Reviews

26 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Solaris (1972)
9/10
An exquisitely crafted space and mind exploration
23 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
2001: A Space Odyssey may have invented the slow, meditative sci-fi art-piece, but Solaris followed it in its tracks with its own suit and mind. Because of similarities in their style and method, the two films have been pinned together as rival sister movies ever since their releases and have been compared and compressed time over time by film geeks and scholars alike. That Tarkovsky and Kubrick were both such meticulous (and successful) visionaries in their art direction and scene construction connects the two films more than anything. The main difference is that where 2001: A Space Odyssey is an external peer into the unknown unattainable answers of existence, as spacious and cerebral as it is, Solaris is an internal drama at its core and the connection it builds us with its characters drives the mystery it presents.

The film begins with Kris, a researcher/psychologist spending his last day on Earth before embarking on an interstellar mission to the distant and foreign planet Solaris, wandering through the wilderness deep in thought. His troubled mind is reminded of the news that all scientists and personnel who have attempted to examine the planet Solaris have succumbed to psychotic episodes and hallucinations. A friend and former exploratory pilot visits Kris to convince him that his hallucinations were real, and were product or creation of the planet. All this does is further compel Kris to his mission: to assess the current scientists aboard the Solaris space station and determine whether it is reasonable or even possible to continue research. After burning his possessions and keepsakes and having an intimate conversation with his father, Kris closes his life on Earth and departs for space.

Upon arrival at the space station, Kris enters to find that one of the scientists, his liaison and friend, has committed suicide and the remaining two scientists are shadowed by apparitions of people from their former lives (coyly referred to as "guests"). The message left to Kris from his deceased friend is that the planet can read minds and would copy and deliver people out of personal memories to those who were near to it. Soon enough Kris is met with his own guest, a replicate of his dead wife, Hari, who appears and acts like Hari but has no knowledge or memory of what she is; with no other anchors, she is attaches herself to Kris.

Up to this point and through to the end, what little the film is able to cast in its philosophical glare it exceeds with in environment and internal struggle. The contrast between the settings of Earth and the spaceship are frightening in their scope. Shots of Earth show a flowing, natural beauty of familiar comfort: reeds flowing through a river, rain dripping through the trees and wind rustling through the fields, a cozy lived-in home, animals…. The ship is like a cold, aesthetic Soviet version of a Jetsons prison with sparse, anarchic hallways and either empty or cluttered rooms. In one scene a remaining crewman shows Kris that he can cut a piece of paper into strips and put it over an air vent so that it can mimic the sound of rustling leaves. A loose, dripping pipe is the closest substitute to rain. Kurosawa, after a private screening with Tarkovsky, turned to him and said "It's very good. It's a frightening movie." I can see where he is coming from with the movie's presentation of space life in and of itself.

Aboard this bleak, exotic space station, Kris must come to terms with his guest, the closest substitute to his wife he can perceive, a product of his mind that cannot leave him and cannot die. If he allows her existence become a reality, what becomes of the memory of his dead wife and how, with this reality, can he differentiate a copied fabrication of someone from who they are truly representing? These are burdensome questions that story cannot answer but the characters continually meditate on. The film's final scene gives an even greater prescience to these questions and meditations.

Tarkovsky's restraint in probing the film's preternatural centerpiece gives the movie a lofty, cerebral air, but holding back its mystery was also likely a necessity to pass the Soviet censors. After the back and forth censoring disputes of Tarkovsky's previous film, Andrei Rublev, causing the film to be suppressed nationally and internationally for years, Soviets footed that Tarkovsky "remove the concept of God" from Solaris entirely. Considering the stakes of a gargantuan production budget it's a wonder that Tarkovsky was even able to pen the script at all without the censor flaring their noses. With careful writing, Tarkovsky avoids the question of creation and being of these strange, familiar human apparitions and instead uses their existence to probe the mind and condition of them and their hosts. In the film we see Kris evolve a relationship with this strange being who for all disbelieving is his wife Hari, and in turn we see Hari, who has no connection to who Kris's wife is, only that she must be her, face the limits of her own identity.

Near the beginning of the movie we see the former exploratory pilot ruminating in the back of his private car on a freeway after showing Kris the hearing of his Solaris experience. There is no dialogue, only abstract, minimal sound effects of streets noises and footage of highway to accompany his stark, searching eyes. The scene is approximately 7 minutes long. If you find yourself considering and pondering the positions of these characters and the consequences of their situations, the movie's space is rich and spiritual; however if you find nothing to ruminate on, it's likely that you will find Solaris a lengthy, tedious streak of long shots and sparse dialogue with very little payoff. Luckily the film gives us plenty of nourishment to ruminate on.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Charlie Kauffman's meta-fictions hit their breaking point
12 January 2011
Charlie Kaufman's directorial debut is an sprawling look at the paradox of translating introversion into expression, and this is by no means an original notion - just look at 8 1/2, Adaptation (written by Kaufman), Barton Fink, Inland Empire etc. etc. (hell, it might as well be its own genre...) Naturally, the product being a jumbled mess just comes with the territory, but I feel that 'Synecdoche' especially lacks the cohesiveness to convey anything more than abstraction - and least of all does it try for profundity. Unfortunately, Kaufman's writing is completely to blame because everything else here is pitch perfect - the casting/acting, the set, the sound editing all complement the ideas and mood throughout the film. What Kaufman needs to learn is that not all ideas are good, and to stick so many of them all so heedlessly into a movie and try to legitimize doing so with the title 'Synecdoche' is an insult to the viewers. I'll just stick with 8 1/2, thank you.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Host (2006)
4/10
An exciting premise turns itself into a joke
7 December 2010
Initially billing itself as a horror movie and then consequently received by critics as a metaphorical Eastern satire, Joon-ho Bong's "The Host" is more than anything a silly farce. The idea of a modern monster movie with goofy Shaolin Soccer-style writing is intriguing, but the movie sits in the imperfect middle ground where it's neither serious nor fun enough as it's trying to be. The writers create a bit of shallow melodrama, vague settings and unbelievable characters and then suddenly create a mutant monster to attack all the inhabitants of the city. The acting is all over the place - take one instance when the family is mourning over the loss of the little girl (the hinging factor of the movie), and all of the actors transition instantly from mourning to just plain silliness, making the entire sequence ineffective. The monster itself, as awesome as it looks, doesn't even feel like a threat most of the time, which is a result of both bad writing and bad sound editing - bad writing because the entire city doesn't seem to worry about a colossal river creature eating and stealing humans, and bad sound editing because every time an action sequence begins the volume of the soundtrack and effects drop significantly, which really kills the intensity of those moments. Basically the movie is not over-the-top enough to laugh at nor serious enough to be greatly considered.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An eye-opening tracing of the fate of one of the most prestigious collections of art in the world
6 December 2010
"The Art of the Steal" follows the fate of The Barnes Collection, the most prestigious and valuable post-impressionist art collection in the world, tracing the battle between collector and museums over the course of 75 years. The origin of the collection is quite a story: Dr. Barnes, who had gained wealth in breakthrough scientific research, acquired some of the best modern paintings of the time by having something that museums and art critics of the time didn't have - taste and pure intuition. Over time, however, the artwork garnered the acclaim it deserved, but Barnes was determined to keep his collection private and have it appreciated by those who were willing to give the paintings the proper study they deserved. This belief became a trademark of his estate, but after Barnes' death and the passage of time, ownership of the collection became more and more blurry and penetrable to former enemies of Barnes, namely The Philadelphia Enquirer and The Philadelphia Art Museum, who wished to make the gallery public. After years of legal struggle (a series of back and forths the documentary covers to an almost painful degree), the city finally obtains it for a measly $107 million, a shadow to the estimated $25 billion the collection is worth.

The documentary is very clear in pointing out that the fate of the collection is directly contrary to what Barnes had wished for it. In fact, everyone who has hands currently on the collection are the very people who opposed and battled the existence of the collection to begin with. What the documentary doesn't present very well is the passage of time - Barnes has been dead for nearly 60 years, and keeping the wishes of a dead man alive when that much money is at stake and ownership is juggled around naturally becomes a more and more difficult thing to do. What it effectively portrays is the tourist attraction that art has become, a cash cow to governments who have the opportunity to capitalize on it. Whether this is a travesty or not is up to debate, but what is certain is that the city of Philadelphia effectively stole the property of Barnes and mocked the idea of personal wealth. The overall outcome is that now the collection can be viewed by anyone and everyone publicly - a point that the documentary seems determined not to emphasize (one reason is probably because 90% of the interviewees were associated with or supported the original foundation.) As nothing more than a spectator, I'm personally excited that this legendary artwork will be on display for everyone to see for the first time, but being aware of the underbelly of politics behind the gallery makes the silver lining all the more bittersweet.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
21 Grams (2003)
7/10
Be thankful that Gonzalez Inarritu has not made a movie about your life
25 October 2010
Between "Amores Perros," "Babel" and this movie, Gonzalez Inarritu has produced some of the heaviest dramas of the past 10 years. Perhaps it is because they all deal with such shattered characters - in this case we are given a man who has just undergone heart replacement surgery which temporarily alleviates the strain between him and his separated wife, a born-again man who suddenly finds himself responsible for running over and killing a husband and two girls and the woman who has lost her whole family in that car accident. Each of these characters are faced with the idea of moving on with their lives; as we watch them adjust, we see that the difficulty isn't overcoming the past - it's the realization that they don't even understand what their lives are anymore. The serious performances from the three leads (Sean Penn, Benicio del Toro and Naomi Watts) are really what give the film its depth, and even make up for Inarritu's completely unnecessary nonlinear style, which seems to serve no purpose other than to make the viewer pay more attention.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stalker (1979)
9/10
With "Stalker" expect to be absorbed but not fulfilled
16 October 2010
Andrei Tarkovsky is by all means an impossible director: his meticulous long-shots seem to unravel time itself; his sparse philosophical dialogue creeps into your vacuous head and spins around; his characters seem to be more caught up in themselves than in the world around them. All of this together creates a necessarily cerebral product, a film that both requires and repels your attention. With this methodology, Tarkovsky created some of his greatest masterpieces, including "Andrei Rublev" and "Solaris," and it is a methodology that does not exist whatsoever in Hollywood (the closest resemblance might be Gus van Sant's "Gerry"). Because of this, watching a Tarkovsky film is always a change, a change that I usually welcome.

OK, now that that's out of the way, on to the movie. "Stalker" is a film that stretches the definition of sci-fi and fantasy. The setting very much relies on the viewer's imagination; it is clear that the actors are just parading around the Russian wilderness and a dilapidated country town, but the mood and atmosphere created by the long shots transform these common sceneries into mysterious territories known as "The Zone" and "The Town." The Zone is sanctioned off from the public by the government, but people known as "Stalkers" guide people through the zone. We watch as one Stalker leads a writer and a scientist through The Zone in search of The Room, a place where your wishes come true. Nothing in the film is given a definite label - descriptors are essentially proper nouns and the world is left too ambiguous for proper definition. This sparseness is actually what gives the film it's strength, because it plays on the exact idea that Tarkovsky is trying to display - a blend of the conscious and subconscious. On their journey to The Room, the characters reveal themselves to us piece by piece, what they desire and what their life means to them, but rarely is it through direct action, and most of the time the camera isn't even focused on them. This leads to a hypnotic composite of fantasy and reality, a confusion of what the character can and cannot control. What we are supposed learn is that our deepest darkest desires always betray what we want. What we witness for our characters is a loss of self and place in a setting that we don't understand.

The plot of "Stalker" could easily be compiled into a 15 minute short and contain the same message, but that would betray the beauty of the film. However, I don't think that Tarkovsky's devices are necessarily to be praised for the film's effectiveness - like I said before, the craft of the movie was simply enough to make a cerebral product that will infect your brain, but the substance leaves a little to be desired. The writing itself is not that great and seemed to be checkered throughout when Tarkovsky felt like something needed to be thrown in. I also can't necessarily affirm that I understood the movie; still, the thought of watching it all again to understand it more fully seems a little too daunting right now. If you do watch it, expect to be tantalized, but not to be blown away.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mean Streets (1973)
9/10
Scorsese's first masterpiece: a unique and unsettling vision
16 October 2010
"Mean Streets" was a little low-budget 1973 movie directed by some guy named Martin Scorsese and starring the little up-and-coming actor Robert de Niro. Though it's often overshadowed by his later works (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas), "Mean Streets" was really Scorsese's first masterpiece and truly deserves credit of its own.

As to being forgotten, one thing that the movie has going against it is the fact that it doesn't have much of a discernible plot: Johnny Boy owes some money and is being chased by loan sharks, and his friend Charlie is trying to protect him. That's about it. Both are haunted and driven by the vicious streets of Little Italy and must cope with the sins that surviving in a place like that demand. However, rather than showing us a progression towards a certain path, Scorsese pinpoints each of the characters as they are - just living life and doing what they must to get by. It is told as a series of vignettes (similar to Fellini's "Amarcord," also made the same year), not necessarily building on one another, but digging deeper into the characters, revealing the ambitions and limits of both Johnny Boy and Charlie.

A major theme of the movie is the contrast between the immoral successful life of the mob and the pious life of the Church - a duality that plagues Charlie. Scorsese colors this contrast with claustrophobic shots of Manhattan, filling even the darkest alleys with Catholic imagery. These images perhaps express the director's own feelings of the futility of living in Little Italy, a feeling that manifests in Charlie, and drives Johnny Boy just short of insane. It's a portrayal of an impossible lifestyle, and represented with dialogue and demeanor that is now iconic to Scorsese productions: this movie pretty much defined the cinematic portrayal of Italian-Americans.

Finally, there is Scorsese's directing itself, whose technical skill is more than anyone could ask for from a novice director. His blend of follow-shots, short shots, tracking shots, and slow-motion shots (and whatever else you can think of) give an immersion that wouldn't otherwise be possible with the uninvolving plot. Of course, being a low-budget movie from the 1970s, it has it's technical problems (bad dubbing especially), but Scorsese unique camera-work and eye for detail overcome those limitations. Luckily, the success of this movie skyrocketed this nobody director to worldwide acclaim, and now 40 years later, Scorsese is considered one of the greatest American filmmakers of all time.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Peeping Tom (1960)
8/10
A shocking probe into voyeurism and film-making
12 October 2010
In 1960 two great directors, Michael Powell and Alfred Hitchcock, both released their most shocking and controversial films. "Psycho" further solidified Hitchcock as a master director in the US; "Peeping Tom" ostracized Powell from the UK film industry and pretty much exiled him from his home country.

The most visually shocking moment of "Peeping Tom" comes in the opening scene, a superbly crafted segment in which our antihero, Mark, approaches a prostitute, goes up to her room, and proceeds to kill her. As the audience, we see this whole scenario take place through the lens of Mark's camera, and we soon learn that he thrills himself by filming the victims that he murders. Mark could well be portrayed as a monster, but instead Powell chooses to make us feel close to him - not only to understand his actions but to sympathize with them. The films theme of voyeurism is seeped into every scene. Not only does it drive Mark to commit his insane actions, but it involves us, the audience, as well. It gives us the sense that we are watching something that we shouldn't, a feeling that caused the British critics to loathe the movie, one critic calling it "the sickest and filthiest film I can remember seeing." The movie wouldn't have been nearly as effective without German actor Carl Boehm's portrayal of Mark. He plays this scarred and broken character to a subtle perfection - his awkward stances and nervous twitches really make the character feel alive; after the movie's premier in London, critics were scared to even shake the actor's hand afterward.

Luckily, time has allowed "Peeping Tom" to mature into the classic it is known as today. Many film critics who panned the film on first release have now changed their opinion of it, most calling it one of the most important British films ever made. That isn't to say it is a perfect movie; the middle of the movie slumps a bit and the doomed relationship between Mark and his tenant, Vivian, could have been crafted with more tension. Still, Powell offers us one of the most disturbing looks into the limits of film and his product is sure to give you a deep psychological chill.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rififi (1955)
8/10
An unforgettable heist
29 September 2010
"Rififi" is often considered the landmark film that modernized heist movies, and it shines brilliantly as a suave, sexy crime noir (that happens to be French). There are flashes of expressionism throughout - the tantalizing 'Rififi' nightclub song sequence and the shadowy night shots, but the classic quick-slung dialogue and refined criminal setting really give the movie its stride.

Of course, it would be impossible to review this movie without mentioning the heist - a complex suspense sequence that takes up a full 28 minutes of running time and has no audio other than the slightest tap of a hammer or patter of a footstep. You can hear your own heartbeat race as each new step of their setup is revealed, bringing a new fear that it won't work or they may be discovered. Even though they carry the stride of first-class cons (they break into the jewelry store wearing complete suits), the characters express both confidence and doubt in their maneuvers, making every second of the continuity exhilarating. When it is finally over, you breathe a sigh of relief for these guys.

Even though the heist is the pinnacle of the film, it only takes place halfway through. The second half is a moralist plug that chronicles the downfall of the cons after their perfect crime. Though it has some great scenes and completes the circle of development of each of the characters, it feels like the movie blew off most of its steam by the end. Even though the tension has all but left, there is a strange sense of loss seeing all the characters you cheered for in the first half take their inevitable fall. It's a classic tale, but told with complexity and craft that was completely new for its time, and served as a basis for every other heist-crime movie, from "Reservoir Dogs" to "Ocean's Eleven."
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
"I'd like to behave, but I don't know how to"
28 September 2010
"Los Olvidados" is a brutal watch - it's a realist representation of a world of adolescent cruelty where chaos and immorality reign supreme. The film begins with the character "Jaibo" escaping from jail to join his gang of prepubescent miscreants, including the main character Pedro, who terrorize and rob the underprivileged, even a blind man. It's a classic portrayal of rebellion and youth mentality: life and society exist to exploit and the gang takes advantage of that, but Bunuel carries it with such close impassiveness that the movie creates an instant familiarity with the characters as they are introduced.

After some opening scenes the movie begins to focus on the moral contrasts between Jaibo and Pedro, beginning when Pedro sees Jaibo accidentally kill someone he suspects was responsible for landing him in jail. Jaibo is shown to be an opposing force to society, a opportunist who acts on desire without conscious and gives no thought to greater justice. Pedro, however quickly becomes haunted by the guilt of the murder (with comes along with a delicious taste of Bunuel's surrealism) and is caught between the worlds of society and Jaibo. Bunuel uses this space well, showing the way that society fights against youth and youth against society in a never-ending war. In this world of despair, no person stands unscathed - the blind man is revealed to be a pervert and the town parents have essentially dissociated themselves from their children, either due to indifference or fear. Institutes to correct this problem are even shown to fail. The result is a rifted, broken society.

In a world this hopeless, criticism is just a piercing gaze and Bunuel has managed to capture it flawlessly. Even though "Los Olvidados" might not be considered his crowning achievement, it certainly stands as a great, powerful film.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Flywheel (2003)
1/10
A Christian allegory that hits as lightly as a nail on the head
28 September 2010
In the beginning, we are faced with a character who is a terrible father and husband, a ruthless salesman, is in debt, and is lost in faith. This movie supposes that only addressing one of those issues is enough to solve all of his combined problems (I'll leave it to you to guess which one...) Still, chronicling one man's discovery of faith isn't this movie's problem, and in fact it could have been it's main strength; Christian values have their places in movie dramas, but this movie uses charm as an excuse for blandness and its boasted do-it-yourself/preaching attitude as a cover up for uninspired writing/acting. It's especially painful when the movie reaches the end of the road and makes its point halfway through the running time, but then decides to spend the rest of the scenes rubbing our faces in it, making sure that it's ingrained enough in your head.

Most of all, even though this movie has a lot to say about what we should believe in, one thing the writers definitely don't believe in is a personal conscience - the power of oneself to extend goodwill to others based on right and wrong, not because a threatening God is judging everything you do. I guess I just have a little more hope for humanity than they do....

If Carl Dreyer could see how low the state of spiritual movies has fallen, he would be rolling in his grave.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Political allegory for the rest of us
28 September 2010
This blast of subversive pop cinema is a thrill ride from beginning to end, and will probably stand as the best film adaptation of all of Alan Moore's work. However, the production is both propelled and impaired by the Wachowski Brothers' influence - the stylized violence, which was very well choreographed and shot, is bound to be campy in a few years' time and the dramatic storyline is carried too much by actors with the same serious deadpan British dialogue (hearing just audio, I doubt I'd be able to identify the voices to the actors, which for some reason just bothers me.) Still, in the end, the movie gives us exactly what we want - controversy, an awesome antihero, and a huge, giant explosion.
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A superviolent hyperized ninja film? Yes, but a crappy one
28 September 2010
All other standards aside, to me 'Ninja Assassin" is really flawed on two fundamental levels - first of all, the plot is completely over-thought, overwritten, and completely irrelevant to the action on screen. We don't need a complicated trisecting storyline with brain-dead characters to complement random limbs getting hacked apart (and believe me, there are plenty of limbs flying around this movie). The second main flaw, to me at least, is the movie's idea of a ninja. To me, ninjas are meant to be unassuming, enigmatic, killers who work alone for some self-defined benefit. Not in this movie. Here, ninjas are essentially as refined as an LA street-gang who run aimlessly around and throw ungodly amounts of ninja stars, which coincidentally sound like loud bullets, which ruins the point of a using a ninja star over a gun. Most of the ninjas in the movie are there to simply get shot down by the SWAT team (the movie wastes no time for epic, romantic battle scenes, save for the few with the Asian superstar Rain). To top it all off, there is not a single smoke bomb! Dammit!
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm Not There (2007)
10/10
The essential Bob Dylan biopic, and it isn't even a biopic
28 September 2010
If there was was ever a film that could embody Bob Dylan, this is it, and that being said it is no means a biography. Rather than trying to encapsulate Dylan's life in any serial fashion, Todd Haynes opts to intersperse the different incarnations of the singer in both his music and personal life, imbuing surrealism and pure fiction to explain the chaos of his life. That being said, I wouldn't recommend this movie to people who aren't familiar with Bob Dylan or the musical movements of the 1960s-1970s; references like Pete Seeger trying to chop the electric cables with an axe at the Newport Folk Festival or tongue-in-cheek humor such as Dylan shouting at Jesus on the cross to "bring back your old stuff" would definitely go over most people's heads without any background.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Russian Ark (2002)
10/10
A Handcrafted Visual and Cerebral Masterpiece
27 September 2010
"Is this a dream?" "Maybe, maybe. But I'm wide awake."

Director Aleksandr Sokurov takes the idea of admiring St. Petersburg's Hermitage through the eye of a camera, and creates a vast, sprawling dream sequence that feels just like dipping your brain in a vat of icy-hot. As the camera drifts through corridor after corridor, the setting constantly shifts - in one room you will encounter the director's friends admiring a painting, while in the next room Catherine II is teaching children how to properly curtsy (not to mention a carpenter in a closet making coffins for WWII cavalry). At the helm of this mad tour is the strange guide, who appears out of thin air and constantly judges every detail, from the art to the museum guests. It's hard to know for sure whether he is a figment of our imagination, a phantom, or, as the narrator suggests, a symbol for Europe's constant patronization for Russian art and culture; whatever he represents, Sergei Donstov plays him with an eccentric performance well worth remembering. However, if classical art isn't your thing, and you won't be won over by decadence or ethereal camera-work, 'Russian Ark' probably doesn't have much to offer you. But then my retort would be: Why are you watching movies?
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Still Life (2006)
7/10
Zhangke's "Still Life" is a powerful look into modern China
27 September 2010
Uncertainty is at the stem of Jia Zhangke's "Still Life" and it molds itself into many forms - uncertainty as to what China's economic boom holds for its future, displaced people uncertain whether they will ever see those they have lost again, and uncertainty over whether love that is broken can ever be mended. All of this takes place in the backdrop of Fengjie village, which was at the time being upheaved for the construction of Three Gorges Dam (now complete, and the largest electricity-generating plant in the world). Zhangke's use of a real setting and detail provides for some powerful shots, and it's this type of filmmaking that has formed him into one of China's foremost artistic commentators. However, in this movie especially, his cultural scope felt almost more alienating than immersing (one of my major complaints of Apichatpong Weerasethakul's films), enough so to diminish the overall entertainment value.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Iron Man 2 (2010)
4/10
Iron Man 2: Funnecessary
27 September 2010
It's easy to write off "Iron Man 2" as easy enjoyment, but let's look at what we have here: Mickey Rourke plays the blandest Russian villain imaginable; Robert Downey Jr. pulls off the role of Tony Stark as well as last time, but the bickering between him and Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper gets worn thin pretty quickly; Scarlett Johansson shows up supposedly to introduce romantic strain between Stark and Pepper, but it soon becomes apparent that she is more there for the audience to ogle at (which I did). Saddest of all, the most interesting part of the movie was the Avengers subplot, which in the end really has no influence in the realm of the movie. And the discovery of Thor's Hammer at the end of the closing credits reveals all - "Iron Man 2" really isn't much more than a mediary between the (deserved) hype of the first "Iron Man" and the hype of the upcoming "Thor" movie. And this is why no one likes a critic. But seriously, Scarlett Johansson is hot.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Antichrist (2009)
8/10
Lars von Trier shocks us all
27 September 2010
Enmity grows between a couple after their infant dies and the husband tries to help his wife overcome her grief, but the further into her grief he goes, the deeper the cut in their relationship becomes.

Lars von Trier wrote this movie in the peak of a bout of depression, and the result probably his most provocative work to date (which, for him, is saying a lot). Despite the slow pacing, the movie is rife with shocking visuals and testy material. The film may also be his most exquisite one - the first half unravels like a demonic, impressionistic dream while the last half morphs into a mesmerizing nightmare, allowing the movie to pin itself as a slasher. Even if the director's previous efforts haven't grabbed your attention, this movie is sure to compel you in some way - that's precisely what it does.

Still, von Trier's exposed representation of carnal desire and trauma is a lot to level with for the sake of art, especially for the actors involved. Multiple times throughout the movie we see Charlotte Gainsbourg revealing herself to an almost absurd extent. Luckily Gainsbourg rises past the visual debasement and puts on a completely chilling performance as the broken wife (this didn't save the movie from winning an anti-award from judges at the Cannes for its misogyny, though).

"Antichrist" is a hot-boiled meditation covered in controversy, and odds are we won't be seeing anything else like it anytime soon - I don't know whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. Either way, I highly suggest checking it out.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Paranoid Park (2007)
7/10
Existential Skater Punk Movie? Only Gus Van Sant
27 September 2010
Often when directors become big and famous, they'll lament about having to sacrifice personal projects for the 'big blockbuster,' as if that was some excuse for selling out (*cough*GeorgeLucas*cough*). That's why I have a lot of respect for Gus van Sant, a guy who struck a chord with audiences and critics alike in the late 90s, but flew completely under the radar afterward, writing and directing films that he felt were significant to him. "Paranoid Park" is a perfect example of that - a sort of skater-crime-drama about a kid who is accidentally responsible for the death of a cop. Fortunately the movie doesn't hinge on plot twists, but focuses on the kid, Alex, and how his life is affected before and after. The film is spliced with what looks to be home videos of skateboard footage and is topped off with new and young actors, giving the whole movie an amateur vibe. This turns out to be an advantage - there's nothing that complements the confusion that comes with being a teenager as well as a sense of authenticity. Overall, the movie doesn't pack as much of a punch as "Elephant," or isn't as absorbing as "Gerry," but is likely to stay with you and keep you wondering, "what if that was me?"
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Salt (2010)
7/10
SALT - A Modern Action Film
27 September 2010
"Salt" may start off with some clunky storytelling, but once the action takes off (which it doesn't take too long to do), it's a senseless joyride, finding a niche style that fits nicely between "Bourne"-style realism and "Mission Impossible" inanity (yes, a mask is used at one point in the movie). Of course, the driving force is Angelina Jolie as Evelyn Salt, a CIA agent who is accused of being a Russian spy. Salt is altogether a static character, but shifts in narrative constantly make our view of her dynamic, not letting us know whether to pin her as hero or antihero, and Jolie plays this ambiguity to perfection. The movie itself isn't perfect, though - to me, occasional plot holes made it more confusing than "Inception," and the idea of a Cold War carry-over in this day and age is somewhat laughable. Still, the movie plays its thrills right, and character of Salt fulfills what she was written to be - a bona fide action star.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Up in the Air (I) (2009)
8/10
Reitman is back, but this time he's pointing the camera at grown-ups
27 September 2010
Jason Reitman's tale of corporate downsizing is bound to strike a chord with moviegoers in our modern recession and was released at the perfect time. However, unlike most topical films, which tend to slide into obscurity after their time in the limelight, I feel 'Up in the Air' will be remembered as a timeless classic which can really reach out to anyone. All three leads (George Clooney, Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick) are breathtaking in their character roles, each carrying a sense of enigma affixed with their own goals and expectations for love and life, and as always each is compromised along the way. The relationship between Clooney and Farmiga has incredible chemistry, and Kendrick's conjunction of professionalism and idealism was handled perfectly.

Though most of the dialogue is infused with that quick wit you can always expect from Reitman films, this movie really proves to be one of the most devastating and heavy films of the year. It perfectly embodies the journey of middle-age angst just as 'Juno' represented the indifference of smart-ass teenagers. Just like 'Juno', though, it is more likely appeal more to the age group it is depicting.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Avatar (2009)
9/10
An astonishing visual achievement with classic storytelling
27 September 2010
I had heard a lot about "Avatar" before seeing it, and the general complaint from most was the movie's lack of originality. Having seen the movie, I would agree that the premise is nowhere near unique, but to me originality shouldn't be the basis for judging the quality of a film. More than anything a truly great movie should be striking, and Avatar is precisely that. James Cameron used his budget ($237m) to create one of the most engrossing environments to ever grace the screen, and pushed the 3D technology (which I don't even like) to the limit. The result is pure spectacle; behind me in the movie theater there was a family with three children and throughout the 2 1/2 hours there were constant exclamations of "Wow!" and "Oohh!" at every new vista. I would have been slightly annoyed had I not realized I wanted to say the same things, and for a movie to revert a hardened critic like me to a world of pure escapist wonder, I have to give the film credit.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
My Winnipeg (2007)
10/10
Guy Maddin takes us into his own fantasy
27 September 2010
What is "My Winnipeg"? Sure, it's easy to dismiss it as an experimental film, but that's like blacklisting it to a future in some storage bin in a modern art museum, which would be a shame. The film claims to be a documentary about Guy Maddin's hometown, Winnipeg, MB. The footage shows what appears to be reenactments of Maddin's childhood, scenes from his family and a speckled history of the town. The narrative feels like it is being materialized just as Maddin thinks it, juggling arresting emotion and fleeting sentimentality. The repeating stock footage, circular cinematography and grizzly black and white tone make the film hypnotic to watch and add to its dream-like state.

From the beginning it's obvious that this 'reality' is pure imagination, a fantasy concocted by Maddin, but for what purpose? Why is he trying to escape reality and his hometown that he loves so dearly? The best way to understand is to watch it, accept it as truth like Maddin has, and experience the world as it becomes a much more magical place.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Scott Pilgrim: A new vein of fun
27 September 2010
"Scott Pilgrim" is some sort of godsend to any guy between the ages of 17 and 25, and will probably be the most unique movie to hit your local theater this summer (stylistically, at least, for people who are gonna hound me about "Inception"). That isn't to say it won't be enjoyed by people who don't fit this category - it's just that the writing aims and hits at that precise demographic.

For a movie that manages to be nerdy, trendy, absurd, hipster and even touching, the pacing and editing are spot on. Even Michael Cera's deadpan, which has been lacking in his last couple of films, will be sure make you laugh this time around (even the milieu of savvy video game/indie jokes should at least entertain the unfamiliar). I've never read the original comic book serial, but the paneling of the comics shines through magnificently in the screenplay with its overblown camera angles and graphics - it's the exact kind of thing that belongs in a comic book adaptation.

The setting is also a perfect world for the plot - the overblown story takes place in modest Toronto, though a Toronto where no one breaks the age 30 barrier and high school seems eons away. It plays the college mentality to perfection: your age group is the only group that matters, and you will live life by your own whims. I'm a bit worried this direct exclusion of age groups is a factor that will deter a large portion of the movie-going crowd. For that certain crowd, though, this movie is the perfect remedy for boredom and is a great cap-off to the summer.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Jim Jarmusch gives us the first Zen crime drama
27 September 2010
"Ghost Dog," the story of an inner city dweller who lives by the way of the samurai soaks up its premise not in blood splatter but in level-headed absurdity and complexity, a focus that takes much more time to absorb. It's dialogue-heavy and meditative, taking time to observe and explain character motivations.

Still, the movie is fun in ways that you wouldn't expect - the antagonists are comprised of the worst mob probably ever caught on film: they are regularly shown whacking the wrong people, watching cartoons (the movies sly way of equating mob violence to cartoon violence) or falling behind on their rent. Ghost Dog, played by Forest Whitaker, is quite a character himself, trying to make sense of the world through Zen judgment and ancient ways by frequently quoting relevant passages from Hagakure, the book of the Samurai. Furthermore his 'best friend' is an ice cream truck man who can only speak French. This combined with the fact that the movie isn't afraid to address questions of morality and racism make the movie even more of a head-scratcher but nevertheless entertaining.

To top it all off, RZA's soundtrack is one of the highlights of the film, layering it with great old-style Wu-Tang hip-hop that is enough to make the movie worth watching itself.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed