Mostly preposterous, but strangely compelling and entertaining. A brother gets himself thrown into prison to effect the escape of himself and his brother (who is on death row for a murder he didn't commit.) To effect the escape, the brother plans everything down to the last detail, including tattooing the plans of the penitentiary onto his body. Of course, these plans are thrown out the window around the third episode, and from thereon in, luck and fortuitousness rule every aspect of the escape. In that sense, the show can be a little frustrating, since many of the plot points appear out of nowhere, mainly to sweep aside roadblocks the characters are constantly finding themselves faced with. For a character that planned everything down to the last detail, the brother is often stymied by the most obvious things (i.e. like the fact that elevator doors do not close if they are obstructed, but the solution the writers come up with doesn't make any sense either.) An entertaining, popcorn show if you can get past the fact that it's completely harebrained and that random chance seems to rule every action these characters take.

Fame: Season One (NBC, 1982)
**
I used to enjoy this show as a kid. Sometimes you just can't go back to revisit your youth. The clichés, cheese and stereotypes are piled heavy and deep. Very little in the way of reality here. And as the show tries to cover "important issues" it does so in an overly generalised way, touching only the surface of the problems, wrapping them up all too neatly. If you too enjoyed this show as a youth, you may not want to revisit it, as it will likely only disappoint. Keep those memories clouded by time and distance.
LinkRant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #82 [Sep. 10th, 2006|04:24 pm]
[Tags|, ]

Syriana (Stephen Gaghan, 2005)
****1/2
I honestly didn't find this confusing at all. Sure some of the connections between the story threads are tenuous at best, or in one case, no connection is directly made at all (between the bomber kids and the rest of the threads, though an intimation that Prince Nasir is their funder is suggested), but that's the way it is in the world of oil and middle eastern terrorism. The connections are rarely solid. But where the connections were drawn more strongly (between the oil companies' and the US government's objections to Prince Nasir's future goals) the film was extra powerful. Stylishly filmed as well. My favourite of 2005, even though it took me until 2006 to see it.

An Inconvenient Truth (Davis Guggenheim, 2006)
****1/2
Not particularly stylish. Fairly bland filming here. But the filmmakers are, after all, just adapting a slide show for the big screen. A tall order in the cinematography department. That aside, the message is strong and powerful and Gore makes good use of the science. There's very little in the way of Michael Mooreisms here. This is a film that should be seen by all. This is a film that should scare the bejeezus out of you. This is a film that will hopefully start paving the way to quicker change. We won't survive at the snail's rate we're currently moving. Climate change is a reality and we're reaching the point where the earth might not recover ... at least not enough to allow us all to survive.

Inside Man (Spike Lee, 2006)
****
Like A History of Violence was Cronenberg gone mainstream, Inside Man is mainstream Spike Lee. Even though the edges of both filmmakers are softened, they aren't deadened. Inside Man is still an excellent film, and Spike takes the heist caper and makes it his own. The characters are compelling, the crime is compelling, the story isn't entirely predictable (you know where it's going to end, you just don't know what roads it will take to get there, which keeps it fresh and interesting.) About the only weakness here is the Jodie Foster character (and I love Foster as an actress), whose role seems out of place and unnecessary in the overall story. This is a good intelligent heist film, something we haven't seen out of Hollywood in quite awhile and not surprising it took someone of Spike's caliber and genius to make it.

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (Stanley Kramer, 1967)
****
A film on race relations. Not exactly dated in its theme, by any stretch. The screenwriters made some excellent choices here, especially building up the Poitier character to be as perfect and excellent as he is. In that way, you can really examine your own feelings about the Houghton - Poitier relationship, simply because if you have any objections to the union it can only come down to race -- Poitier's character having no faults which could divert your objections falsely. This is one of those classics that should be seen by all. It took me until now to finally see it. The only failing is that it's perhaps a little too preachy/speechy in parts, but that probably can't be avoided in a film of this sort. It's more a stage play than pure cinema. (Hmm, I'll have to check to see if it was adapted from the stage.)

16 Blocks (Richard Donner, 2006)
**
Nothing but the usual here. Cop with problems faces big event that will force him to examine and change his life for the better. A witness is to testify against dirty cops. Willis has to get that witness 16 blocks in 2 hours, all the while being hounded by those dirty cops. There's a little twist at the end, but nothing all too surprising and nothing that could save this run-of-the-mill film from the subpar rating I'm giving it.

Firewall (Richard Loncraine, 2006)
*1/2
Whatever happened to Harrison Ford? There was a time when he actually picked interesting projects (Mosquito Coast, Witness, Frantic, The Fugitive, Regarding Henry), now all we see from him are cookie-cutter studio films (The Devil's Own, Air Force One, Random Hearts, Six Days Seven Nights). Firewall is no exception. It's another of in a long line of "bad guys kidnap good guys family to force him to commit their crime for them" dramas. There's nothing new or original here, except that perhaps the computing scenes actually make use of Unix, rather than bizarrely mocked-up faux computer images (but that's trivia versus anything worth giving the film points for). Very forgettable stuff here. Too bad, Harrison is a compelling actor, and it's a shame his script sensibility has gone out the window (he's turned down roles in Syriana, Traffic and A History of Violence.)
LinkRant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #81 [Aug. 8th, 2006|11:49 pm]
[Tags|, ]

A Time for Drunken Horses (Bahman Ghobadi, 2000)
*****
I've seen a fair amount of Iranian cinema, and this has stuck with me the longest (as well as Kiarostami's Taste of Cherry). It's told simply, but very powerfully. Ghobadi (writer/director) uses non-actors from the Kurdish region to tell his story, that of a group of siblings struggling to survive after the death of their parents. They survive mainly by smuggling truck tires into Iraq over the harsh mountains using horses (who are fed liquor to ease the pain of their burdens). It's won a tonne of awards including the coveted Caméra d'Or at Cannes (2000). A very affecting and sad tale of the harsh conditions in which the Kurds survive.

Elizabeth R (BBC, 1971)
****1/2
A six-part mini-series detailing the life of Elizabeth I, from a teen to her death. Each 90 minute episode focuses on specific important moments during her reign. The first episode, for instance, begins in 1548 and describes Elizabeth's difficult ascent to the throne of England ten years later, through the short reigns of Edward VI and Mary I, her half-siblings. The series is fairly low budget, filmed on well-lit, not particularly opulent, television sets. Even given the shortcomings of the "cinematography" (or lack thereof), the series is remarkable simply in the choice of casting, the acting, and the storytelling, all of which overshadow any complaint concerning set design and it's all too obvious television look. Though, where they might have pinched on set design, they certainly didn't regarding costuming and make-up. Glenda Jackson, as Elizabeth, is astonishing. One of the great moments on television.

Good Night, and Good Luck (George Clooney, 2005)
****
More a character study than a study in history. I wanted more of the history, which is probably why I don't give this a higher rating. If you're already steeped in the history (which I am not), then peering behind the veil on what made Murrow tick should be interesting at a higher scale than I gave it. A good Clooney effort and not full of the camera trickery of his last effort (Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, which was still quite good even given the gimmicks). A nice moody production, though it doesn't say much regarding current events, which it had a good opportunity in which to do so.

Waiting for Guffman (Christopher Guest, 1996)
****
Corky St. Clair. What more needs to be said? A small town stages a play to celebrate their 150th anniversary. Corky, having produced off-off-off Broadway productions, uses his "connections" to invite a big producer, Mort Guffman, to visit and critique the performance. The entire story revolves around the production of the play, the wait for the premiere performance and Guffman's impending arrival. One of the better Christopher Guest mockumentaries, with probably his most memorable character in Corky.

Elizabeth (Shekhar Kapur, 1998)
***
Cinematically sumptuous. Acting you can chew into. Historically deplorable. If it wasn't for the fact that it fucks with the actual history so much, this might actually be a really good film. As such, watch the BBC mini-series instead (see above) if you're at all interested in some accurate history and less interested in costly set design and cinematography. It's not like those two things need be mutally exclusive, but so often it seems they are.

Battle of Britain (Guy Hamilton, 1969)
*1/2
One of the most miserable war films I've had the displeasure of viewing. Shoddy is the word from the get-go, a mixed-up confusing script that drops and adds storylines and characters at a whim, poor editing that often repeats the same flying/dogfight sequences throughout the film, and uninspired cinematography. For a battle that was as grand and sweeping as the Battle of Britain, this film finds a way to make it seem very small and inconsequential. If you enjoy WWII war films, this is one you should avoid.
Link5 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #80 [Aug. 1st, 2006|12:30 pm]
[Tags|, ]

A Scanner Darkly (Richard Linklater, 2006)
***1/2
The most accurate adaptation of a Philip K. Dick story put to film. Done in the same animated rotoscoping style as his previous film, Waking Life. Although obstensibly sci-fi, it's not really. There are a couple of sci-fi elements, but mostly it seems like it's taking place today. It's a very talky, philosophical film, which is exactly Linklater's style, along the lines of such previous efforts as Before Sunrise, Waking Life, Tape, and Before Sunset. So if you didn't like any of Linklater's previous efforts in this vein, you're likely not going to enjoy this film. As confusing as Dick novels can sometimes get, Linklater manages to keep the story coherent, logical and sequential.

Superman Returns (Bryan Singer, 2006)
***
An overly long sequel to Superman 1 and 2. Routh is pretty good as Superman, even better as Clark Kent (where at times it seems he's channeling Christopher Reeves). Lois Lane is miscast. And Spacey is delightfully evil as Lex Luthor, an overall better characterisation than Hackman's version in the first two films. There are about 30 minutes too many emo moments. And the film blows its load in the first action sequence (which is spectacular and amazing) and never rises to that bar in any of the succeeding sequences. Nice to see Lex is still consumed with real estate, though his plan this time is ridiculous (who's going to live on that island? Who can? Who's going to let him own it?)

Scoop (Woody Allen, 2006)
***
An amusing if not strong outing by Woody. Though it is stronger than his last few American efforts. Yes, Woody is still in London. This is another crime caper, where a highschool student tracks down a serial killer, with the aid of someone from the afterlife. Unfortunately, Johansson is miscast in this role, trying and failing at pulling off a reasonable facsimile of Woody Allen (this really needed a script rewrite, since the heroine's dialogue is too often in the voice of Woody Allen, and there wasn't this dialogue problem in his last outing, Match Point, which suggests that Scoop was written with more haste.)

Bullitt (Peter Yates, 1968)
***
Time hasn't been kind to this cop film. Even the "famous" car chase isn't much to watch nearly 40 years later. McQueen is engaging, but his charisma can't hold this uneven film together. The story: a cop seeks revenge on the criminals who murdered the witness under his protection.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (Gore Verbinski, 2006)
**1/2
Wasn't really a fan of the last film and only went to see this because a friend wanted too. It's amusing and funny in quite a few places. The Davey Jones/Cthulhu character is amazing (I was often trying to figure out where practical make-up and CGI meshed). The story is awfully confusing off the get go, and it's really only until three-quarters of the way in that you get a complete sense of what is actually going on, why Davey Jones is after Jack Sparrow (hell, is that "deal" even mentioned in the first film? Probably not) and why everyone wants this chest and how it even works. It's a good popcorn flick, but not much more than that.

Napolean Dynamite (Jared Hess, 2004)
**1/2
A film that can be quite amusing at times, but unfocused in telling its story. A film that will sit with you for about as long as it takes the credits to roll. The story: a nerdy highschool student helps a friend run for class presidency, while coping with his bizarre friends and family members.

Occupation: Dreamland (Ian Olds & Garrett Scott, 2005)
**
Only a tenth of this documentary about soldiers in Falluja is worth watching. To its credit, it's not a propaganda piece, and a good portion of time is given to the beliefs and opinions of the soldiers on the war and their masters. A small portion is also given to the people of Falluja. It's worthwhile in both those regards. But you also get the feeling that these soldiers are all too aware that they are on camera and act accordingly, so not nearly as revealing as it should or could be.
Link6 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #79 [Jul. 7th, 2006|04:34 pm]
[Tags|, ]

Pride and Prejudice (BBC, 1995)
*****
You hear about films such as this, but you never quite build them up according to all the raves they receive. This one is deserving of the raves. It's the acting. Nothing else. It's Colin Firth, how he dons the mask of Mr. Darcy. It's Jennifer Ehle and how she transforms Elizabeth Bennet. It's in the contrast and bond of the relationship between the two. That's the main reason to see the film, to see these characters of a much-beloved novel spring to life so vibrantly on screen. Although beautiful to watch at times, it's not particularly inventive in its cinematography, being nothing more than a mini-series and not really striving to be more than that. This is all in the acting and deserves every praise it gets. I cannot recommend this highly enough. Too bad it wasn't longer.

Match Point (Woody Allen, 2005)
****1/2
Woody's back, baby, and filming in London. His American sources of funding seeming to have dried up, he's taken to filming in London where European dollars still find him to be a worthwhile filmmaker. The change has invigorated him. This is a very clever love story packed into a mystery, though you never quite know what the mystery will be, or where it is going. It's mostly clever in the ending. Woody never gives it away. There's several endings you might hope for, expect, but you can never quite decide which one will come to pass or which one you really want to happen. Characters who are equal parts engaging and despicable. As a Woody Allen fan, it's nice to see his writing and directing back on top. This isn't his pinnacle (Annie Hall), but it's certainly one of his strongest efforts since the late 1980s.

Broken Flowers (Jim Jarmusch, 2005)
****
A more talkative version of Lost in Translation. Same themes here. Older gentleman goes through relationship crisis, seeks answers and companionship to those questions. In seeking out a possible son, Bill Murray tracks down several old flames, with the sleuthlike assistance of his neighbour. A bit more mainstream for a Jarmusch film, but still satisfying viewing. Perhaps not much of a stretch, acting-wise, for Murray, this is a character he's been playing since Wes Anderson's Rushmore.

Munich (Steven Spielberg, 2005)
****
I enjoy these sorts of political thrillers, moreso if they're steeped in some sort of history. I'm not much of a Spielberg fan (I find him far too sappy and formulaic), but I did enjoy this film. Maybe his best film this decade thus far. One thing Spielberg does have going for him, he has a real sense of the type of cinematograhpy that fits a particular genre or mood he's trying to convey. Munich is no exception in this regard. The film details Israel's revenge upon those that perpetrated the massacre of the Jewish weighlifting team at the Munich Olympics.

Pride and Prejudice (Joe Wright, 2005)
***1/2
As a film adaptation, it's not half bad. The acting of Darcy and Elizabeth is a little stilted, definitely none of the passion and fire of the BBC mini-series. About the best casting choice was Donald Sutherland as the Bennet father. And being a film, far too short and clipped, inversely telescoping too much emotion, too much character and far too many important themes.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (Andrew Adamson, 2005)
***1/2
About the only thing I found interesting about this film were the child actors. I watched this and thought to myself, if only they'd hired such capable child actors for the Harry Potter series. The film has some nice special effects and the story isn't uninteresting, which makes it worth a rental, but ultimately the film fails on engagement. I just didn't find it all that engaging in the end.
LinkRant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #78 [May. 8th, 2006|01:37 am]
[Tags|, ]

Million Dollar Baby (Clint Eastwood, 2004)
***1/2
I guess I'm getting a little tired of these "social message" films. Not so much the message, but how they tend to punch you in the face with the message. There's a certain type of Hollywood film that wants to be topical, but cannot be anything but blatant about it. This is one of those films. It just screams "Social stigma equals Oscar win!" Good performances and direction though. I certainly recommend it. The story: woman struggles in male dominated boxing world, eventually getting the respect she deserves, then tragedy strikes and tough decisions have to be made.

The Karate Kid (John G. Avildsen, 1984)
***1/2
The rich kids versus poor kids formula that was so popular in teen movies during the 1980s. Even though dated with dress and hairstyles, The Karate Kid still holds up as an enjoyable movie. At least more enjoyable than many others of its ilk, such as the atrocious Pretty in Pink. At least The Karate Kid has karate, Pretty in Pink has a bad prom. The story: Daniel LaRusso must battle for respect against rich kids using karate, culiminating in the All Valley Karate Tournament. Daniel is trained by the yoda-like Mr. Miyagi. Wax on, Daniel, wax off.

Darwin's Nightmare (Hubert Sauper, 2004)
***
A muddled documentary about fishing villages along Tanzania's coast with Lake Victoria. The problem is that the documentary seems to be rarely about Tanzania's economy and the failing ecosystem of Lake Victoria. Not too mention that most of the "facts" gleaned from the documentary are from people hardly qualified to give any such facts. The only time we're given much more than vague rumours is when the documentarists film an actual documentary on the effects of the introduction of the Nile Perch to the lake. Apparently, the Nile Perch is a huge food commodity in Europe. Europeans bring weapons of war to Africa, they leave with fish. Except we never see any weapons, and the documentary only tries to find the truth by asking poor street kids and prostitutes about the weapons, hardly conclusive evidence. The weapons probably do exist, but you don't investigate the regulatory failures of the Chernobyl disaster by interviewing a Kiev shopkeep -- rumour and conjecture is all that is. It can be an interesting and painful look at Tanzania, but the documentary has no focus, meandering to and fro, moving past any real information that might be of interest or import to the audience. No clear picture of the region is ever drawn, it's all very fragmented.

The Wild Geese (Andrew V. McLaglen, 1978)
***
A response to novels like "Dogs of War" without having to worry about paying the rights to those novels. It starts off well enough. Mercenary group is hired by a corporation to head into a small African nation to rescue the imprisoned opposition leader, thereby setting the stage for a future coup d'etat. Corporation eventually betrays mercenaries while they are performing their mission. The first half of this film is the most interesting, the build-up to the mission (which as it turns out is the most interesting part of the novel "Dogs of War"). The action comes across as low-budget. Some of the dialogue is extremely hokey, especially the scene where the black opposition leader changes the mind of a hardcore South African racist with one 30 second speech. The racist's reply? "I never thought about it like that" and then he looks towards the sky thoughtfully. Give me a break.

Jarhead (Sam Mendes, 2005)
**1/2
This is just trying to damned hard to be a cross between Stanley Kubrick and Terrence Malick. Hollywood is doing a damned fine job of straddling the political fence these days, and this one may have the deepest butt crease of them all. The much better action/adventure/comedy Three Kings had much more to say. Of course, that was made pre-9/11 when you could have an opinion on the Middle East. "If you aren't with us, you're against us." A disappointing film about marines in Gulf War 1991. I guess after the review of Million Dollar Baby, I would seem to be contradicting myself. Do I want a message or not? Film can be a valuable medium for conveying ideas, it's all in how the message is told.
Link1 rant|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #77 [Apr. 16th, 2006|04:24 pm]
[Tags|, ]

Oliver Twist (David Lean, 1948)
*****
Oliver Twist (Roman Polanski, 2005)
***1/2
One film is stark and eerie and shadowy and askew, containing inside the chaos a riveting mystery. The other is evenly lit, looks too much like other period pieces, it's too orderly and conveyed too cleanly, removing in the process all the mystery from the original source material. David Lean brought to life with such skill and artistry the underbelly of London in the mid-1800s. Roman Polanski does not. The Polanski version is obviously a knockoff of the Lean version. Where the Lean version made changes to the Dicken's source, the Polanski version follows suit. The Polanski version goes further by removing one of the key elements from the novel, the provenance of Oliver Twist, the mystery therein. The Lean version builds this mystery throughout the feature, does a wonderful job of bringing forth the tension. It's a shame really that the Polanski version ends up being about nothing more than a poor orphan trying to avoid the hard life for the good life. The Polanski version is watchable, but if you're looking for the definitive version, a masterpiece, of Oliver Twist, then you need to watch the David Lean adaptation. (I should make mention of how completely Alec Guinness transforms himself into Fagin in the Lean version, worth viewing for that alone, but fortunately the film has much much more to offer.)

The Bad Sleep Well (Akira Kurosawa, 1960)
****1/2
This is #2 in Kurosawa's unofficial Shakespearean tragedy trilogy, which includes Throne of Blood (Macbeth) and Ran (King Lear). The Bad Sleep Well is a loose translation of Hamlet. And I mean loose. A son works his way up into a corporation to exact revenge upon those heads of the corporation that shamed his father into committing suicide. There's something to be said about Kurosawa's more modernly based films. A statement on revenge. Real noir sensibilities here. I'm never disappointed by my favourite director.

A History of Violence (David Cronenberg, 2005)
****1/2
Duality. Confused identity. These are Cronenberg themes that run through the vast majority of his oeuvre. Even though A History of Violence is perhaps his most accessible film (after The Fly), it certainly doesn't suffer for that fact. I believe it to be one of his best films, perhaps because he remains in a believable reality, yet is still able to powerfully convey those themes that are near and dear to his heart. The story: a man gets national exposure after saving his restaurant patrons from armed gunmen. The exposure attracts mob figures, convinced he is someone he is not.

Canada Russia 72 (T.W. Peacocke, 2006)
****
This took balls to make, especially considering how storied this moment is in Canadian history (it would have been very easy to screw this up.) This is a historical event that has lost none of its lustre 30 odd years later. There isn't a Canadian who doesn't know about this series, and most of those are familiar with games, either having seen them in 1972, or on classic sports television, or the yearly highlight reels every September. Hell, the entire eight game series in available on a four DVD set. Great cinematography gives this a 70s feel, which helps when archival footage is added (it's never blatantly obvious). About the only stylistic oddity is how they cover the Russian dressing room scenes in black and white. Mixing the recreated on-ice events with the original Foster Hewitt/Brian Conacher play-by-play was inspired.

F for Fake (Orson Welles, 1974)
***1/2
This is described as less documentary and more visual essay. I didn't quite know what that meant until I watched it. Now I understand. Documentaries are supposed to be less biased, filmed more at arm's length from the filmmaker (though they rarely ever are, because there is always a point of view involved, though most good documentarians will try their damndest to remove as much bias as they can). Essays are a personal medium. They're supposed to relay fact, but it's generally understood that the author is going to invest themselves into the "narrative". There's an understood bias that you're going to get. Welles delves into the art of fakery, what's real and what's not? When does the fake become real? And in the process adds his own prestidigitation to the mix. Interesting, recommendable, but not great, a few of his tricks (especially with Picasso) aren't fooling anyone.

Omagh (Pete Travis, 2004)
***1/2
Filmed in a pseudo documentary style, it covers the 1998 Omagh bombing in Northern Ireland. The last large IRA bombing operation before the peace accords finally took hold and disarmament began. Because of this tenuous position between the Real IRA, Sinn Fein, and the UK government, everybody (except the victims) want to shuffle this last atrocity under the table and move on with peace. The real treat here is the main character, the father. It would have been easy to go the clichéd route here, angry father, battling his way through bureaucracy, banging heads when necessary. Instead he's quiet and driven. Never raises his voice. Just steadfastly goes about the task of trying to find justice for the crimes. A really nice performance.

Into the West (TNT/Dreamworks, 2005)
***1/2
Rented Into the West over the last three days. Didn't know what to expect, since it was a TNT/Dreamworks production. Was probably expecting a low-budget rah-rah American affair, a glorification of the subjugation of North America.

That's not at all what I got. Instead I saw what amounted to an interesting, relatively truthful tale of America's growth into the west, especially the relationship between America and her first peoples. Told over six 90 minute episodes, it spans 70 years of history, from 1825 to 1895. To tell the tale, it weaves the fortunes and trials of two families together, one Virginian and one Lakotan.

The first episode deals with the mountain men who found the passes through to Oregon and California. The second episode focuses on the wagon trains, pioneers heading to the Pacific. The third episode with the California gold rush. The fourth with building the transcontinental railroad. The fifth with the wars with the Indian nations, the subjugation of their culture. The last episode follows on with the themes of the fifth, yet follows a mostly broken native nation, relegated to small poor reservations, and climaxes with the massacre at Wounded Knee.

All in the all, a fairly enjoyable viewing experience. The first two episodes are the strongest, since they deal with the first generation of the Virginian and Lakotan families. As the series moves on though, the story lines shorten and fracture, as each succeeding generaration in the family trees grow, so does the filmmakers attempts to cover a broad portrait of the expanding family. It's not until the end that the series wraps itself back up with one a few tales, mirroring the strength of the series beginning.

Not entirely accurate, historically, but it is probably, aside from documentaries, the most accurate telling of how the west was eventually won, and at what cost. I recommend this series to anyone.

Beowulf & Grendel (Sturla Gunnarsson, 2005)
***
I don't know much about Beowulf. I've never read it. But I know the general tale from Wikipedia. This is a nice looking film, shot in Iceland. The acting and the characters are all fine (almost, more later). You get a real sense that you're in the Middle Ages (or thereabouts). Even the troll is believable. The story as well is gripping enough. And although it delves into the action moreso, it follows the original story closely enough. The real failing with this film is that it was a Canadian/Iceland join production, and the Canadian investors wanted someone Canadian and recognizable in a lead role. They chose Sarah Polley. The problem with Sarah is that she's only capable of doing one type of role, and playing a dirty scrounging hermit whore is not that role. (She's really not that good an actress and doesn't deserve the huge accolades she gets in Canada and I've seen her in a number of films.) Everytime she's onscreen you just want to scratch your eyes out (if I can steal some descriptive analogies from Mr. Cranky). She's so bad that she literally ruins the film. I would have given this four stars if they'd cast anyone besides Sarah Polley in the role.

King Kong (Peter Jackson, 2005)
**1/2
Overlong and clumsy. Downright boring at times. Yes, we get it, the big monkey likes the blonde and will fight anything to protect her. Can we get off the damned island already? It's had three action scenes too many. Did we really need the big icky bugs in the chasm scene? Yes yes, I know Peter loves his slimey squishy monsters, but was this the film for it? Was it really necessary? Not at all. The bloody island must take up 2/3rds of the film. And most of it is useless action sequences that do nothing more than titillate us. And it doesn't even do it very well, a lot of the CGI looks clumsy and doesn't sit well in the environment. The action is piled on so thick and so frequently that it becomes more than a little monotonous and boring after awhile. I just wanted to see how they were going to get the monkey on the boat (unfortunately they never do show us, monkey falls down after being chloroformed, next you know we're in New York). There are a few nice scenes between blondie and the ape, but they're few and far between. By the time the film is over, instead of being all teary over the ape's death, you're just glad the flick is over.
Link5 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #76 [Mar. 30th, 2006|10:37 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

Hayao Miyazaki and Isao Takahata, both the heart and soul of Studio Ghibli, the most famous and well-respected anime studio in Japan. Hayao is probably the most respected director in the field, the world over. His films are some of the highest grossing films in Japanese history. The strengths of Ghibli films are stories that teach children good values, especially where the natural environment is concerned. Most of the films feature young, strong female characters do important and adventurous activities. The attention to detail. Every frame is filled with wonder.

My Neighbor Totoro (Hayao Miyazaki, 1988)
*****
If you have a kid between the ages of 4 and 7, you should own this. There's no excuse. A beautiful kids film (and adults love it too). Makes your soul glow just watching it. Two children have adventures with the local forest spirits, Totoro. And does it get any more imaginative with the catbus? The film does end a little abrubtly, but the denoument is told via drawings during the end credits.

Grave of the Fireflies (Isao Takahata, 1988)
*****
Read the original review.

Spirited Away (Hayao Miyazaki, 2001)
*****
A little girl must save her parents from sprits, though that's extremely basic as a synopsis. It is a difficult film to describe. Themes of identity and greed abound. Beautiful film.

Kiki's Delivery Service (Hayao Miyazaki, 1989)
****1/2
Read the original review.

Castle in the Sky (Hayao Miyazaki, 1986)
****1/2
The ancient flying cities are long lost, to their own ignorance and folly. Some, though, believe one, Laputa, to still exist. A young boy and girl set out to find it, before the military and a gang of good-natured pirates do. The girl, Sheeta, holds the key to its discovery. The themes of friendships is strong, winding its way through an excellent adventure yarn.

Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (Hayao Miyazaki, 1984)
****
The story was a little too uneven for me, and often it seemed as though the story was serving the message, rather than the message coming from the story. I'm an oddball on this one, because I'm sure most people rank this as one of Miyazaki's best. The story: takes place in far future, humanity is being overrun by highly toxic lands caused by a war in the distant past.

Princess Mononoke (Hayao Miyazaki, 1997)
****
Along the lines of Nausicaä, in terms of message. Humanity's inability to live within nature, instead raping it for selfish (and shortsighted) purposes. Unlike Nausicaä, much more coherent in the overall story, and the message comes out of the story rather than vice-versa. Perhaps Miyazaki wanted to rectify mistakes in the previous film.

The Castle of Cagliostro (Hayao Miyazaki, 1979)
****
No cautionary tales here. Based on the wildly popular manga, Lupin III, by Monkey Punch. Miyazaki's second directorial film effort, but he had the background having directed episodes of the Lupin III series in 1971-1972. Done before Studio Ghibli was formed. A slambang little adventure. Lots of fun. Break out the popcorn for this one.

Pom Poko (Isao Takahata, 1994)
***1/2
Testicles have never featured so prominently in a piece of children's animation. Japanese folklore mixes with a cautionary tale of urban expansion. Tanuki (racoon dogs) are long fabled in Japanese folklore to possess mystical powers of transmutation. They also have unusually large testicles for mammals (which also is part of their folklore). Thus, the little racoons in Pom Poko are drawn with testicles (though lacking the other member) that sway from side to side and help them perform their mystical feats. The subtitles refers to them as testicles and balls, the Disney produced dub refers to them only as racoon pouches. Hilarious by any measure. Anyhow, humans are encroaching in racoon lands, so the racoons fight back. Sometimes hilarious. Sometimes shockingly violent. A mixed bag with some treasures, though perhaps 30 minutes too long.

Howl's Moving Castle (Hayao Miyazaki, 2004)
***1/2
A girl, affected a a curse which changes her into a 90 year old, meets the wizard Howl. She tries to help him as he attempts to stop a war before it engulfs the world. An excellent premise, and the themes of identity and right up Miyazaki's alley. Unfortunately, the story is very uneven, which makes following it confusing at times. Howl comes off as fairly unsympathetic, when it seems it was the director's intention that he not be.

Panda Go Panda (Isao Takahata, 1972)
***1/2
Read the original review.

Porco Rosso (Hayao Miyazaki, 1992)
***
Every director has that one film which mars their ouevre. This is that film for Miyazaki. Strong themes of identity, but little in the way of engaging plot. A plot that should have been told in about 45 minutes is stretched interminably over twice that length. Not a sympathetic character in the bunch. (The English dub, not the subtitles, inexplicably do away with a lot of pork and pig humour.) The story: a man cursed to be a pig (the curse is never explained or resolved) fights air battles over the Adriatic with pirates. No real plot to speak of, mostly episodic in nature.
Link7 rants|Rant rant rant

Dogbreathcanada's Great Films [Mar. 21st, 2006|02:35 am]
[Tags|, ]

Up to 75 mini reviews now, that's some sort of precious gem-type anniversary ... so I'll list all the films I've reviewed that I consider great. Anything that merited four and a half or five stars. (A few TV shows and documentaries even creeped in to the mix.) Feel free to pipe up with your own opinions or to ask questions or whatever. I like hearing different points of view.

You can find a list of all the mini-reviews here. The # column in the table below represents the journal entry in which that film review appears. Now for Dogbreathcanada's Great Films:

#
 Title Director Rating
75
 Being Two Isn't Easy Ichikawa ****1/2
73
 Do the Right Thing Lee *****
71
 Before Sunrise Linklater ****1/2
71
 Before Sunset Linklater ****1/2
68
 Firefly: The Complete Series Whedon ****1/2
67
 Lady Snowblood Fujita ****1/2
67
 Maya Singh ****1/2
64
 The Lady Vanishes Hitchcock *****
64
 Notorious Hitchcock *****
64
 Strangers on a Train Hitchcock *****
64
 Rear Window Hitchcock *****
64
 North by Northwest Hitchcock ****1/2
64
 The 39 Steps Hitchcock ****1/2
64
 Spellbound Hitchcock ****1/2
62
 Three Kings Russell ****1/2
60
 Superman Donner ****1/2
59
 Baran Majidi ****1/2
58
 The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum Schlöndorff & von Trotta ****1/2
50
 Modern Times Chaplin ****1/2
49
 High Plains Drifter Eastwood *****
49
 Rashomon Kurosawa ****1/2
49
 The Apartment Wilder ****1/2
49
 High Noon Zinneman ****1/2
47
 Open Water Kentis ****1/2
46
 The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou Anderson ****1/2
44
 Lord of the Rings: Trilogy (Extended Edition) Jackson ****1/2
43
 The 400 Blows Truffaut *****
42
 The Incredibles Bird ****1/2
41
 Gosford Park Altman ****1/2
41
 My Life as a Dog Hallström ****1/2
40
 The Battle of Algiers Pontecorvo ****1/2
40
 Dr. Strangelove Kubrick ****1/2
39
 Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner Kunuk *****
37
 Citizen Kane Welles *****
37
 Tokyo Drifter Suzuki ****1/2
37
 The Sandbaggers ITV ****1/2
36
 The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp Powell & Pressburger *****
36
 Breakfast at Tiffany's Edwards ****1/2
36
 Pickup on South Street Fuller ****1/2
35
 Tanner '88 Altman ****1/2
34
 The Bicycle Thief De Sica *****
34
 Good Morning Ozu *****
34
 Night and Fog Resnais ****1/2
32
 Tunes of Glory Neame ****1/2
32
 Hero Zhang ****1/2
29
 Dogville von Trier ****1/2
28
 On the Corner Geary ****1/2
28
 The Sweet Hereafter Egoyan ****1/2
26
 Tokyo Olympiad Ichikawa *****
26
 General Idi Amin Dada: A Self-Portrait Schroeder ****1/2
26
 Triumph of the Will Riefenstahl ****1/2
25
 City of God Meirelles *****
25
 Stephen Hawking's Universe BBC/PBS ****1/2
24
 The Manchurian Candidate Frankenheimer ****1/2
22
 Himalaya Valli ****1/2
22
 Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai Jarmusch ****1/2
20
 Goldfinger Hamilton ****1/2
19
 Grave of the Fireflies Takahata *****
19
 Raiders of the Lost Ark Spielberg ****1/2
18
 Trois Couleurs: Bleu Kieslowski *****
18
 Stray Dog Kurosawa ****1/2
17
 Kiki's Delivery Service Miyazaki ****1/2
16
 Gerry Van Sant ****1/2
15
 Annie Hall Allen *****
15
 Cowboy Bebop: Complete Series Watanabe ****1/2
15
 The Hidden Fortress Kurosawa ****1/2
14
 Babe Noonan *****
13
 M*A*S*H Altman *****
13
 The Great Dictator Chaplin *****
13
 Once Upon a Time in the West Leone *****
12
 Le Trou Becker *****
11
 Ronin Frankenheimer ****1/2
08
 Marooned in Iraq Ghobadi ****1/2
07
 M Lang ****1/2
06
 Taste of Cherry Kiarostami ****1/2
05
 Walkabout Roeg *****
04
 The Royal Tenenbaums Anderson *****
04
 Mon Oncle Tati ****1/2
04
 Hard Boiled Woo ****1/2
03
 Tokyo Story Ozu *****
03
 The Passion of Joan of Arc Dreyer *****
02
 Contact Zemeckis ****1/2
02
 The Office: Series 1 BBC *****
01
 Whale Rider Caro ****1/2
01
 Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Gondry ****1/2

Link10 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #75 [Mar. 16th, 2006|12:53 am]
[Tags|, ]

Tokyo Olympiad (Kon Ichikawa, 1965)
*****
See original mini-review here.

Being Two Isn't Easy (or I am Two Years Old) (Kon Ichikawa, 1962)
****1/2
The only real disappointment with this film is that I will probably never get to see this on DVD. I want to own it so badly now. I am tremendously impressed with this film. It reminded me of another favourite film of mine, Yasujiro Ozu's Good Morning. Being Two Isn't Easy revolves around a Japanese nuclear family (husband, wife, and small child) and their trials and tribulations. There's no hard plot here, just vignettes of life taking place over the course of 9 - 12 months (the time span is never made very clear, but that is probably an accurate estimate). The film is told from the pseudo-perspective of a one year old (who turns two at film's end). I say pseudo, because whereas the film is told through the voice and eyes of a child, the direction is still mature and non-gimmicky. Narration by the child exists mainly to introduce new characters and plot elements. The film has a similar pace to Good Morning, similar character interactions, and similar themes (i.e. the loss of traditional Japanese values as the pace of change and Western influence accelerates). It doesn't benefit from Ozu's use of colour, but neither is it a fault of the film. Being Two Isn't Easy is not Good Morning, but you could consider them first cousins, both of which have a great deal of charm. Like Good Morning there is oblique social commentary, but the films never preach. If you recognize it, then so be it, the film seems to suggest. If you miss it, then so be it also. Both films recognize changes in Japanese society, but neither film passes judgement on those changes. One of the interesting aspects of the film is the opening ... it details the birth of Taro, narrated by Taro, and from Taro's "blurry, ill-defined" perspective as he passes into a bright new world.

I am a Cat (Kon Ichikawa, 1975)
****
The story revolves around an academic. A man of little ambition, a man characterised as lazy, a man who starts many projects but never follows them through. The synopsis of this film is misleading, stating that narration and point-of-view is through Sampei, the protagonist's cat. Not entirely true. The cat is more of an actual and frequent participant (unwilling and willing) throughout most of the story, and his narration only occurs at the film's tragic ending. The film is dialogue heavy and most of the character involvement rarely leaves Sempei's study. The characters leave and enter the scenes quickly, so figuring out who's who and who means what to whom can take a little while to figure out. Ichikawa leaves no quarter here. But once you've got everyone figured out and the main thrust of the what's going on (which kind of revolves around the impending engagement of two minor characters), the film itself is rewarding. Again it deals with changing values, a common theme it seems in Japanese cinema. Very good film. Very highly recommended.

The Men of Tohoku (Kon Ichikawa, 1957)
****
Filmed in stark black and white. The story follows the lives a mountain-locked village, where only the eldest son of each family is allowed to shave, wear proper clothing, and most importantly marry and procreate. All other male children (called Yakkos) are resigned to a life of labour, working the fields, wearing rags, and abstaining from carnal desire. Daughters that cannot be married are sold off each year to a travelling merchant. The film follows the life of the most wretched of these yakkos, Risuke, a man very few in the village can face (for reasons the film makes apparent in comical ways). Then tragedy befalls oneof the village elders as he is wracked with a painful sickness and dies, but not before explaining to his wife that his father was also stricken with the same illness. He details how his father caught a yakko having relations with his wife and killed him. He claims that the sickness is the curse of the murdered yakko and he must be appeased before peace will ever come to his family. On his dying breath he asks his wife, Oei, to bed every yakko in the village, one at a time, for a single night after his death, that that will finally appease the curse. The wife obeys him, and every yakko's life improves, except Risuke. Oei avoids bedding him, feeling that not even the murdered yakko would expect her to engage that level of punishment upon herself. As far as she knows the curse has been lifted, a wonderful butterfly acting as her sign. But poor Risuke is plagued with feelings of doubt and self-esteem issues that begin to drive him mad. Finally an old woman tells him a secret, one that is kept from all yakko, lest they leave the village and put it to ruin: far over the mountains lies a village only of women, who are so desperate for men that they would accept even Risuke, so desperate are they that even his affliction would be no nevermind. Risuke decides to set off over the mountains, even though no yakko has ever been known to make it. His desire for love and companionship and acceptance is that strong. It is here that the film takes an interesting visual turn. Up until this point, the entire piece was either filmed outdoors on location or in quite realistic interior sets. But as Risuke sets off on his journey, the outdoor locations become a fantastical, far from realistic collections of obvious sets. Ichikawa is suggesting strongly to us the fantastical nature of the trip, showing us that the story of a village of women is pure fantasy, but that Risuke's search and desire for acceptance is the more important journey. The journey is the reward, not the destination. A great film. Highly recommended.

The Wanderers (Kon Ichikawa, 1973)
***1/2
The film follows the lives of three friends at the lower rung of the Yakuza social order. (Many people mistake this film to be about three Ronin, but that is definitely not the case and is made clear in the opening narration.) The three protagonists are in fact toseinins, wandering peasants who have forsaken family and home for a life of adventure and petty crime, travelling between Yakuza Houses looking for shelter, work and food. This film is a tragedy, not of epic proportions, but of all too real proportions. The film centers around Genta, a young man conflicted between desire (to family and love) and obligation (to the Yakuza code). In essence the film is a coming of age story, especially for Genta. Genta must weigh an order to kill his father against his love of family versus his obligation to the code he lives by. Complicating the mix is betrayal ... after having been ordered to kill his own father by his Yakuza boss, he is then turned away by that same boss because he doesn't want a criminal in his midst. This film is really a ridiculing of any code, since rigid codes often undermine our own humanity and morality. The only character that is really shown rejecting a code is the girl, Okumi, that runs away from her owner to be with Genta. She firmly rejects her societal role to do what is right, she follows her own moral code rather than try to fit into a code governed and created by others. The cinematography here is quite good, a lot of nice long shots of the three (eventually four when Okumi joins them) traipsing across gorgeous Japanese landscapes. The tragedy in the film is the understated endings to three of the characters: Genta dies alone and lost. Shinta dies painfully of tetanus. And Okumi is left a life of servitude, forever awaiting the return of a Genta she knows not is dead. And Mokutaro, alive, is left forever alone. For all the emotional and moral struggles these characters go through, in the end it is meaningless, as they die anonymously. There is no one to grieve their parting. And none of the characters actually "come of age", even though that is the basic premise of the film. There is some sporadic comedy here, and the fight scenes are oddly played out (against type for this kind of film, which makes them interesting to watch in that regard.)

Money Talks (Kon Ichikawa, 1963)
**1/2
What didn't work: 1. The plot was far too complex and it didn't hold up well throughout the film. 2. Fortune played to big a role in a couple of situations, such as when Hapyaku is about to drown and that truck driver shows up. For one, it took me the entire movie to figure out who the hell he was (he was the hit-and-run driver at the very start of the film) and why he and Hapy seemed to know each other. Geez, he didn't even talk at the start of the film, and he appeared so briefly, yet we were supposed to remember him? 3. The handheld camera work was making my head hurt, it was so erratic. An experiment that failed. I don't if they had steadycam's in 1963, but that would have been a better choice. 4. The film was too dark, especially the last 15 minutes on the waterfront, where it was so dark during some shots that I couldn't make heads or tails what was going on. 5. The female informant that just kept "showing up" didn't work, but that plays into the unnecessary complexity of the plot and how it just didn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. What did work: 1. The casting of Hapyaku. He had the right mixture of brawn, naivety and comic relief. I really liked his character, too bad the character was stuck in this movie.
Link3 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #74 [Mar. 3rd, 2006|01:44 pm]
[Tags|, ]

On the Waterfront (Elia Kazan, 1954)
****
For this time period in Hollywood history (a period in which most everything was romanticised), this is a fairly stark and realistic portrayal of life on the docks and the mob-controlled unions. What the dock worker had to endure to feed family and self, how "union" breaking was near impossible. Really good performances, except for the famous "I coulda been a contender" scene. Call me crazy, but I wasn't bowled over by that famous scene, and didn't buy into the emotion Brando was trying to sell (perhaps because Brando appears distracted throughout it ... watch his eyeline, it certainly looks to me as though he was distracted by something off set throughout the soliloquy.) But other than that, everything is spot on. Very enjoyable film. (Are those Brando's real eyes, or did they add make-up to give them that "puffy" look?)

Shangri-La (Takashi Miike, 2002)
****
I saw this at the Vancouver International Film Festival a few years back. Not your usual Miike. A tender-hearted black comedy. More in line with Imamura than with the Miike people expect. A story of quirky low-lifes living on the edges (perhaps just over the edge) of Japanese society. Reminded me, thematically of The Pornographers. Enjoyable, light-hearted comedic fare.

Ichi the Killer (Takashi Miike, 2001)
***1/2
Interesting, but not captivating. Not quite as shocking as I was expecting. It's a film of revenge and ... umm ... I'd like to say redemption through guilt, but I'm not quite sure why Kakihara wanted to die at the hands of Ichi so badly. I'd like to say it's because the guilt of all his crimes had caught up to him, but I'm not entirely sure that was what Miike was trying to say, if he was trying to say anything in particular at all. There are better Yakuza flicks, but if you're looking for some ingenius gore, then this is a film to watch.

The Pornographers (Shohei Imamura, 1966)
***
Ending ruined it. Where it should have ended, it didn't, instead a completely new story arc began and it rambled on for another thirty minutes. The final half hour amounted to nothing. Where was the editor on this one? So what is this all about? The main character, Subuyan, makes low-budget 8mm porn films. When he's not dodging the police and the yakuza, he uses the money to help out his landlady and her family.

Good Bye Lenin! (Wolfgang Becker, 2003)
***
Amusing up until a point. The film goes a step too far with the ruse, ultimately ruining the entire premise, because it's snapped the all-important element of belief. You can easily hang with the film and enjoy it, up until that point (and you'll know it when you're just a little beyond it). A model communist mother is struck into a coma. During the eight months she's unconscious, the Wall falls and the Germanys unify. When she awakes, her health is so fragile that the tiniest shock could cause her to relapse. To protect his mother, the son works hard to create world for her in which East Germany is still strong and powerful and communist.

House of Flying Daggers (Yimou Zhang, 2004)
***
Maybe I'm getting a little jaded or bored with these high-flying Chinese epics. But after Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and then Hero, this doesn't seem all that original, or even all that interesting. And why do they keep casting Ziyi Zhang in all these epics? They all start to blend together when you're constantly looking at the same actress portray yet another historical/mythical figure.
Link7 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #73 [Feb. 23rd, 2006|11:52 pm]
[Tags|, ]

Do the Right Thing (Spike Lee, 1989)
*****
Every two or three years I rewatch Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing. There'll obviously be some disagreement with this opinion, but I rank this film as one of the very best in American cinema. It was the pinnacle of achievement for Spike.

Do the Right Thing should have began its life not as film, but as theater. The format, the story, the setting lends itself perfectly to the stage. A handful of well realized characters. A short time frame over which the action occurs. And a limited number of locales in which the action is staged. Not too mention that it carries a deep American question, yet doesn't answer it completely. I can't help but view and visualize this film as a perfect transition of pure theater onto celluloid. It's a modern Death of a Salesman. And I'm serious about the comparison -- though not in theme, but simply in quality and thoughtfulness of subject matter.

It's not so much a film for black audiences, as it is a film for white audiences. It forces the white majority to look at and question their own racial stereotypes and preconceptions. The film does this from start to finish. There's not a weak moment in the film, not a wasted beat. An American classic and one of the all-time great pieces of American cinema.

Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (Martin Scorsese, 1974)
****
I love how Scorsese strips away the veneer right off the get-go. He lets the audience know he's not telling the old Hollywood story of women, instead the true and real and present story of women. A good mix of drama and comedy, one never tipping the scales against the other. The film never gets too heavy for too long, never wallowing in melodrama. Not Scorsese's strongest piece of work, but good filmmaking nonetheless and a (generally) easy and relaxing viewing experience. I didn't realize this was the basis for the television show Alice.

Winter Light (Ingmar Bergman, 1963)
****
Quiet, Musing. Introspective. What else would you have expected from an Ingmar Bergman film? A priest struggles with his faith, while trying to treat a parishioner struggling with a fear of the modern world and the cold war. Strong acting, as most of the emotional resonance of the film is given via body language and facial expression, rather than dialogue. Minimalistic. Stark. Bleak. Watch this on a cold winter or fall evening, definitely not a spring or summer film.

Les Chiefs (Jason Gileno, 2004)
***1/2
You might think this is going to be about nothing other than gratuitous hockey violence, given the Slapshot connection. And it certainly starts out that way. You begin to wonder if this might not be a clever mockumentary, it seems so unbelievable. But after the explosive faceoff, this documentary settles down and begins to find its stories and themes. It's all very bittersweet, where most prospective viewers might be expecting nothing more than another installment of Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Hockey.

Lifeboat (Alfred Hitchcock, 1944)
***
Hitchcock's most daring suspense film, but it left me not caring, mainly because the female lead (played by Tallulah Bankhead) is just so unlikable. Not a redeeming quality about her. I know that was the point, but it makes for aggravating viewing. I suppose Hitchcock was aiming for some really unconventional casting here, but I don't think it works overall and affects the film negatively. The entire film takes place on a lifeboat, beginning just after a passenger ship is sunk by a German u-boat. Besides an assortment of crew and passengers from the ship, they also take aboard a German from the critically wounded u-boat (which was depth charged by it's prey). Moral issues are played out, can the German be thrown overboard? Or must they treat him as a prisoner of war and adhere to the Geneva Convention?
Link3 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #72 [Feb. 12th, 2006|09:43 am]
[Tags|, ]

I go through the pain, so you don't have too.

Flightplan (Robert Schwentke, 2005)
**1/2
Although the filmmakers refrain from ever admitting it, this is a definite remake of Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes (1938), even going so far to use several of the same plot devices. Where The Lady Vanishes was a marvelous film, complete with many different elements (humour, suspense, romance) all in a harmonious mix, bringing together a lively and talented cast, Flightplan takes a different route. No humour. No romance. And the film focuses on only three characters, the rest of the passengers and flight crew nothing more than glorified extras. There's some uneven cinematography here too, making comical use of slow motion at odd unexpected moments. The story hangs together consistently, although it is ultra-far-fetched.

Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God (Gerry Lively, 2005)
**1/2
I never saw the first D&D movie. By all accounts it was an extremely painful movie to watch. Not sure why I bothered to rent this one. I guess I was in a bad movie frame of mind. Except, this wasn't all that bad. It focused purely on the adventure. While the budget wasn't large, by any means, they still end up getting away with some half-decent and passable special effects. The drawing point of the film is that it doesn't stray from its roots (as I heard the first film did). It manages to be a faithful adaptation of not only the game, but of a typical D&D adventure (unfortunately, D&D adventures don't make the most compelling scripts, nor do they make for logically consistent stories). The failing points are some of the acting (especially the woman mage with the lisp), the fact that everything is far too clean and tidy, and an anti-climactic ending. Worth a rental if you're at all familiar with Dungeons & Dragons.

Shawshank Redemption (Frank Darabont, 1994)
**
I detest this film. Very much. It doesn't deserve any of the accolades people give it. Some people like films that tell them exactly how to feel at any given moment. Why go through the bother of having real reactions and emotions, when you can just sit back and let a film walk you through them all. One of Hollywood's more manipulative films, and so good at the manipulation that it results in far too many people thinking it's genuine in its emotion. False storytelling from beginning to end. Frank Darabont pulls the same stunt again, even more blatantly, if you can believe it, five years later with The Green Mile.

Take Care of My Cat (Jae-eun Jeong, 2001)
**
Five young women graduate from high school. While all forging ahead with their lives, they try to retain their bonds of friendship. The problem with this film is a mix of characters who are so different that I couldn't imagine why any of them would have ever been friends. Conflict is created through their differences, so the filmmakers make their differences so pronounced as to void any believability among their friendships. That and the characters are all dull and uninteresting to watch. A sloppy coming-of-age film without any real point, although the filmmakers obviously wanted to make a few.

5ive Days to Midnight (Sci Fi Channel, 2004)
*
A Sci-Fi Channel mini-series. Horrible time-travel story. Plot holes galore. Not worth your trouble. Trust me. Investigating your own murder might seem an interesting premise, but this mini-series manages to make it exactly not that. And in the biggest cliché of all, the "bad guy" turns out to be the protagonist's best friend, who, of course, is having financial difficulties and envy issues.
Link44 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #71 [Dec. 17th, 2005|09:21 pm]
[Tags|, ]

Before Sunrise (Richard Linklater, 1995)
****1/2
Like most Linklater films (at least his better films) this is a talkative film. You listen to the characters, you listen to their language and their ideas and you watch them fall in love through the use of their language. A lot of Linklater philosophy is expounded upon here, but it's more accessible than some of the dialogues in his other films (such as Waking Life or Tape). A love story that takes you on a real journey of love, rather than a sugar-coated Nora Ephron fantasy.

Before Sunset (Richard Linklater, 2004)
****1/2
The characters from Before Sunrise meet unexpectedly after 9 years. And as the audience, and hopefully fans of the first film, we get to catch up with old friends. In the previous film we saw "falling in love" from the perspective of two young twenty-somethings. Here we see it again from the perspective of two more mature young thrity-somethings. In the previous film they went with their feelings, here they slightly distrust their feelings, are more guarded of them. A really good follow-up and perhaps in another nine years we'll revisit these old friends.

Three Days of the Condor (Sydney Pollack, 1975)
***1/2
I like these sorts of seventies spy/political thrillers. Not all are created equal of course, and this is one of the lesser variants, as it strains some credibility in the characterisations and their capabilities. Still an enjoyable view and good performances.

11'09''01 - September 11 (Eleven Directors, 2002)
***1/2
A hit miss series of vignettes by noted directors, the theme being 9/11. One short that is praised presents you with a black screen, the only sound the noise of the disasters. Every now and then a staccato shot of a body falling is shown for a few frames. This has been praised as a powerful moment. But why? How is this any more powerful than the actual news coverage of the day, where we saw the pictures and the sounds? Seemed lazy to me. In my mind the most powerful shorts here are those that veer away from any overt imagery from 9/11, steering an oblique course instead. The scene of the deaf woman, though ending a little cornily is a good example, or the short about the middle eastern school children is another.

The Snow Walker (Charles Martin Smith, 2003)
***
The Air Bud guy gets serious. This isn't a bad film, it's simply a predictable, unimaginatively directed film. It's based on one of Farley Mowat's many survival stories. Here a bush pilot crashes in the arctic in winter with an Inuit girl (sick with TB). He learns from her. She learns from him. They fall in love. It's an old school approach that's not out of place with the subject matter, but perhaps too simplistically adapted. It's a Disneyfied adventure story.

The Life and Death of Peter Sellers (Stephen Hopkins, 2004)
**1/2
Didn't really like the way this film was structured. Geoffery Rush gives an excellent performance as Peter Sellers. The rest of the players are fine, if nothing particularly special. Story seems too hell-bent on portraying Sellers' asshole side rather than his comic genius side, I would have preferred more balance. What's wrong with a little reverence?
Link9 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #70 [Dec. 17th, 2005|06:22 pm]
[Tags|, ]

The mini-reviews return. I'm going to try to keep the explanatory text even shorter than in previous efforts. Just the rating and a few quick impressions.

Downfall (Oliver Hirschbiegel, 2004)
****
The last few days of life in the Fuhrerbunker are dramatised, mainly witnessed from the perspective of Hitler's personal secretary Traudl Junge. I didn't sense the complaints that it painted a sympathetic portrait of Hitler, rather it painted a portrait of a crazed lunatic completely out of touch with reality. An engaging drama.

The Thing (John Carpenter, 1982)
***1/2
It's no Alien (which is why this film got made when it did), but it's not too bad. Some annoying questions not related to the plot arise (one of which is, why does a research station in the Antarctic have a flame thrower?), but for the most part it's a tension filled adventure.

Sahara (Breck Eisner, 2005)
**1/2
Eisner. Eisner. Where have I heard that name before? No nevermind, onto the film. It's outlandish. It's unbelievable. It probably would have been a little better if it had come down to earth slightly, Indiana Jones-style. Even given these problems, it's not an unfun film to watch, and since it never takes itself seriously, you can bear with it's unfolding of one "unpossibility" onto another.

Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (Paul Schraeder, 2004)
**1/2
If this is the good version, I can only imagine how bad the Renny Harlin version is. The history is that Paul Schraeder directs his version, the studio greatly objects to the lack of action and adventure, so they can the film, hire Renny Harlin, rewrite some of the script, and then Renny reshoots 90% of the film (using a number of different actors due to scheduling conflicts). I've not seen the Harlin version, but supposedly watching the two back to back is a film school moment. Anyhow, this version lacked any suspense or tension, and the finale was lacklustre at best. None of the terror or armrest gripping tension of the original.

Kingdom of Heaven (Ridley Scott, 2005)
**
A pseudo-historical yawnfest. Nothing new here with the story or plotting, just medieval Gladiator in the Middle East. I generally like Ridley Scott, but he really got lazy with this non-effort.

War of the Worlds (Steven Spielberg, 2005)
**
A single father tries to keep himself and his two children alive after aliens attack the earth. A good formula for an action-adventure, except in this case the children are so annoying, we keep hoping they die, so that the movie can finally move along without them. Also ruined by the "no one dies" happy ending, even after we're led to believe that several of them have, they just sort of pop at the end with no explanation for their miraculous survival. Would someone drown Spielberg already?

Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason (Beeban Kidron, 2004)
**
Complete saccharin. I don't think there was a genuine moment in the entire film, everything building instead for the next gag or punchline.
Link8 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #69 [Nov. 23rd, 2005|06:28 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Chris Columbus, 2001)
***
The story remains faithful to the novel. The characters are well-drawn. The only problem here is Columbus' direction, which smacks of the simplicity of television. Columbus has no aptitude for creating mood, for conveying impression via the camera. For someone with his film credits, he still blocks shots as though he were right out of film school. On the other hand, this is a pretty light film with a light mood, so someone with more talent than Columbus was probably unnecessary.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Chris Columbus, 2002)
***
See previous review for Philosopher's Stone. There's really little else to be said. Chamber of Secrets has all the same strengths and weaknesses as the first film.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Alfonso Cuarón, 2004)
***1/2
Finally a director who knows how to use a camera, someone who can create a shot that can deliver mood and emotion more effectively than most any line of dialogue might. Columbus was not the director for a film that required a much darker tonal change from the previous two. The entire look and feel has been altered here. Alfonso has taken Potter away from the indoor sets and brought the film into the great outdoors, into the Scottish Highlands. It can be a bit jarring seeing certain locales in much different locations and settings (e.g. Hagrid's cabin, the Whomping Willow), but in the end you curse the lack of ingenuity of the previous director, rather than Cuarón's desire for change. Alfonso's changes are perfect compliments to Rowling's imagination. A few shortcuts are taken with the story here, but for the most part the filmmaker does an very admirable job of retaining timbre and narrative.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Mike Newell, 2005)
***
Too long a novel retrofitted into too short a film space. This film teetered on 3-1/2 stars, but the overly slight translations for the plots from the story really weaken this effort as a film. Thankfully, Newell continues visually from where Cuarón left off, treading those stronger steps for the series. Perhaps add 1/4 quarter star to differentiate it from the first two films, of which this is, on the whole, superior. (If this is how they intend to adapt the longer Rowling novels, things do not bode well for Order of the Phoenix.)
Link2 rants|Rant rant rant

The Top Film List (2005) [Nov. 11th, 2005|12:24 pm]
[Tags|, ]

Top Ten lists suck, not because they're not interesting exercises. but because they're hard to compile -- what to leave in, what to leave out. Even Top Sixteen lists suck, but at least they're not quite as clichéd. But since I've already done a Top Sixteen list, they're well on their way. So now it's all about the Top Seventeen now. The only thing worthwhile about doing personal favourite film lists is to create a new one every year (or so), to see how your tastes have changed in the intervening period.

Here's a list I did for Senses of Cinema back around September 2001. The list is in no particular order.

Good Morning (Yasujiro Ozu, 1959)
Walkabout (Nicolas Roeg, 1971)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Dreyer, 1928)
The Big Lebowski (Joel Coen, 1998)
The Lady Vanishes (Alfred Hitchcock, 1938)
Contact (Robert Zemeckis, 1997)
The Grave of the Fireflies (Isao Takahata, 1988)
Hidden Fortress (Akira Kurosawa, 1958)
Tokyo Drifter (Seijun Suzuki, 1966)
Mon Oncle (Jacques Tati, 1958)

Here is the Top Sixteen list (in no particular order) that I did back on February 03 2004:

Good Morning (Yasujiro Ozu, 1959)
Walkabout (Nicolas Roeg, 1971)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Dreyer, 1928)
The Lady Vanishes (Alfred Hitchcock, 1938)
Tokyo Drifter (Seijun Suzuki, 1966)
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger, 1943)
The Great Dictator (Charles Chaplin, 1940)
M*A*S*H (Robert Altman 1970)
Ikiru (Akira Kurosawa, 1952)
Seventh Seal (Ingmar Bergman, 1957)
Triumph of the Will (Leni Reifenstahl, 1934)
The 400 Blows (François Truffaut, 1959)
Kiki's Delivery Service (Hayao Miyazaki, 1989)
Tokyo Olympiad (Kon Ichikawa, 1965)
Lolita (Stanley Kubrick, 1962)
The Bicycle Thieves (Vittorio De Sica, 1948)

So, now I'll do my current Top Seventeen list, and to change things up even further, I'll try to arrange in order, best to somewhat less best.

01. The Lady Vanishes (Alfred Hitchcock, 1938)
02. Stray Dog (Akira Kurosawa, 1949)
03. The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger, 1943)
04. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Dreyer, 1928)
05. Once Upon a Time in the West (Sergio Leone, 1968)
06. Good Morning (Yasujiro Ozu, 1959)
07. M*A*S*H (Robert Altman 1970)
08. Three Colours: Blue (Krzysztof Kieslowski, 1993)
09. Walkabout (Nicolas Roeg, 1971)
10. Tokyo Drifter (Seijun Suzuki, 1966)
11. Notorious (Alfred Hitchcock, 1946)
12. Annie Hall (Woody Allen, 1977)
13. The Great Dictator (Charles Chaplin, 1940)
14. Tokyo Olympiad (Kon Ichikawa, 1965)
15. High Plains Drifter (Clint Eastwood, 1973)
16. The Last Temptation of Christ (Martin Scorsese, 1988)
17. Alien (Ridley Scott, 1979)

So ... Good Morning, Tokyo Drifter, Walkabout, The Lady Vanishes, and The Passion of Joan of Arc ... the only films that have continually made it onto the lists each time I compile them.
LinkRant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #67 [Jul. 4th, 2005|10:02 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

Maya (Digvijay Singh, 2001)
****1/2
The first three-quarters of this film are oh-so enjoyable, being mainly about family life. The son and adopted daughter of a well-to-do rural Indian familyrun and play and adventure as kids all over the world do. The parents are parents we'd all recognize, stern and forgiving, exasperated and overjoyed by their children. The portrait of family life here is so sincere and real, that it transports you back to your own childhood. A testament that children and families are the same the world over. The last quarter of the film moves into darker territory. The young girl has just got her first period, and the parents arrange for the daughter to be brought into womanhood and acceptance by God by the local priests. Being accepted by God, in the context of this ritual, means being gang raped by four old priests. This ritual is banned in India, but in small rural towns it is still performed, and this film attempts to uncover the atrocity. It's not simply the act that disgusts us, but the fact that the child has had her childhood ripped from her, and nothing will ever be the same for her again. A powerful film, at once joyous and terrifying.

Lady Snowblood (Toshiya Fujita, 1973)
****1/2
Japanese female revenge. There was a lot of this during the 70s in Japan. One of the best was Female Convict Scorpion Jailhouse 41, but this surpasses even that film. This is based on manga, by the same author that created Lone Wolf and Cub. The daughter of a mother who died in childbirth, seeks revenge on those that wronged her mother and killed her father. Set in the Meiji period (around 1890). The work that was done on this release is quite commendable, besides an excellent subtitle translation, there are added supertitles that give you historical notes, to let you further understand the period. Tarantino cribbed a bit from this film (not too mention the title song) for Kill Bill. Storytelling is done in a variety of methods, including flashbacks and narration. Lots of action and cartoonish gore.

Owning Mahowny (Richard Kwietniowski, 2003)
****
The branch manager of a Canadian bank uses loan applications to fund his gambling addiction. Philip Seymour Hoffman gives a brilliant performance as the gambling addict, portraying a singular obsessive focus. The strength of this film is that it doesn't glorify gambling in any way, it shows neither the highs nor the lows of the gambling addict, instead portraying the winning as no different than the losing. To complicate matters, an Atlantic City casino owner decides to capitalise on this particular addict, assisting him in any way to get to and from their casino, even helping transfer the stolen money across the border. One of the great moments of the film: when he's finally arrested (because there is never any doubt that he will be caught, even the character knows this) on a charge of theft over $200 -- he stole $10.2 million.

Happy Times (Yimou Zhang, 2001)
***1/2
A old bachelor seeks out a wife. The skinny ones always dump him, so this time he looks for a heavier woman. The one he finds is no better, an evil step-mom of a woman, who foists her blind step-daughter on the unsuspecting gentleman, then leaves him. The man has a good heart, and takes care of the girl as best he can, but he can't bring himself to let this girl know that he's poor and broke, so with the help of friends, he concocts scheme after scheme to give the girl a comfortable life. The humour is sometimes cartoony. And the story is way out of the ballpark of believability. And the ending was baffling. But I recently read a review that described the film as "a fable about compassion and the amount of deception sometimes needed to achieve it". In this context, the ending works.

Our Lady of the Assassins (Barbet Schroeder, 2000)
***1/2
Filmed on high-def video in the Columbian city of Medellin, Our Lady of the Assassins tells the tale of an author returned home, wanting to live his final days and die in his homeland. The Medellin he left is very different from the Medellin he returns to. He hooks up with several young gangsters for companionship, and although he's shocked at their disregard for human life, he exhibits little in the way of morality himself. In a sense, he urges their amoral behaviour, perhaps substituting the death of others for his own death. A disturbing, yet captivating film (once you get over the fact that it's filmed on video) about psychopathic behaviour.

Long Life, Happiness and Prosperity (Mina Shum, 2002)
***
A charming, if one-dimensional, little film about Chinese Canadians on Vancouver's east side (near old Chinatown). Mindy wants to help her Mum, so she starts using Taoist charms, but without any skill they go awry. A bad luck deflection charm is deflected onto the wrong person, a lottery winning charm falls onto the wrong person, and a love potion goes totally awry. In this sweet comedy these three stories eventually come together in a sort, and all is worked out amicably. Not quite sure if the Chinese community is quite this superstitious, but since the writer/director is Chinese, I'll take her word for it. Either that, or she's furthering some misconceptions for story's sake.
LinkRant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #66 [Jun. 30th, 2005|12:57 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

I'm not even going to comment on the films. You've heard it all before from a thousand different sources. When you see the stars, you'll likely know why. I do have one thought (perhaps discussed elsewhere on the interweb?). The prequel trilogy has little to do with Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. That's a side story of the trilogy (and not told very engagingly at that.) In reality, the prequel trilogy is about the rise of Senator Palpatine to Galactic Emperor Palpatine, the focus is on him throughout the entire trilogy, he is the gravitational center of each film.

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (George Lucas, 1999)
*

Star Wars: Attack of the Clones (George Lucas, 2002)
*1/2

Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith (George Lucas, 2005)
**

Star Wars: A New Hope (George Lucas, 1977)
Original: ***1/2
Special Edition: ***

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Irvin Kershner, 1980)
Original: ***1/2
Special Edition: ***1/2

Star Wars: Return of the Jedi (Richard Marquand, 1983)
Original: ***
Special Edition: ***
Link6 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #65 [Jun. 22nd, 2005|12:50 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

The Last Temptation of Christ (Martin Scorsese, 1988)
****
The Church has always maintained that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, yet the Church has always had problems with the fully human Jesus, an area of conjecture that often leads to blasphemy. The Last Temptation of Christ, a fictional work by Nikos Kazantzakis, attempts to explore the fully human Jesus, not bothering with the fully divine Jesus in his exploration. Scorsese, a Roman Catholic, found this exploration interesting enough that he embarked on bringing the story to film. Although there are a number of hypotheses drawn with regard to Jesus' life and humanity, it's while he's on the cross that the Temptation takes place, between the lines "Father, why have you forsaken me?" and "It is accomplished." Contrary to what the radical religious right might have wanted the prospective viewer to believe, the Temptation isn't about sex, but about Jesus living a normal human life, with wife and family. I connect with these sorts of hypothetical exercises, and I found this effort by Scorsese to be both emotionally moving and inspiring -- Jesus was one of us, and he had the same weaknesses and foibles, his strength apparent because he rises above what's in him. He isn't simply some divine automaton, completely and utterly above temptation or weakness, he was, as the Church says, fully human, and through his humanity eventually attained divinity.

The King of Kings (Cecil B. DeMille, 1927)
****
A reverent (if not entirely faithful) retelling of the last days of Jesus, though sometimes hits a note too outrageous (Magdelene and Judas as lovers?) or too garish (Magdelene's zebra drawn chariot?) when DeMille is adding in hypothetical scenes. As The Last Temptation of Christ did, this film focuses on the relationship triangle of Jesus, Mary Magdelene, and Judas Iscariot. This is the big budget Hollywood epic, before that era when Hollywood was doing big-budget epics. The film covers all the key moments of Jesus' life starting, more or less, when he arrives in Jerusalem. Has the usual trademark DeMille handiwork, the ostentatious production values and the heavy-handed sermonising, but here in The King of Kings it all seems somewhat appropriate.

The Gospel According to St. Matthew (Pier Paolo Pasolini, 1964)
***1/2
The most faithful retelling of the life of Jesus, though not an emotionally moving retelling. Based on the Gospel of Matthew. Pasolini translates the text, but forgets to translate the emotion, the human story within the text. There was no emotional resonance as I watched this. It came across as cold and dispassionate. It seems a number of reviews chalk this lack of passion to Pasolini's marxist and atheist leanings. Maybe. Being marxist doesn't rid you of an ability to feel emotion. I just got the impression that Pasolini wasn't all that interested in the subject matter, there seemed to be a boredom in the shots and the overall direction -- perhaps between the time when he proposed the project and actually started shooting it, his mindset had changed.

The Passion of the Christ (Mel Gibson, 2004)
***1/2
A violent retelling of the last twelve hours of Christ's life. Though this isn't violence for violence's sake, but violence as it (likely) actually occured. This version is based on the synoptic gospels, but goes much further by using "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Meditations of Anne Catherine Emmerich" by Klemens Brentano. Anne Catherine Emmerich was a Catholic nun, who in 1819 began having detailed visions of Jesus' life prior. The vast majority of the material in the film that isn't present in the New Testament is taken directly from Brentano's accounts of Emmerich's visions. As with Pasolini's version, lacks a certain humanity. Gibson ferrets emotional responses from his audience via shock value. Some of the violence tends to go too far and too long, such as the scourging. This film is important, such that it goes into an area of detail often ignored by other new testament films, The Passion of the Christ gives you a more accurate taste of what Jesus went through during his final hours on earth.
Link7 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #64 [Jun. 15th, 2005|04:21 pm]
[Tags|, ]

Every Hitchcock film had an element of suspense, that's what Hitchcock did best. Beyond that, his films covered broad thematic ground, from killer birds to serial killers to purely psychological pieces. Due the thematic variety of his work, there's rarely consensus on a best film. People's favourites run the entire gamut of his catalogue, from his British silents, his later British period, his early American work, to his final technicolor opulence. That's what makes a Hitchcock film list so interesting, everyone has different opinions on how to rank the films and for different reasons. About the only thing people can agree on, it seems, are the weaker films in his oeuvre.

The Lady Vanishes (Alfred Hitchcock, 1938)
*****
My favourite Hitchcock film. It's genuinely laugh-out-loud funny, it's got a great little story and mystery, and superbly drawn characters. Charters and Caldicott nearly steal the show with their hilarious attitudes and obsessions, but the relationship between Iris and Gilbert certainly holds its own and brings a unique charm to the film, and Miss Froy is a sweet and endearing old woman. This was Hitch's last British film. Story: a lady vanishes on a train and one person intends to find her, even if everyone else on the train thinks she's hallucinating.

Notorious (Alfred Hitchcock, 1946)
*****
This used to be my favourite Hitch film, and in a few years it may be again, these sorts of things can flip-flop with time and mood. This was Ingrid's second and final pairing with Hitchcock. The director has a lot of fun with the notorious woman angle, trying to float by the censors whatever he can. The chemistry between Bergman and Grant is butter on toast. One of the most gorgeous B&W movies ever filmed. The story: a daughter of an convicted Nazi war criminal is conscripted to penetrate an organization that were friends to her father.

Strangers on a Train (Alfred Hitchcock, 1951)
*****
The character played by Robert Walker is equally charming and spooky. Hitch draws you to rooting for the bad guy on a number of occasions, while loathing him on the rest. He's daring us to embrace our own dark sides. A fantastic fantastic movie on every level. Hitch was firing on all cylinders here. The story: a man explains his idea for the perfect murder to a stranger: "Two strangers meet, each has someone in their lives they'd like to do away with, each agrees to do the other's murder ... criss-cross." In this case, one man doesn't agree and the other won't take no for an answer.

Rear Window (Alfred Hitchcock, 1954)
*****
Hitchcock brings back a heavier dose of comedy in this voyeuristic thriller. I love the set on this one, probably one of the greatest sets ever built. Hitchcock's camera does all the story telling, the subjective viewpoint is perfect. The story: A man, holed up in his apartment for a month with a broken leg takes to observing his neighbours across the courtyard. One tenant is acting particularly suspicious and he suspects murder. He enlists his girlfriend and his nurse to assist him in an investigation.

Spellbound (Alfred Hitchcock, 1945)
****1/2
Ingrid Bergman's first pairing with Hitchcock. Ingrid is my second favourite actress, next to Audrey Hepburn. Another gorgeous B&W film here, such deep rich tones. Fascinating dream sequences as well, designed by Salvador Dali. The story: there's something strange about the new head of the Green Manors mental institute, he seems to be having a mental breakdown. Bergman's character, in love with the new gentleman, decides to help him recover and reveal hidden memories that are plaguing his subconscious.

The 39 Steps (Alfred Hitchcock, 1935)
****1/2
One of Hitchcock's first wrong man films, which would be theme that would define his career. As with most of Hitch's British thrillers, a balanced mix of drama, suspense, comedy and mystery. The story: a Canadian visitor to London who meets a beautiful woman on the run from foreign agents, she is subsequently killed in his apartment, and he must go on the run to prove his innocence and reveal the spy ring.

North by Northwest (Alfred Hitchcock, 1959)
****1/2
Hitchcock's most famous "wronged man" film. A gentleman is mistaken for a spy, accused of murder at the United Nations, and becomes a fugitive from justice, running across America, to prove his innocence. A glossier version of The 39 Steps. This includes some of Hitch's biggest set pieces, such as the chase across the face of Mount Rushmore and the crop duster in Kansas. Not as technically adept as many of his other films, but a more pure form of entertainment than Hitch fans were used too.

Rebecca (Alfred Hitchcock, 1940)
****
Hitchcock's first American film, and a bit of a departure for him. A psychological thriller, rather than the usual Christie-style mystery. His interest in the psychological would grow and he would then start fidning scripts and stories that mixed the traditional mystery with the psychological, such as with Spellbound, Marnie, and Vertigo. The only Hollywood-based Hitchcock film to win a Best Picture Oscar. A very good film, but didn't capture my attention that way many of his other films do. The story: a woman marries a wealthy widower, eventually moving in with him and his mother into their fabulous estate, but she finds it unsettling that his first wife still maintains an unseen grip on the entire household.

Torn Curtain (Alfred Hitchcock, 1966)
****
Read the original review.

Marnie (Alfred Hitchcock, 1964)
****
The end of the Hitchcock era, his last film with many of his longtime collaborators. The story: a travelling con artist gets involved with one of her marks/employers, while he digs deeper into her mysterious past, trying to unlock memories she's repressing. Tippi Hedron is believable in her psychosis, and Sean Connery shows that he's just not James Bond. Hitch uses the medium to its fullest to visualize Marnie's fears. The mother-daughter relationship is disturbing.

Rope (Alfred Hitchcock, 1948)
***1/2
Jimmy Stewart seems ill-fitting for this role, whereas James Mason (who others wanted for the part) would have made the better choice. This is a film about homosexuality in an era when "it" wasn't mentioned. And even though "it" is never mentioned, it's perhaps one of the better films dealing with homosexual characters, as they're shown as characters rather than caricatures. Hitchcock filmed this in long takes, usually 7 - 10 minutes each, then he tried to hide the cuts with furniture or peoples backs. Unfortunately there are a couple of standard cuts which breaks the "continuity" and the experimental aspect of the piece. Every cut should have been hidden or not, but no half measures. Another problem was showing the actual murder at the start of the film. Hitch should have followed the screenplay and let the "did they murder or didn't they murder David?" question be one of the elements of suspense. The acting by the two killers is superb, they really convey all the emotion and fear of what they've done, notice in particular the scene where one of them starts to stammer and shake ever so slightly ... acting that's not overdone, but played just as it should be.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith (Alfred Hitchcock, 1941)
***1/2
Hitchcock's only pure comedy. It's charming if lightweight material for him. Carole Lombard and Robert Montgomery are certainly amusing, but nowhere near as comedic as The Lady Vanishes, for instance. The story: a married couple learn that their marriage of seven years is invalid.

The Birds (Alfred Hitchcock, 1963)
***1/2
Ratcheting the tension exponentially, until it finally explodes with the "trapped in the house" scene. Even given the technical limitations of the period, the filmmakers did a fantastic job of making every scene look startingly believable. There used to be an art to creating the magic of cinema. Nowadays you just rely on CGI to fix everything up. Back then, you couldn't rest on your laurels, everything relied on skill and expertise, there was no lazy man's out. Tippi Hedron is fine in the role, her leading man, Rod Taylor, less convincing for me. A lot of tension in this film, but that's about all it has going for it. The story: birds attack a town.

Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958)
***1/2
The audience has to suspend far too much disbelief to make this story work, it's one implausible story element after another, which all leads up to a nearsighted, blurry finale that isn't all too convincing. This works more as a film that demonstrates a director at the top of his craft technically, a man whose camera became as much an actor as the flesh-and-blood players, telling a story visually. The film otherwise works between the surprises and implausibilities.

Foreign Correspondent (Alfred Hitchcock, 1940)
***
Read the original review.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (Alfred Hitchcock, 1956)
**1/2
Too many logical plot holes in this one, especially with regard to Scotland Yard upon the couple arriving in England. A few too many unexplained "how did they know that?" moments. The dynamic between Doris and Jimmy is perfect, and played out well, not an idealised marriage, by any stretch. A little strange to have a character in any Hitchcock film break out into song, but it's not unfitting of the Doris Day character, if perhaps more a result of something contractual than of something necessary for the story (they try to make it work near the end, but only half-heartedly.)

Topaz (Alfred Hitchcock, 1969)
**1/2
Read the original review.

After examining this list a little more closely, it would seem I have a preference for B&W Hitchcock over Colour Hitchcock.
Link11 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #63 [Jun. 14th, 2005|12:26 am]
[Tags|, , ]

Canada: A People's History: Volume One (CBC, 2000)
****
CBC's most expensive undertaking. A $25 million 32-hour documetary series covering the entire breadth of Canadian history, from the early First Peoples to the end of the 20th century. This volume of DVDs covers the time period from 15000 BC to 1812 AD (or the first 10 hours of the series.) The series is in the re-creation documentary format. All the words spoken by the players are the actual words of those people they are portraying. A lot of effort has gone into finding writings and journals of not just the major historical figures, but of the people on the periphery who also witnessed and partook in those famous events. A fascinating look at Canadian history, which is a must-see for any Canadian who believes our history to be unexciting (lacking such monumentous events as revolutions and civil wars). About the most glaring omission, so far, seems to be anything west of Ontario -- the history of western Canada seems to be told as an afterthought (this may be rectified in later volumes.)

MI-5: Volume Three (BBC, 2004)
****
The glossy spy series continues. The stories are still solid, except for a couple of exceptions (such as the rockstar and internet hacker episodes.) A few major changes to the series occur when they replace (through various means) the three major leads over the ten episode cycle. This volume focuses mainly on changes in the intelligence services post 9/11, and the trade-offs between freedom and security that they're willing (or not willing) to make. I am curious how the fourth series will continue with such a dramatic change in actors, since at season's end, they only appeared to have one viable replacement character.

Lost: Season One (ABC, 2004)
***
A plane crashes on a strange island. A very strange island. There is no hope of rescue. A lot of interesting characters. Each episode focuses on a particular island problem (whether that's avoiding the "dinosaur" or "polar bear" or discovering another island mystery) and the back story of a character told in flashbacks. It's a fairly engaging television series, though somewhat frustrating in that they keep piling on the mysteries, yet rarely answering any of the many questions that spawn from those mysteries. The season ending cliffhanger simply adds to the frustration. Season Two will be the deciding season for this series. They'll either start answering a few of the larger questions that viewers have, or they'll go the same route that the X-Files did (which is why that show was its own worst enemy.)

Alias: Season Four (ABC, 2004)
**1/2
Falling ratings forced the creators and writers to rework the show, to bring in new viewers. As such, they pissed off all the old fans for more than half a season. They forgot about their previous story arcs, only vaguely referred to previous seasons, and kept each episode self-contained. It was only around the halfway mark that any semblance of a story arc appeared, and then it was mostly a rehash of what they'd done in previous seasons, only much lighter. They then finish the season with a cliffhanger straight out of left field, a twist for the sake of a twist. They nearly turned this fan right off the series. Season Five is supposedly going to be the last of Alias.

A whole lotta Hitchcock will appear in reviews next, and then a whole lotta Gilliam and Python, and then a whole lotta Star Wars.
LinkRant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #62 [Jun. 13th, 2005|12:11 am]
[Tags|, , ]

Three Kings (David O. Russell, 1999)
****1/2
A film that had something to say, though at the time a little too late. It takes place just after the 1991 Gulf War. Obstensibly it's a treasure hunt film, but it sneaks in a lot of politics slowly, until ultimately the film is the American government's failures in the Arab world. The film was made 8 years too late, and 3 years too soon. It would have been much stronger had it been released in 2002, but then no studio would have allowed it to be made post-9/11. It needs a resurgence of interest. A really well-made film, with great characters, great story, and a great message.

The Aviator (Martin Scorsese, 2004)
***1/2
Reminded me a little of Citizen Kane. This is the story of Howard Hughes as focused on his obsession with aviation. It also focuses on his obsessive-compulsive disorder, yet strangely leaves absent his drug addiction after his XF-11 accident, which more than likely compounded his disorder and accelerated his spiral into the disease. It's filmed nicely, it has good performances, but overall left me wanting.

Scrubs: Season One (NBC, 2001)
***
Reminded me strongly of the television show M*A*S*H. Not simply because it revolves around a bunch of wacky, unorthodox doctors/nurses/interns, but because of the way it mixes its humour and drama. Mostly funny comedy, more hit than miss.

I Heart Huckabees (David O. Russell, 2004)
**1/2
Yeah, I get the entire "everything is connected" philosophy. I get that "ever since the Big Bang, all matter and energy recycles." But the entire enterprise of the film struck me as pretentious hogwallop. It has a few worthwhile moments, but mostly wallowed in its own inflated ego. The story of a man who wants to discover the meaning of three recent coincidences in his life, so hires a couple of existential detectives to dig deeper.
Link9 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #61 [Jun. 2nd, 2005|05:42 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

Sin City (Robert Rodriguez & Frank Miller, 2005)
****
Superhero noir? Hyper noir? This fits into the noir style somewhere, even though it comes off as more noir than those films it tries to imitate. In paying tribute, it becomes far more than what its mentors ever were. The Asphalt Jungle, Double Indemnity, and The Big Sleep were never quite as noir as Sin City. Still a good film, if perhaps far more violent than any noir ought to be (or even strove to be.) Perhaps too much style over substance, though the substance that is there is very entertaining.

Hotel Rwanda (Terry George, 2004)
****
These stories have to be told, unfortunately they're always told too late. They should be told on the evening news while they're happening. In 1994, one million Tutsis are murdered by Hutu extremists. One man saves 1200 Tutsis from the machete by holing them up in his hotel and using his influence to keep the extremists at bay. I wonder how much of the story was changed to hit dramatic cinematic moments, because the film closely parallels another businessman-turned-saviour-of-genocide-victims story, Schindler's List, right down to how it tells the story and it's focus. That's not a negative, but it is interesting how similar the two films are, probably far more similar than the two stories are.

Lost in Translation (Sofia Coppola, 2003)
****
A quiet thoughtful character piece. Two lonely souls in Tokyo connect. Murray is again (he's found his niche, I hope he doesn't wear it out) playing a brooding funny man, someone once successful but on the tailend of their career. It's well-made, the characters are interesting (as are their little adventures,) and the dialogue is sparse. For those evenings when you feel quiet and reflective.

Read My Lips (Jacques Audiard, 2001)
***1/2
A French thriller and character piece. A partially-deaf woman gets involved with a recently released convict. What I liked about this film was the lack of sex. A hollywood film would have had their male and female protagonists in the sack as often as possible. Not here. Their relationship is more psychological, as they each find themselves being drawn deeper into each others world. They each struggle for power and domination over the other. The first thing that annoyed me was the woman's deafness, which is an inconsequential character element (it barely registers throughout the film, except in terms of sound design) until the very end of the film where suddenly her ability of read lips is paramount. The second thing is that the character is suppoed to be a plain-jane, yet they hire a French supermodel to play this character and then try to make her look plain (unsuccessfully) through make-up and posture. An interesting viewing experience that held my attention throughout, and not exactly what I was expecting (I was expecting something more debase, along the lines of Secretary, which I didn't enjoy at all.)

The Corporation (Jennifer Abbott & Mark Achbar, 2003)
***1/2
This documentary on the corporation doesn't tell us much we don't already know, such as that fact that corporations have no moral compass, thus the drive for profit outweighs everything else. It tells us that corporations cover-up their crimes. It tells us corporations will break laws if the pros (profits) outweigh the cons (penalties.) Even though it isn't covering new ground, these things have to be said from time to time, if only to open a few more eyes to the truth. It tries to remain evenhanded in it's portrayal of the corporation (the good and the bad), but isn't very successful, since the bad tends to outweigh the good many times over.

National Treasure (Jon Turteltaub, 2004)
**1/2
Would someone teach Nicolas Cage how to run or jog? He has to run full sprint in this movie several times and he looks like an ape with a bad case of scoliosis. This is basically a rip on "The Da Vinci Code", getting a similarly themed film into the theaters while the book was still hot. National Treasure is a treasure hunt film in the same mold as Tomb Raider (which is to say that it's not very good.) There's so much puzzle to be solved in this film, that each step is solved in 60 seconds or less no matter how impossibly convoluted and complex that step might be. It's sometimes a fun adventure, but mostly you'll find yourself muttering to yourself: "Give me a break."
Link9 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #60 [Apr. 27th, 2005|01:17 am]
[Tags|, , ]

Superman (Richard Donner, 1978)
****1/2
If it wasn't for the "Can you read my mind" sequence, I would have given this 5-stars (Kidder's acting up until the moment of the "song" was just fine, we could tell exactly how she was feeling, the "song" was unnecessary, redundant and out of place.) This was the first serious celluloid treatment of a comic book character. I'd say it was this film that, in a way, inspired a lot of the more adult treatments of comics by Frank Miller and others through the 80s (in graphic novels). Granted, Superman: The Movie wasn't overally violent or dark, but it did add a level of humanity to the character that was only superficially hinted at in the comics of the day. I think this more humanstic approach showed some of the upcoming artists where they could go with the genre. For instance, romance in comic books, up to the 1980s, were still ruled heavily by the Comic Code, thus were covered with the depth and sophistication of the Archie comics (that's about as "real" as you could expect.) But this film brings the romance front and center, makes it real, shows Clark Kent/Superman as more than a lovestruck puppy. Some might object to the Lex Luthor and Stooges comedy act, but I thought it worked. It balanced an otherwise immoral character, kept him from bringing the entire film down. The movie is basically a love story, so it would be inappropriate to have a truly dark and ruthless villian completely undermine that story. And the Krypton origin, these backstory scenes can easily sink a comic film, but here it's one of the best pieces (Marlon Brando was a stellar choice as Jor-El.)

Ice Station Zebra (John Sturges, 1968)
****
Of the recent spate of Alistair MacLean adaptations I've seen recently, I held this off for last, thinking it was going to be the one I'd like the least, mostly because Rock Hudson stars and because it's a submarine film and Hollywood has a lousy track record with submarine films. Turns out it was my favourite of the bunch. The sub-mariner aspects were really well done, and I was expecting some really sloppy writing and set-building in this area of the film. I was surprised. This was likely the most accurate sub-mariner film until the release of Das Boot. The arctic set (and yes, it can't be mistaken for anything other) was impressive, mostly in it's scale and all it's moving parts. The story was solid, with the obligatory betrayal (as with all MacLean stories.) A fun adventure yarn with little in the way of aggravation.

Die Hard (John McTiernan, 1988)
***
It has a number of elements that make it one of the great action films, yet it also has a large number of really annoying bits that bring it down. The good bits are Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman. Bruce makes for a great everyman hero, and the fact that he goes through hell and injury and struggle to save the day just adds to his appeal. Alan Rickman makes the great villian, he brings charm and wit and insouciance to the role, he almost steals the movie, his screen presence is so magnetic. The writing, where it concerns Willis and Rickman, is spot on. The writing, where it concerns the heist, is strong. Where the writing fails is when it leaves Nakatomi Plaza. The character of Sgt. Al Powell -- a cop with a secret he's never come to terms with, a character that is too maudlin for its own good -- made me cringe everytime he opened his mouth. And then there's Deputy Police Chief Dwayne T. Robinson, who couldn't have been inaner, so stupid he stretches all credibility. Inside the building, Die Hard is a perfect action film, it weighs its two major characters perfectly againt each other, and writes their stories intelligently. Outside the building, Die Hard falls flat, with writing on par to an amateur screenplay.

Songs from the Second Floor (Roy Andersson, 2000)
**1/2
Too abstract, too disjointed, perhaps too Jungian for me. Lots of pretty compositions, lots of effort on the part of the director, but ultimately meanders too far and wide to be very interesting. The film aims to create a narrative mood, rather than a narrative plot. Through a series of thinly connected vignettes, the director creates an emotional flow through his constructed images. He's attempting to show us dystopic visions of our corporate and consumer culture -- visual metaphors. It is an interesting experiment, the images are still with me, but overall it didn't work for me, simply left me nonplussed.

Force 10 from Navarone (Guy Hamilton, 1978)
**1/2
One of those WW2 pictures where an elite team has to cross into enemy territory to destroy a bridge. I'm not going get long-winded about this one. The casting was good, Harrison Ford and Robert Shaw, but nearly everything else about the film was awkward and clumsy. Even Carl Weathers couldn't save this film. Aggravation from start to finish.
Link7 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #59 [Apr. 22nd, 2005|02:44 am]
[Tags|, , , ]

Baran (Majid Majidi, 2001)
****1/2
Another excellent film from Iran. Afghani refugees find work in Iranian border towns, usually in construction. The film finds focus with the Iranian tea boy (the person who moves about delivering tea and bread to the workers throughout the day), Lateef, on one such construction site. One day an Afghani is injured, instead of losing his job he sends his son, Rahmat, in his place. Rahmat is small and slight, not well suited for the hard physical labour on the job site. The boss decides to switch the jobs of Lateef and Rahmat. Lateef is outraged that he's losing his nice cushy job to an Afghan and embarks on some immature revenge (such as trashing the kitchen). Even so, Lateef is fascinated by Rahmat, a strange boy who refuses to speak. And as it turns out, Rahmat isn't what he appears to be. As Lateef accidentally discovers, the he is a she. Instead of turning her in, Lateef falls in love. And thus he begins his journey to manhood. A compelling bittersweet love story.

The Terrorist (Santosh Sivan, 1999)
***1/2
An intimate portrait of the suicide bomber. Inspired by the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi by Thenmuli Rajaratnam. But only inspired, because the film itself is apolitical, it never mentions locations, groups or aims. The target is only ever referred to as the VIP. The assassin is Malli, a very devoted member of her organization, a true believer in her cause and her country. She's ready and prepared for martyrdom. There's little dialogue in the film, so most of it has to be carried by the actress' ability to emote. That and the moods evoked by the camera and lighting. In those regards it's a successful venture, and it brings us into the mind of the bomber. So much so that we're rooting for her "success" by the film's midpoint. Of course, there's the added moral dilemma of her pregnancy, discovered only a fews days before the "big event."

Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Season Seven (Joss Whedon & various, 2003)
***
A ho-hum send off for the series. It wasn't an uninteresting season (certainly better than the abysmal season four), just not a spectacular season (like seasons five and six were.) The whole Spike arc (he got his soul) was an eye-rolling exercise, since it seemed to exist simply to fill the void left by Angel when he spun off into his own series. A fair number of the episodes were vehicles only to bring back old characters, so that the audience could ooh and aah such things as, "Hey, I remember him/her from season one/two/three/four/five/six."

Code 46 (Michael Winterbottom, 2004)
**
Set in a William Gibson-esque future, post-Idoru, pre-Neuromancer. The dystopic future here would be interesting all on its own, except that it's all precluded by a really pedestrian love story. Very pedestrian, even as they try to camouflage it with bits and pieces of future tech. For instance, breeding can only be performed by appropriate DNA pairs (before conceiving, a man and woman have to go through genetic screening.) As you can expect, our couple aren't well-matched genetically. Add to this that travel between major urban centers can only be accomplished via papelles (a high tech visa), which are extremely hard to qualify for. Again, as you might have suspected, our lovers live in different regions. Some interesting ideas in the background of this film, but there's little to hold your interest in the foreground.

Ocean's Twelve (Steven Soderbergh, 2004)
*1/2
Just dumb. Whereas Ocean's Eleven (the remake) was fun and lighthearted and a good dose of adventure, this sequel is simply dumb. First of all, the caper is so convoluted, that at the end of it, it doesn't make a lick of sense, there's no logical path from A to B to C to D. Instead they just randomly hop around from A to X to G to D, and try to explain the connections after the fact, and poorly and illogically at that. Add to that some really lame technology that simply didn't belong in the film (advanced holographic generators) and a really stupid tumbling scene through a randomly moving laser grid and you have one really dumb movie. What the hell was Soderbergh thinking? Perhaps I'm being too hard on this, but I expect more from Soderbergh, certainly more than this Chris Columbus-like effort.
LinkRant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #58 [Apr. 20th, 2005|04:28 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum (Volker Schlöndorff & Margarethe von Trotta, 1975)
****1/2
Schlöndorff has made a career bringing important dystopic topics to the screen. Katharina Blum is a 30 year old film, but a 30 year old film that is once again very topical. We are approaching (especially the United States) the same dangers that West Germany did in the late 60s and early 70s -- the loss of personal freedoms in the name of protecting the state. Also deals with freedom of the press issues, and their power to destroy lives. Direct corrolations can be drawn here between the U.S. government and the German government, between Fox News and the fictional Paper. The story: Katharina is arrested after an evenings dalliance with a known terrorist. She is interrogated, jailed, and the national newspaper sets a course to destory her life through lies and innuendo (sensationalism for profit.)

Osama (Siddiq Barmak, 2003)
****
Set in Afghanistan (filmed in Kabul), it tells the story one family's difficulties during the Taliban regime. Grandmother, mother, and daughter are without husband or male relatives. What this means is that they are doomed to starve alone in their house, because women are not allowed on the streets without a male escort. If these women have no one to provide for them, they'll starve. The grandmother concocts a scheme, to cut her granddaughter's hair, pass her off as male, so that she can work and provide for the family. The little girl is understandably terrified, knowing the possible punishments that await her on discovery. Her life becomes increasingly complex when she's forced to attend the local religious school. There she learns not only further fear, but the privileges that males are given. A powerful film (especially the opening.)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Alan J.W. Bell, 1981)
***1/2
Quite a funny series. Starts off really well, but finishes weakly. It seems Adams had a couple of good ideas he wanted to add to the series (that differed from the radio series and the book), but wasn't quite how to fit them in (the act change from Magrathea to Milliways is very awkward). It still makes an enjoyable series, and with the major motion picture approaching, would be worthwhile to revisit. Still don't see how they're going to translate this to Hollywood without losing all the real wacky British humour.

Flowers of Shanghai (Hsiao-hsien Hou, 1998)
***1/2
Nineteenth century Shanghai. Wealthy men attend only the very best brothels, known as "flower houses." Sometimes these men take the "flowers" as brides. A strangely fascinating film, considering that it's slower than Ozu, lit by natural candlelight, and it never leaves the interior spaces of its flower houses -- which all adds to the overall intimacy of the film. What's strange is that, even though the film evokes intimacy of story and setting, the film never allows intimacy with its characters (there are no close-ups, for instance). We see these people through the eyes of custom and function and etiquette. I liked how the various acts are separated by scenes of the men playing mahjonng, about the only time they seem to let their guard down, certainly never in front of the women.

The Vertical Ray of the Sun (Anh Hung Tran, 2000)
***
Three middle-class Hanoi sisters have very different experiences in their relationships. A very beautiful film -- the sets (I'd love to live in any of those Hanoi apartments), the women, the scenery, and the way in which Tran composes his shots. But beauty alone doesn't give this film a life of its own. The beauty of this film is dragged down by an absence of anything substantial. What story there is with the two older sisters, is generally confusing, and even when the confusion is made clear, you'll likely not care. The younger sister's story, of her relationship with her brother, is the most interesting, but as well the most inconsequential. It's slow and languorous, but that's not a problem in and of itself, it's just the lack of anything substantive to add that all important captivation factor.

Sisters (Brian De Palma, 1973)
**
Throughout I couldn't shake the feeling I was watching a 1970s TV movie of the week, a Hitchcock Presents presentation. De Palma has made a career out of copycatting great directors (he refers to it as the homage). Here he's stealing a number of great Hitchcock and Polanski moments from Psycho and Rear Window and Rosemary's Baby. He doesn't really pull any of it off. I found the story hackneyed, and the causal connections between scenes weak.
Link4 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #57 [Apr. 15th, 2005|01:47 pm]
[Tags|, ]

All prolific actors and directors have a few films that define their careers. For Jackie Chan, that would be his Police Story series. Nothing else in his ouevre as effectively showcases exactly what a Jackie Chan film is all about -- he brings a Harold Lloyd sensibility to the modern action film.

I first discovered Jackie Chan in the summer of 1996, when a friend recommended we go see Police Story III: Supercop. I knew nothing about Jackie Chan at that point. I was blown away by the level of action, the stunts, and the choreography of the fight sequences (not to mention Michelle Yeoh). From that point on I was a voracious fan, searching high and low for any Jackie Chan I could get a hold of. Since then, I've seen every Hong Kong film of his post-1983, and a few select films pre-1983. (There are some Hollywood pictures of his I will never see, such as The Tuxedo and The Medallion.) I'm no longer the voracious fan, but still a fan I am.

Jackie Chan films are entertainment. Nothing more. You go to see a corny story and some high-octane stunts and fights. Ever the more exciting because Jackie performs all his own stunts (often to his detriment, as you can see during the end credits when he shows all the stunt bloopers.) Jackie aims at nothing more than giving an audience a good time. He does very well in this regard.

Police Story (Jackie Chan, 1985)
****
Action-wise, this has excellent pacing. Jackie never leaves you bored enough to start wondering about the story. From the start where they demolish a hillside squatters village, to the symphony of broken glass at the end. The story: Jackie arrests a drug lord and to ensure his conviction Jackie must protect their star witness. A Jackie Chan film is about as simple as that.

Police Story II (Jackie Chan, 1988)
****
The story: Jackie is relegated to traffic duty because of the havoc he caused in the previous film -- meanwhile, the criminals he caught in the previous installment vow vengeance -- while Jackie struggles with all this, a group of bombers are blowing up buildings, trying to extort 10 million from a real estate magnate. Maggie Cheung's largest role in the series. She plays such a great ditzy girlfriend scorned. The action basically comes all in one big explosive clump near the end of the film, but since the story actually holds together reasonably well, it's hardly noticeable.

Police Story III: Supercop (Stanley Tong, 1992)
****
Michelle Yeoh adds immeasurably to this film, not simply in the action and humour, but her interplay with Jackie. She's his equal in all regards. This is my favourite of the series. The story: Jackie heads to mainland China to team up with one of their agents, to stop a China-Hong Kong drug cartel. The action eventually moves to Kuala Lumpur Malaysia. Whereas the previous two Police Story films were Hong Kong-based, the international feel to this one is welcome. Have I mentioned Michelle Yeoh yet?

Police Story IV: First Strike (Stanley Tong, 1996)
***1/2
See original review here.
LinkRant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #56 [Apr. 12th, 2005|04:30 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

The Motorcycle Diaries (Walter Salles, 2004)
****
The story of Ernesto "Che" Guevara's awakening. One of the best road movies I've seen in awhile. Certainly more interesting as a travelogue of South America than as a study of the burgeoning character of Guevara. Of the former, the film is gorgeous, detailing all the beauty of an 8000 km trek from Argentina to Venezuela. Of the latter, the film felt a little shallow; key moments that we are to believe shaped the man are too trite. In the end I found Ernesto's friend, Alberto Granado, to be the more interesting and brightly drawn character. Fascinating travelogue, yes. In-depth character study, no.

Kitchen Stories (Bent Hamer, 2003)
****
I tend to connect with Scandinavian films far more than any of the other European regions. (The U.K. and Ireland wouldn't be too far behind.) This is yet another charming, easy-to-connect-with Scandinavian light comedy to add to my ever growing list. So, what's the story here? Well, the Swedish Housewives Institute (this is set in the 1950s) has been studying the kitchen habits of women for years, and have finally developed the ergonomically perfect kitchen (can you say IKEA?). Now they're tackling the next frontier, single men. They head off into the Norwegian hinterland to study the kitchen habits of older single males, hoping to collect enough data to design that perfect kitchen for them. The first part of the film is really a light treatise on the nature of being observed and observing. Can such observational data really be valid, especially if the subject is well aware of being observed, and especially if the subject doesn't particularly want to be observed? Is such data even useful? The wranglings between observer and observed continue, until a friendship eventually forms. And the question "How can you truly observe if the observer knows nothing of its subject?" is asked. A touching, tender little tale. Takes an unnecessary pause in the land of melodrama late in the film, but it's brief and not entirely out of place.

Russian Ark (Alexander Sokurov, 2002)
***1/2
The entire 96 minute film consists of a single unbroken shot (they were successful on the fourth take, technical difficulties ruining the previous three.) This is a film that never visited the editing room, for there was nothing to edit. The setting is the Hermitage in St. Petersburg (and especially the Winter Palace), a site of much Russian history -- from the great Tsars to the Russian Revolution -- and a repository of Western art. The film takes us on a journey (with the Marquis de Custine) through three hundred years of Russian history. Technically, Russian Ark is a masterpiece. Artistically, it is very beautiful to look at, and every bit of the production value is splendid -- the Hermitage itself becomes a character. Emotionally, it is so focused on a particular audience, one with a great deal of understanding of Russian art and history, that it invariably loses its impact with less enlightened viewers. Without that knowledge (because the film barely makes any attempt to introduce its personages) you may miss the appearances of Catherine the Great or Nicolas I or Nicolas II, not understand the relevance of the coffin maker, or the closely guarded whispers during a time of a dangerous regime, or even the significance of the final ball, Russia's farewell to Europe for the next 70 years. A great achievement, even if it left me mostly cold. (I do recommend listening to the commentary after your initial viewing -- it gave me a lot of the background I was invariably missing.) [If you've taken any Russian History, like Andrea, for instance, you'll probably find that this ranks a full star higher.]

Guns of Navarone (J. Lee Thompson, 1961)
***
The Dirty Half-Dozen. Six very different military (and non-military) persons are sent on an impossible mission: destroy two Mediterranean Nazi gun emplacements that threaten Allied warships. Lots of insubordination and bickering among the characters as they work their way towards the conclusion. As with most Alistair MacLean adaptations, the plot is filled with twist upon twist. Pro: Great characters as portrayed by Gregory Peck, David Niven, and Anthony Quinn. Con: The characters are blessed with far too much deus ex machina. Still an enjoyable rollercoaster ride.

Elektra (Rob Bowman, 2005)
**
Tired and old, nothing new. A story that came straight off the assembly line. Would have been more interesting (and more violent and more psychopathic) if they'd used Frank Miller's treatise on the character, the 8-part series "Elektra: Assassin." The obsessive-compulsive disorder that plagues Elektra is ill-defined, as it's not clear how it relates to any aspect of her life, past or present. Her enemies, in The Hand (a paranormal yakuza), are dull and boring, and even some CGI wizardry doesn't make them more so, actually less so. An uninspired comic book piece.
Link11 rants|Rant rant rant

DVD and Film Mini-Reviews #55 [Mar. 31st, 2005|05:07 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

Where Eagles Dare (Brian G. Hutton, 1968)
****
An excellent well-told WW2 thriller. A plot that twists and turns, but follows logically from each previous step. Good casting with Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood. Great location shooting as well in Austria, with some fairly hairy Bond-like stunts to keep the adrenaline pumping. The story: a US general has been captured by the Nazis, and a team of MI-6 operatives and an American Army Ranger head behind enemy lines to rescue him. Although the plot is logical enough, the way in which they break into a heavily guarded mountain fortress, and the ultimate reasons for risking life and limb to do so, may seem a little far-fetched. But even given that, it's a well-told and exciting yarn.

Dune (Mini-Series) (John Harrison, 2000)
****
Excellent adaptation of Herbert's seminal novel. Whereas I enjoyed Lynch's version, it was far too short to cover the novel adequately. This mini-series wins out. I'm not sure anyone else could do much better. The most striking thing about this adaptation is the cinematography. Completely filmed on soundstages, it gives the feeling of something operatic, especially with the unique lighting that was used. Lighting that actually engages the viewer, develops emotion. The casting, for the most part, is great (with the exception of William Hurt who is truly horrific). The story: Imperial families vie for control over Arrakis, a planet that contains the most valuable substance in the universe.

Children of Dune (Greg Yaitanes, 2003)
***1/2
An adaptation of two Herbert novels: "Dune Messiah" and "Children of Dune." I haven't read the novels so can't speak to the adaptation. As a follow-up to Dune, it works quite nicely. Major complaint: the style of filming and cinematography weren't carried over entirely. A shame. It would have worked as marvelously with this mini-series as it did the precursor. Minor complaint: Some continuity is broken with the recasting of a few characters from the previous mini-series. The story: the mythology of the Muad'Dib is examined further. Engaging mini-series, and I find myself hoping they'll do some of the other Dune novels.

Battlestar Galactica (Michael Rymer, 2003)
***
I wasn't bowled over by this mini-series, which exists solely to set the premise for the new series. The story: Cylons launch a surprise attack and destroy Earth, the last remaining humans run off in the Battlestars. The story was bland, as were the characters. Nothing about this made me want to start watching the series (I probably will, but will wait for rental time.) Can't say I was ever a big fan of the original series and movies, so perhaps that has something to do with my nonplussed attitude about this update (and the changes they made). Was a little annoyed that, for budgetary reasons, there were few Cylons, instead mostly replaced by human-looking cyborgs.

Intermission (John Crowley, 2003)
**1/2
One of those films where a bunch of unrelated characters all have stories that end up intersecting in some manner. There are the really good films in this genre, such as Short Cuts or Magnolia. Intermission is neither of these. It's not a bad film, it's just not a very good one. This one takes place in Dublin, following a bunch of down-and-out losers. Colm Meaney, as he does so often, creates the film's most memorable character, but he's not on-screen enough for the viewers to really latch on to him. And none of the other characters are well-drawn enough so that some connection can be made between character and audience.

Logan's Run (Michael Anderson, 1976)
**
A goofy, though mildly entertaining, sci-fi thriller. In the far future the last of humanity lives a life of entertainment and debauchery in a domed city, their needs tended by complex computer systems. There's only one catch, at 30 years of age you're killed to make way for the next crop of humans. Some people, though, don't want to die, thus they become Runners. Logan is a Sandman, he tracks and eliminates these Runners. The computer system eventually tasks Logan with locating the place where Runners run -- Sanctuary. Although the ending is supposed to be an affirmation of freedom and the human spirit, I couldn't help thinking: "These people are now completely fucked." (Aside: They really missed a Soylent Green moment with the robot/ice cave scene.)
Link8 rants|Rant rant rant

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]

Advertisement