9/15/15
What I expect, having not seen Inherent Vice:
Boogie Nights : Reservoir Dogs
Magnolia : Pulp Fiction
Punch-Drunk-Love-type-material : Kill-Bill-type-material
The Master : Inglorious Basterds
Inherent Vice : Django Unchained
Tarantino is the career-arc standard with which to compare, for some reason, in my mind, and Paul Thomas Anderson is the one being analogized, despite his being at the top of my canon.
Tarantino evidently doesn't have a There Will Be Blood.
Notice the trajectory of the analogy as being a great step down in humanism-- in some cases a step up in pleasure.
Sunday, October 11, 2015
Friday, August 28, 2015
Review: Inglorious Basterds
Seen a couple times and 8/28/14
3/4
While Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds is clearly a great film, wildly original and of supreme entertainment value, I am obliged to note foremost the contents of my most recent viewing, which was valuable as an experience only really to solidify my opinion of the movie for the next handful of years before I may see it again. I thought that it would strike me as it first did, which was so long ago and in such a different era of my filmviewing history, but it really didn't. I recognized the brilliance, but I didn't feel it. The Christoph Waltz dialogue was fantastic, as it always has been-- drawn and deliberate to the most impeccable form; similarly, Lt. Raine's twangy farting-otherwise-known-as-language was brilliantly placed and timed, holding an awesome, almost physical comedy. Other parts fell together with the gorgeous and perfect imperfection that marks Tarantino films. I guess I'm just too accustomed to this kind of film for the time being. Tarantino is no longer shocking, especially not his two recent films (Basterds and Django). Maybe I could still experience the full impact of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Yes, probably so.
3/4
While Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds is clearly a great film, wildly original and of supreme entertainment value, I am obliged to note foremost the contents of my most recent viewing, which was valuable as an experience only really to solidify my opinion of the movie for the next handful of years before I may see it again. I thought that it would strike me as it first did, which was so long ago and in such a different era of my filmviewing history, but it really didn't. I recognized the brilliance, but I didn't feel it. The Christoph Waltz dialogue was fantastic, as it always has been-- drawn and deliberate to the most impeccable form; similarly, Lt. Raine's twangy farting-otherwise-known-as-language was brilliantly placed and timed, holding an awesome, almost physical comedy. Other parts fell together with the gorgeous and perfect imperfection that marks Tarantino films. I guess I'm just too accustomed to this kind of film for the time being. Tarantino is no longer shocking, especially not his two recent films (Basterds and Django). Maybe I could still experience the full impact of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Yes, probably so.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Review: Inside Out
Seen 8/8/15
2.5/4
What feels like my first review in an eternity serves Pixar's newest polished, sparkling product, Inside Out. It is another Pixar breaking of barriers, reconfiguration of storytelling and animation, picture of terrific creativity and innovation. The thing is absolutely beautiful, visually (the studio takes another step toward perfection) and has a delicate Giacchino score to back it up. It also has a true emotional touch, driven by a personification of Sadness and raw displays of relatable mental activity. Beyond this, there is a progressive message motivating it all roughly concerning mental health. However, for all its beauty and melancholy and technical brilliance/innovation, Inside Out scores mediocre in many other ways. The humor, and its disappointing quality, is so inevitable. As the film started, I found myself dreaming about what it would be like if the movie were to remain in such sublime abstraction, such aesthetic grace and minimalism. But I knew that that was only a dream, as Pixar has an obligation. Unfortunately, the most brilliant and imaginative filmmaking team on Earth has an obligation to every shallow child in America. Thus, a brain-rotting humor took over a good part of the rest of the film, driving its wonderful premise and impeccable technical execution into weak commercialism. The script is unfortunate in many other ways, also. Some characters are cheap, dialogue is too fast-paced, kid-movie archetypes abound...
I did enjoy this film though, and I really appreciated its aesthetic and its emotional grace. Not all the humor is bad, either. Perhaps if Pixar didn't spend a billion dollars on every movie, they wouldn't mind trying one with a more complete quality.
2.5/4
What feels like my first review in an eternity serves Pixar's newest polished, sparkling product, Inside Out. It is another Pixar breaking of barriers, reconfiguration of storytelling and animation, picture of terrific creativity and innovation. The thing is absolutely beautiful, visually (the studio takes another step toward perfection) and has a delicate Giacchino score to back it up. It also has a true emotional touch, driven by a personification of Sadness and raw displays of relatable mental activity. Beyond this, there is a progressive message motivating it all roughly concerning mental health. However, for all its beauty and melancholy and technical brilliance/innovation, Inside Out scores mediocre in many other ways. The humor, and its disappointing quality, is so inevitable. As the film started, I found myself dreaming about what it would be like if the movie were to remain in such sublime abstraction, such aesthetic grace and minimalism. But I knew that that was only a dream, as Pixar has an obligation. Unfortunately, the most brilliant and imaginative filmmaking team on Earth has an obligation to every shallow child in America. Thus, a brain-rotting humor took over a good part of the rest of the film, driving its wonderful premise and impeccable technical execution into weak commercialism. The script is unfortunate in many other ways, also. Some characters are cheap, dialogue is too fast-paced, kid-movie archetypes abound...
I did enjoy this film though, and I really appreciated its aesthetic and its emotional grace. Not all the humor is bad, either. Perhaps if Pixar didn't spend a billion dollars on every movie, they wouldn't mind trying one with a more complete quality.
Friday, July 17, 2015
Review 2: The Place Beyond the Pines
Seen twice and 7/16/15
4/4
The Place Beyond the Pines, a dark masterpiece of gritty power and beauty, is doubtlessly one of my favorite films. The legendary characters and tough-won performances are totally unforgettable. There is a grungy might to this film that can only be paralleled by Cianfrance’s first work: both tear the heart and soul out of struggling American families, with the supremely perfect Ryan Gosling playing the young, hard-working fathers. Compared to Blue Valentine, The Place Beyond the Pines has gigantic scope, delivering dirty punch after dirty punch on an epic scale. This movie has a darkness that doesn’t really show up in the other. The impact of this film is enormous, and I can’t speak enough of the sensational people. This film is beautiful, a painful glory.
4/4
The Place Beyond the Pines, a dark masterpiece of gritty power and beauty, is doubtlessly one of my favorite films. The legendary characters and tough-won performances are totally unforgettable. There is a grungy might to this film that can only be paralleled by Cianfrance’s first work: both tear the heart and soul out of struggling American families, with the supremely perfect Ryan Gosling playing the young, hard-working fathers. Compared to Blue Valentine, The Place Beyond the Pines has gigantic scope, delivering dirty punch after dirty punch on an epic scale. This movie has a darkness that doesn’t really show up in the other. The impact of this film is enormous, and I can’t speak enough of the sensational people. This film is beautiful, a painful glory.
Sunday, July 5, 2015
Review: Blue Valentine
Seen twice and 7/5/15
4/4
Blue Valentine is amazing; almost like a miracle to me. It is on the level of intimacy, vulnerability, and authentic despair of only Blue is the Warmest Color. Dean and Cindy are some kind of Adele and Emma. The performances are unforgettable, impossibly strong and real, and the characters experience the full scope of human-to-human contact in brutal swings. Blue Valentine is a project of three people; director/writer Derek Cianfrance and lead actors / executive producers Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams. This team is a powerhouse that produces one of the finest-tuned portraits of a relationship that exists in film. Ryan Gosling is the greatest hero of them all to me: he improvises up a character that is one of my few favorites in all of cinema, giving incredible charisma, warmth and pure passion to the character of Dean. Gosling as Dean could be the most personally profound thing I have ever found in a movie, perhaps only rivaled by Synecdoche's atmosphere and Magnolia's emotional impact. Michelle Williams is also incredible, but portraying a character I find ages less heroic than Gosling.
This film is extremely meaningful in my view, extremely authentic and insightful. It's a monument.
4/4
Blue Valentine is amazing; almost like a miracle to me. It is on the level of intimacy, vulnerability, and authentic despair of only Blue is the Warmest Color. Dean and Cindy are some kind of Adele and Emma. The performances are unforgettable, impossibly strong and real, and the characters experience the full scope of human-to-human contact in brutal swings. Blue Valentine is a project of three people; director/writer Derek Cianfrance and lead actors / executive producers Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams. This team is a powerhouse that produces one of the finest-tuned portraits of a relationship that exists in film. Ryan Gosling is the greatest hero of them all to me: he improvises up a character that is one of my few favorites in all of cinema, giving incredible charisma, warmth and pure passion to the character of Dean. Gosling as Dean could be the most personally profound thing I have ever found in a movie, perhaps only rivaled by Synecdoche's atmosphere and Magnolia's emotional impact. Michelle Williams is also incredible, but portraying a character I find ages less heroic than Gosling.
This film is extremely meaningful in my view, extremely authentic and insightful. It's a monument.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Review: Babel
Seen once and 6/28/15
3.5/4
Babel is a beautiful, powerful, and meaningful film. It is all at once a heart-pounding human thriller, a class in cultural sensitivity and a breathtaking emotional tidal wave. This film mines deep, and by its incredible finale strikes the core of humanity. All sides of culture are observed and contemplated, all with a profoundly humane understanding by the divinely empathetic Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu. I am convinced that Inarritu understands humanity better than anyone in cinema. He is also a purely brilliant filmmaker. I feel that I could watch his movies over and over again and by that alone grow as a person, humanize my soul. His control of diverse cultures and complicated characters is flawless, and his artistry is beautiful.
Babel's name tells its greatest theme in one word: the misunderstandings between supposedly different peoples and the importance of overcoming this. A united human population would have prevented the crises of this film by communication and trust and support.
The first time I saw this film, I didn't appreciate it. I was a little bored at times, and didn't get much out of it other than some emotional power towards the end. My total appreciation of the film now is a testament to my growth as a viewer over the past few years, and encourages me as I venture into new territories in which I am not very appreciative. My experiences with Bergman have been exactly like my old experiences with Inarritu. But things change, clearly: I now consider Inarritu one of my few favorite directors, and I am confident that I understand Babel to its core. I loved every story, every amazing actor, Brad Pitt is one of my favorites in all of movies, I thought that the ending was perfect, and the themes were meaningful enough to actually teach me something after the film was over, which is very rare for me in film; everything worked exquisitely. This is a film that is almost exactly at my level right now: I understand it, appreciate it and love it. I can now store it away in my list of great films before continuing to move forward into more ambitious realms.
3.5/4
Babel is a beautiful, powerful, and meaningful film. It is all at once a heart-pounding human thriller, a class in cultural sensitivity and a breathtaking emotional tidal wave. This film mines deep, and by its incredible finale strikes the core of humanity. All sides of culture are observed and contemplated, all with a profoundly humane understanding by the divinely empathetic Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu. I am convinced that Inarritu understands humanity better than anyone in cinema. He is also a purely brilliant filmmaker. I feel that I could watch his movies over and over again and by that alone grow as a person, humanize my soul. His control of diverse cultures and complicated characters is flawless, and his artistry is beautiful.
Babel's name tells its greatest theme in one word: the misunderstandings between supposedly different peoples and the importance of overcoming this. A united human population would have prevented the crises of this film by communication and trust and support.
The first time I saw this film, I didn't appreciate it. I was a little bored at times, and didn't get much out of it other than some emotional power towards the end. My total appreciation of the film now is a testament to my growth as a viewer over the past few years, and encourages me as I venture into new territories in which I am not very appreciative. My experiences with Bergman have been exactly like my old experiences with Inarritu. But things change, clearly: I now consider Inarritu one of my few favorite directors, and I am confident that I understand Babel to its core. I loved every story, every amazing actor, Brad Pitt is one of my favorites in all of movies, I thought that the ending was perfect, and the themes were meaningful enough to actually teach me something after the film was over, which is very rare for me in film; everything worked exquisitely. This is a film that is almost exactly at my level right now: I understand it, appreciate it and love it. I can now store it away in my list of great films before continuing to move forward into more ambitious realms.
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
New blog
See andrewtalksaboutmoviesetc.blogspot.com for a more serious look at film, along with other kinds of culture.
Monday, June 15, 2015
Review: No Country for Old Men
Seen three times and 6/15/15
The most valuable thing I gained from my fourth viewing of No Country for Old Men is realizing that it's not about Llewelyn; it's not about Anton, nor Tommy Lee Jones' sheriff, nor the great cat-and-mouse game. No Country for Old Men is about evil. It is also about the degradation of society. That Llewelyn dies off-screen and in a middle section of the movie shows us how the narrative here is secondary. The character of Anton Chigurh personifies evil at its purest, most beautiful and untouchable form. He is no villain; he stands by his principles as well as anyone in the senseless world does, and he deserves to be respected for that. Tommy Lee Jones is our insight into the thematic core of this story; he is an older man who has witnessed the decay of society firsthand; being a sheriff, he has even seen the villains of the world grow deeper and darker and greater. He can't wrap his traditional head around the apparent lack of principles driving these men, but what he doesn't see is that either everyone has principles or no one does; he is perhaps immensely disturbed to find that he and the psychopath may be in the same boat.
The Coen brothers' film is fantastic in every way. They understand the message of the book, and portray it with brilliant consistency and artistic vision. They are gifted enough to even place their signature humor amidst a story so coated in blackness. The lack of music is perfect to communicate the blank brutality of this world. The performances are terrific, and the characters even better. This time, surprisingly, I was more interested in the sheriff, and even in Llewelyn, than in Anton. I was fascinated by the sheriff's simple expectations for the universe, and his both naive and wise acceptance of the succession of events. He absorbed them plaintively, with a firm knowledge that he was completely lost. He is a hero in my view, definitively.
The film is a minimalist reflection on God's absence from this world, and the subsequent free evil. The darkness is unrestrained and unstoppable: frightening and expected. It rules in this film, but the character of the sheriff gives me the hint that sometime in the future it can be fought, with the correct understanding of it.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Review: Pan's Labyrinth
Seen once and 6/14/15
3/4
While Pan's Labyrinth has the credit of being probably the world's premier adult fairytale--and one of only a few; a true revolutionary of its kind--my second viewing informed me that the film is basically no more than that; a conventional fairytale structure, only with enhanced effects, thicker background thematic content and a higher level of grotesqueness and brutality which are what allow the visionary Guillermo del Toro to drive his fantasy in deeper. del Toro is the auter here; this is his movie, and it's exclusively his child-like mind that gives the movie its worth and wonder. Judging this as an adult film, having a place in the real and harsh cinematic jungle, it isn't quite enough to be considered "great". It's a little too cheap and archetypal. But it is its own: very unique, and extremely valuable to that group of humans who has aged externally but not so much internally.
3/4
While Pan's Labyrinth has the credit of being probably the world's premier adult fairytale--and one of only a few; a true revolutionary of its kind--my second viewing informed me that the film is basically no more than that; a conventional fairytale structure, only with enhanced effects, thicker background thematic content and a higher level of grotesqueness and brutality which are what allow the visionary Guillermo del Toro to drive his fantasy in deeper. del Toro is the auter here; this is his movie, and it's exclusively his child-like mind that gives the movie its worth and wonder. Judging this as an adult film, having a place in the real and harsh cinematic jungle, it isn't quite enough to be considered "great". It's a little too cheap and archetypal. But it is its own: very unique, and extremely valuable to that group of humans who has aged externally but not so much internally.
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Review: Season 1: Sherlock
3/4
The show is good. Definitely. The lead is very likable to me, especially in the last episode. Perhaps even more than John Watson. The rush of the first episode is over, and I still can't figure out why that happened, but what I'm left with is a solid show. The dialogue and characters are great. I wouldn't mind continuing.
The show is good. Definitely. The lead is very likable to me, especially in the last episode. Perhaps even more than John Watson. The rush of the first episode is over, and I still can't figure out why that happened, but what I'm left with is a solid show. The dialogue and characters are great. I wouldn't mind continuing.
Review: Biutiful
Seen 6/13/15
3.5/4
I didn't quite grasp this film. It was split up, interrupted, and ultimately disserviced by not receiving its due attention. It was frustrating to me, because I knew that I was watching something of great quality. By the end, I felt the power and beauty of this film, but another viewing this summer should yield an appreciation throughout its duration. I know that it holds the potential to earn the kind of love that I only give to films, and only to select ones. I look forward to next time, which should be a fully powerful and meaningful experience. I also look forward to exploring in its entirety the work of Alejandro González Iñárritu, which after Biutiful and Birdman I view to be one of the most important ventures in film for me.
3.5/4
I didn't quite grasp this film. It was split up, interrupted, and ultimately disserviced by not receiving its due attention. It was frustrating to me, because I knew that I was watching something of great quality. By the end, I felt the power and beauty of this film, but another viewing this summer should yield an appreciation throughout its duration. I know that it holds the potential to earn the kind of love that I only give to films, and only to select ones. I look forward to next time, which should be a fully powerful and meaningful experience. I also look forward to exploring in its entirety the work of Alejandro González Iñárritu, which after Biutiful and Birdman I view to be one of the most important ventures in film for me.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Thoughts on Ep. 2: Sherlock
Seen 6/8/15
Oh no, is this one of those crime shows with a new case/criminal in each episode? A character-based CSI:? Or is it a Dexter, with a season-long plotline? Somehow, neither am I looking forward to. So what do I want? Maybe it's just a show on Sherlock and John. Maybe other series focus too much on the criminals. Maybe there's no way to do detective crime that will suit me. In any case, the second episode of Sherlock was disappointing. The first was 100% pleasure; in this one, I actually really disliked the way I was feeling during the climactic scene. It was honestly too intense: it wasn't pleasurable! This episode was too serious and too dark, I'm guessing. I didn't like the Chinese assassin gang. But I'm hopeful for the future; that it was just a fluke.
Oh no, is this one of those crime shows with a new case/criminal in each episode? A character-based CSI:? Or is it a Dexter, with a season-long plotline? Somehow, neither am I looking forward to. So what do I want? Maybe it's just a show on Sherlock and John. Maybe other series focus too much on the criminals. Maybe there's no way to do detective crime that will suit me. In any case, the second episode of Sherlock was disappointing. The first was 100% pleasure; in this one, I actually really disliked the way I was feeling during the climactic scene. It was honestly too intense: it wasn't pleasurable! This episode was too serious and too dark, I'm guessing. I didn't like the Chinese assassin gang. But I'm hopeful for the future; that it was just a fluke.
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Review: Pilot: Sherlock
Seen 6/3/15
3.5/4
Wow. Look at how little of Sherlock it took to violently deconstruct every notion I had about television, and entertainment in general. Perhaps it is bias from the forgiving nature of my viewing circumstances, or my inexperience in the realm of legitimate TV series, or the nonexistence of my exposure to British television, but Sherlock provided in its first episode one of the greatest rushes I have felt during consumption of media in a long time. This was entertaining in a way I have possibly never been exposed to, and certainly on a level unseen by my eyes. I hesitate, with pangs of guilt, because I'm not quite sure yet that this is "quality television". But is any television? If entertainment is really the sole purpose of what I may call "dedicated" TV series, then either no television is "quality", or Sherlock is. It is so high in its dialectic artistry, so profoundly striking in its entertainment, that despite its lack of thematic content I can't call it anything but brilliant. Now, that's not to say that there's nothing philosophical about it. The problem, if it is a problem at all, is that the intellectual smorgasbord flies by so quickly, it may be very difficult to develop any kind of thematic exploration. I'm not sure that I could continue with Sherlock without any exploration. But judging from the first episode, there is surely plenty an intellectual pleasure to be had. I had monstrous hesitations, and probably prejudices, against Sherlock two hours ago, but now my hesitation lies only in whether or not to call this pilot genius.
3.5/4
Wow. Look at how little of Sherlock it took to violently deconstruct every notion I had about television, and entertainment in general. Perhaps it is bias from the forgiving nature of my viewing circumstances, or my inexperience in the realm of legitimate TV series, or the nonexistence of my exposure to British television, but Sherlock provided in its first episode one of the greatest rushes I have felt during consumption of media in a long time. This was entertaining in a way I have possibly never been exposed to, and certainly on a level unseen by my eyes. I hesitate, with pangs of guilt, because I'm not quite sure yet that this is "quality television". But is any television? If entertainment is really the sole purpose of what I may call "dedicated" TV series, then either no television is "quality", or Sherlock is. It is so high in its dialectic artistry, so profoundly striking in its entertainment, that despite its lack of thematic content I can't call it anything but brilliant. Now, that's not to say that there's nothing philosophical about it. The problem, if it is a problem at all, is that the intellectual smorgasbord flies by so quickly, it may be very difficult to develop any kind of thematic exploration. I'm not sure that I could continue with Sherlock without any exploration. But judging from the first episode, there is surely plenty an intellectual pleasure to be had. I had monstrous hesitations, and probably prejudices, against Sherlock two hours ago, but now my hesitation lies only in whether or not to call this pilot genius.
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Review: Three Kings
Seen 5/30/15
3/4
Three Kings: shockingly awesome! This film constituted the fastest two hours I have seen in a while. It is extremely entertaining-- two hours of constant motion, music, gunfire, wit. There was scarcely a second in this movie that wasn't enjoyable and engaging. This type of film has been intentionally missing from my repertory this year, and this one almost makes me doubt that conviction.
3/4
Three Kings: shockingly awesome! This film constituted the fastest two hours I have seen in a while. It is extremely entertaining-- two hours of constant motion, music, gunfire, wit. There was scarcely a second in this movie that wasn't enjoyable and engaging. This type of film has been intentionally missing from my repertory this year, and this one almost makes me doubt that conviction.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Review: Under the Skin
Seen 5/27/15 and 5/28/15
3/4
I like this film. Quite a bit. The first time, last night, I didn't really. I was bored, particularly with the last third. I thought that the sensory experience of it all was good, but I couldn't get past the lack of content. This time, I put content there, even where there may have been none. I found a plot in the dream; structure amidst the ethereal chaos. Nevertheless, the chaos itself is darkly beautiful. The aesthetic of this film is a pure wonder. It's an artist's depiction of his own gorgeously sensational nightmare. However: the last third of the film prevents someone who isn't looking past the sensory from having an all-around rewarding experience. The mystique and intensity die down, as we see the untouchable and other-worldly main character possibly realize her humanity. Things get less interesting from a transcendental perspective, but this is the plot developing. One could argue that the film should have gone without it. Regardless, the ending is great. Most things are left unexplained: it is up to the experiencers to make of this haunting picture what they will. For most, this will be nothing. Whatever force inspired me to give this film another try must have been watching over me, making sure I give the film the attention it deserves. In my opinion, it cannot stand purely as an experiential piece, as perhaps Mulholland Drive can. There may be no sense at all to that film; but one gets the feeling that Under the Skin can be figured out. After all, it comes from a novel, which I'm sure is less atmospheric and more decipherable. This is a film that has interpretive reward, and that's only adding on to the tremendous visual and auditory feast. It's unnerving and beautiful.
Let it be noted that Scarlett Johansson's character is inconsistent. Some would call this character evolution, but I don't quite buy it, and it's a little disappointing. I also don't connect with this commonly-noted theme for this movie of 'seeing humanity through alien eyes'. I just don't understand where that is explored.
With character consistency, the film would get a 3.5. It's very much on the verge now, but I just can't connect the last part of the film well enough. Nevertheless, it is an excellent film to me, and a worthy component of my astoundingly successful recent succession of film experiences: Antichrist, The Hunt, Interstellar, Under the Skin.
3/4
I like this film. Quite a bit. The first time, last night, I didn't really. I was bored, particularly with the last third. I thought that the sensory experience of it all was good, but I couldn't get past the lack of content. This time, I put content there, even where there may have been none. I found a plot in the dream; structure amidst the ethereal chaos. Nevertheless, the chaos itself is darkly beautiful. The aesthetic of this film is a pure wonder. It's an artist's depiction of his own gorgeously sensational nightmare. However: the last third of the film prevents someone who isn't looking past the sensory from having an all-around rewarding experience. The mystique and intensity die down, as we see the untouchable and other-worldly main character possibly realize her humanity. Things get less interesting from a transcendental perspective, but this is the plot developing. One could argue that the film should have gone without it. Regardless, the ending is great. Most things are left unexplained: it is up to the experiencers to make of this haunting picture what they will. For most, this will be nothing. Whatever force inspired me to give this film another try must have been watching over me, making sure I give the film the attention it deserves. In my opinion, it cannot stand purely as an experiential piece, as perhaps Mulholland Drive can. There may be no sense at all to that film; but one gets the feeling that Under the Skin can be figured out. After all, it comes from a novel, which I'm sure is less atmospheric and more decipherable. This is a film that has interpretive reward, and that's only adding on to the tremendous visual and auditory feast. It's unnerving and beautiful.
Let it be noted that Scarlett Johansson's character is inconsistent. Some would call this character evolution, but I don't quite buy it, and it's a little disappointing. I also don't connect with this commonly-noted theme for this movie of 'seeing humanity through alien eyes'. I just don't understand where that is explored.
With character consistency, the film would get a 3.5. It's very much on the verge now, but I just can't connect the last part of the film well enough. Nevertheless, it is an excellent film to me, and a worthy component of my astoundingly successful recent succession of film experiences: Antichrist, The Hunt, Interstellar, Under the Skin.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
Review 2: Interstellar
Seen 5/1/15 and 5/22/15
See http://andrewtalksaboutmovies1.blogspot.com/2015/05/review-interstellar.html
4/4
My second viewing of Interstellar yielded less awe, and a little less fascination. But on the other hand, there was still so much left to pick up on, it was a very rewarding experience. To know this film inside and out is of very high value, as it touches on dozens of themes and ideas. One viewing is not nearly enough, and those who say there is nothing to chew on here have let the fast pace of the film distract them from the fact that many aspects of it could be independently developed into full-length movies. Christopher Nolan takes countless revolutionary ideas of the 20th century and places them in the script so casually, it's natural to miss them as they fly by.
One thing that struck me much more this time than last was the sense of pure discovery in the main character-- discovery for its own sake. This idea affected me profoundly, as I have been debating to great length lately what our purpose is for human advancement, scientific innovation, ensuring the survival of our species at all costs, etc. After hearing Cooper say such things as "we're explorers", and ponder modern education's focus on utility, rather than awe, I realized that the reason he ventures into other galaxies is because of his drive for adventure and exploration. I connected hugely with this. I don't think that the survival of our species is very important, nor is scientific advancement. I would maybe travel intergalactically to save those I personally love, but not humanity in general. And all our scientific progress would be rendered useless in an instant were our race to be wiped out, and even while we're here I don't think its products make us happier, which to me is the only worthwhile end that isn't intrinsic. But here's what I realized: to a select people, scientific exploration is intrinsically important. I think that this will be the case for me. Exploring and inventing and discovering is just, purely, awesome. It is cool. It gives one meaning and drive. It gives an immeasurable sense of fulfillment. Now that I don't believe in objective morality, nor objective values, nor most kinds of a deity, what can be my motivation to pursue physics or mathematics? It was even very difficult to justify when I did hold those beliefs. Interstellar has given me the best answer I have ever found: the pure pleasure of discovery; learning; digging; finding; pondering.
Another wonderful discovery I made upon my second viewing was the music of the film. It's all IVs, Vs and VIs, which is beautiful. Hans Zimmer does Hans Zimmer, and I will probably cherish this score as long as I cherish movies. It plays in some of the most awe-filled moments I have ever seen, so it is fantastically associated with that glory and beauty.
Memorable is the spinning docking sequence [best musical spinning docking sequence in space since Kubrick] and the tick-tock as the crew fights the wild beast of Time on Miller's planet.
What else came out upon a second look? The parts of the script that are incredibly lame. Notable is the parent-teacher conference with Martin Luther King (a truly awful scene, script-wise), much of the back-and-forth in the spacecrafts, and some McConaughey front-porch rambling ("our place in the dirt"). But I don't care to talk about this.
One thing I found incredible, that I didn't pay much mind to before, are these little moments of dialogue that are few and far between, but are the most realistic words I think I've ever seen spoken in a movie! One time, Anne Hathaway says something technical and then apologizes to herself because it was unnecessary or something! This is like those moments in real life when you say "whoops" to yourself to self-justify for creating an awkward-looking situation... I couldn't believe this happened in a movie! There are a couple other lines from her that must be improvised, or possibly even an error from the actor, but that are left in because they are gloriously genuine. If only Nolan would have cared to be genuine in the other 95% of the movie.
I lament how casual and humor-driven this review has become. It is now altogether informal. But these paragraphs are a stream-of-consciousness reflection on my second experience of this movie, which awarded tons of new insight, including a better grasp on character motives and the physics, the latter of which was very important to me. Interstellar remains a fantastic experience, and a monumental achievement in film. This is one of those movies I should watch every time I feel my tastes changing, to recalibrate myself and see what new it has to offer. A movie can be dynamic because the person experiencing it can be dynamic. It is my goal to live a dynamic life, and Interstellar will accompany Synecdoche, 2001 and I through it.
See http://andrewtalksaboutmovies1.blogspot.com/2015/05/review-interstellar.html
4/4
My second viewing of Interstellar yielded less awe, and a little less fascination. But on the other hand, there was still so much left to pick up on, it was a very rewarding experience. To know this film inside and out is of very high value, as it touches on dozens of themes and ideas. One viewing is not nearly enough, and those who say there is nothing to chew on here have let the fast pace of the film distract them from the fact that many aspects of it could be independently developed into full-length movies. Christopher Nolan takes countless revolutionary ideas of the 20th century and places them in the script so casually, it's natural to miss them as they fly by.
One thing that struck me much more this time than last was the sense of pure discovery in the main character-- discovery for its own sake. This idea affected me profoundly, as I have been debating to great length lately what our purpose is for human advancement, scientific innovation, ensuring the survival of our species at all costs, etc. After hearing Cooper say such things as "we're explorers", and ponder modern education's focus on utility, rather than awe, I realized that the reason he ventures into other galaxies is because of his drive for adventure and exploration. I connected hugely with this. I don't think that the survival of our species is very important, nor is scientific advancement. I would maybe travel intergalactically to save those I personally love, but not humanity in general. And all our scientific progress would be rendered useless in an instant were our race to be wiped out, and even while we're here I don't think its products make us happier, which to me is the only worthwhile end that isn't intrinsic. But here's what I realized: to a select people, scientific exploration is intrinsically important. I think that this will be the case for me. Exploring and inventing and discovering is just, purely, awesome. It is cool. It gives one meaning and drive. It gives an immeasurable sense of fulfillment. Now that I don't believe in objective morality, nor objective values, nor most kinds of a deity, what can be my motivation to pursue physics or mathematics? It was even very difficult to justify when I did hold those beliefs. Interstellar has given me the best answer I have ever found: the pure pleasure of discovery; learning; digging; finding; pondering.
Another wonderful discovery I made upon my second viewing was the music of the film. It's all IVs, Vs and VIs, which is beautiful. Hans Zimmer does Hans Zimmer, and I will probably cherish this score as long as I cherish movies. It plays in some of the most awe-filled moments I have ever seen, so it is fantastically associated with that glory and beauty.
Memorable is the spinning docking sequence [best musical spinning docking sequence in space since Kubrick] and the tick-tock as the crew fights the wild beast of Time on Miller's planet.
What else came out upon a second look? The parts of the script that are incredibly lame. Notable is the parent-teacher conference with Martin Luther King (a truly awful scene, script-wise), much of the back-and-forth in the spacecrafts, and some McConaughey front-porch rambling ("our place in the dirt"). But I don't care to talk about this.
One thing I found incredible, that I didn't pay much mind to before, are these little moments of dialogue that are few and far between, but are the most realistic words I think I've ever seen spoken in a movie! One time, Anne Hathaway says something technical and then apologizes to herself because it was unnecessary or something! This is like those moments in real life when you say "whoops" to yourself to self-justify for creating an awkward-looking situation... I couldn't believe this happened in a movie! There are a couple other lines from her that must be improvised, or possibly even an error from the actor, but that are left in because they are gloriously genuine. If only Nolan would have cared to be genuine in the other 95% of the movie.
I lament how casual and humor-driven this review has become. It is now altogether informal. But these paragraphs are a stream-of-consciousness reflection on my second experience of this movie, which awarded tons of new insight, including a better grasp on character motives and the physics, the latter of which was very important to me. Interstellar remains a fantastic experience, and a monumental achievement in film. This is one of those movies I should watch every time I feel my tastes changing, to recalibrate myself and see what new it has to offer. A movie can be dynamic because the person experiencing it can be dynamic. It is my goal to live a dynamic life, and Interstellar will accompany Synecdoche, 2001 and I through it.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Review: The Hunt
Seen last spring and 5/20/15
4/4
The Hunt is a brilliant and shattering portrayal of human psychology. The setup is absolutely fantastic, one of the most immaculate executions I know of in film; the acting from the lead male is nothing short of sublime; the plot puts viewers at exactly the right emotional levels, which oscillate enormously. The film is as powerful as any, and sends a message more disturbing than horror. This could happen. None of these characters are unrealistic.
All parts work perfectly here. One can imagine that a genius premise could be lost on cliched writing, or a tremendous actor could be subject to lame direction, but here, there is nothing flawed. All characters fit into the narrative supremely well, and Mads Mikkelsen is a miracle, and the premise is brilliant, and the script and direction do exactly as they must.
The Hunt is flawless.
On a more personal note:
I have trouble calling this film "great" because of its small stylistic and geographic scope. I'm stupid in that I need the grandiose of Interstellar or stylistic innovation of Eternal Sunshine to put a movie in my top tier. I should realize that The Hunt is as innovative and powerful as any film. It is the "foreign indie realism" genre that I have a hard time with, but it extends so far beyond that. And that's why I do love it, truly. And it fully deserves a spot near the top.
JAGTEN
4/4
The Hunt is a brilliant and shattering portrayal of human psychology. The setup is absolutely fantastic, one of the most immaculate executions I know of in film; the acting from the lead male is nothing short of sublime; the plot puts viewers at exactly the right emotional levels, which oscillate enormously. The film is as powerful as any, and sends a message more disturbing than horror. This could happen. None of these characters are unrealistic.
All parts work perfectly here. One can imagine that a genius premise could be lost on cliched writing, or a tremendous actor could be subject to lame direction, but here, there is nothing flawed. All characters fit into the narrative supremely well, and Mads Mikkelsen is a miracle, and the premise is brilliant, and the script and direction do exactly as they must.
The Hunt is flawless.
On a more personal note:
I have trouble calling this film "great" because of its small stylistic and geographic scope. I'm stupid in that I need the grandiose of Interstellar or stylistic innovation of Eternal Sunshine to put a movie in my top tier. I should realize that The Hunt is as innovative and powerful as any film. It is the "foreign indie realism" genre that I have a hard time with, but it extends so far beyond that. And that's why I do love it, truly. And it fully deserves a spot near the top.
JAGTEN
Friday, May 15, 2015
Review: Antichrist
Seen 5/15/15
3/4
This movie is highly entertaining. It sucks one in by the sheer knowledge that it is willing to go ANYWHERE. This is a terrifying fact. The movie is extremely dark and brutal. Surprisingly, it didn't disturb me deeply enough to be shaken long after it finished, but I can imagine that for many another person it easily would. This is pure artistic horror.
I prefer Melancholia, for its fascinating premise and shatteringly beautiful ending, but the two movies are extremely similar. Antichrist is darker and tougher. It is much more difficult to stomach. But it's precisely that affect on the viewer that makes it such a great film experience. While I said I wasn't lastingly disturbed, it should be noted that during the film I was completely engaged. Both my mind and body felt like they were subject to von Trier's will, and he could do whatever horrific thing he wanted with them.
I don't regret watching this grotesque picture at all. It gave me the power of experience that I am not satisfied without in film nowadays. I don't love it, but I surely respect it and am exceedingly glad I saw it.
3/4
This movie is highly entertaining. It sucks one in by the sheer knowledge that it is willing to go ANYWHERE. This is a terrifying fact. The movie is extremely dark and brutal. Surprisingly, it didn't disturb me deeply enough to be shaken long after it finished, but I can imagine that for many another person it easily would. This is pure artistic horror.
I prefer Melancholia, for its fascinating premise and shatteringly beautiful ending, but the two movies are extremely similar. Antichrist is darker and tougher. It is much more difficult to stomach. But it's precisely that affect on the viewer that makes it such a great film experience. While I said I wasn't lastingly disturbed, it should be noted that during the film I was completely engaged. Both my mind and body felt like they were subject to von Trier's will, and he could do whatever horrific thing he wanted with them.
I don't regret watching this grotesque picture at all. It gave me the power of experience that I am not satisfied without in film nowadays. I don't love it, but I surely respect it and am exceedingly glad I saw it.
Review: Blue is the Warmest Colour
Seen 3/11/15
4/4
Blue is the Warmest Colour is one of the saddest, most truthful films I have ever seen. Its thematic ambition isn't the highest, but for what it strides for--which is a documentary-like yet artistic depiction of a foundationally-human relationship--it is absolutely flawless. The portrayal of Adele and Emma's heartbreaking story is as real as film could ever strive to be; the actors and direction are fearless and could not be more vulnerable.
The two actors, Adele Exarchopoulos and Lea Seydoux, are shown so closely that anything but fantastic, personally involved performances would make the movie worthless. But the performances are executed with such baffling realism and force that the whole picture comes together to stand as a definitive portrait on the intimacies of humanity.
The artistry displayed by Abdellatif Kechiche is powerful too. From the steel-drum music that underlines both Adele's first encounter with the mysteriously blue Emma and her last, to the brutal honesty the camera exhibits in its capturing of the women, to the beautiful visuals which include the spotted blueness, which significantly pops up throughout the film, Kechiche is a master of aesthetics.
With the aesthetic quality, the haunting realism and the emotional power, Blue is the Warmest Colour is an innovation; it stands tall and apart from all other movies.
4/4
Blue is the Warmest Colour is one of the saddest, most truthful films I have ever seen. Its thematic ambition isn't the highest, but for what it strides for--which is a documentary-like yet artistic depiction of a foundationally-human relationship--it is absolutely flawless. The portrayal of Adele and Emma's heartbreaking story is as real as film could ever strive to be; the actors and direction are fearless and could not be more vulnerable.
The two actors, Adele Exarchopoulos and Lea Seydoux, are shown so closely that anything but fantastic, personally involved performances would make the movie worthless. But the performances are executed with such baffling realism and force that the whole picture comes together to stand as a definitive portrait on the intimacies of humanity.
The artistry displayed by Abdellatif Kechiche is powerful too. From the steel-drum music that underlines both Adele's first encounter with the mysteriously blue Emma and her last, to the brutal honesty the camera exhibits in its capturing of the women, to the beautiful visuals which include the spotted blueness, which significantly pops up throughout the film, Kechiche is a master of aesthetics.
With the aesthetic quality, the haunting realism and the emotional power, Blue is the Warmest Colour is an innovation; it stands tall and apart from all other movies.
A Definitive Portrait: Magnolia
4/4
Magnolia is a powerhouse. A beast of a movie. An emotional colossus. A thematic universe. I would have no problem calling Magnolia the greatest film I have ever seen.
I first saw Magnolia a few years ago; I was barely 16. Despite its wrenching and draining 3 hours and 8 minutes, I watched it again the next day. I had an immediate knowledge that I had never seen a more brutally truthful movie. Around 3 years later, I still hold it in my top three favorite movies, and I still haven't cracked its iron shell.
There is a lot to manage here: paying attention to character connections, soaking in the style and atmosphere, deciphering the great thematic enigma, controlling one's own emotions...
Indeed, there is no film tougher to handle and make sense of than Magnolia. It has been criticized for being tragically meaningless, a sobbing senseless wreckage. But I don't see it that way. There are portraits of humanity in this movie, and I know that there are meaningful strings tying it all together. There are probably a number of themes--Paul Thomas Anderson's goal wasn't to speak on any single topic or message, but rather to provide the ultimate encapsulation of human existence in California's San Fernando Valley, where Anderson himself grew up. To display humanity so completely, one must deal with many different issues; perhaps each character is fighting the extreme circumstance of a given human experience, each of them different from the others.
Now that I consider it, forgiveness arises in many stories:
-Jim the cop must forgive his detainees
-Claudia must forgive her molesting father
-Linda must forgive herself for her own marital indecency
-Earl must forgive himself before dying for his marital indecency
-Frank must forgive his selfish, absent father
-God must forgive Egypt/California for its sins?
Perhaps we have something here.
The style and mood switches throughout the film. Many times it is jumpy and stressful, with whipping pans of the camera, loud music, moving bodies and alternate storylines interjecting on each other. At other moments, it is still and hypnotic; we hear Earl's long, tortured deathbed speech dragging into another scene. We stare silently at Tom Cruise's obliterating cry, the camera mercilessly staying on him for way too long, leaving us in pieces by the time it's over. No music plays as the frogs fall from the sky, none other than the music of frogs slapping and splatting against pavement at a hundred miles per hour. The realism of this surreal moment is terrifyingly overwhelming. This is what Paul Thomas Anderson does; he creates scenes that cross us as surreal but then dig into the deeper parts of ourselves, and we experience them as truth.
Stanley the kid:
He is a kid-genius being exploited by his father and game show host Jimmy Gator and all of America through his participance on the show "What Do Kids Know?". He genuinely loves accumulating knowledge; it's not that that he feels taken advantage of for. It's the money he wins on the show that goes to his dad; it's the laughs America puts out upon hearing him speak his mind; it's the archetype America places on his face--the face of a human, not an object. Stanley is able to paint a devastated look across Jimmy Gator's face with the truth he speaks when he addresses the inhumanity of modern media. In some ways, Stanley is the wisest, although youngest, character in the film. When the frogs fall, he is the only one who stays content: he glances around, calmly, exclaiming "This happens. Things like this really happen" with a smile. He is satisfied with the chaos--more than just accepting of it, which is itself more than any other character can manage. Something about his learning has brought him improbable wisdom.
Frank T.J. Mackey:
His soul is stained by the absence of his father, Earl Partridge, during Frank's mother's degeneration and death. He has now created an empire of sexual aggression seminars and merchandise entitled "Seduce and Destroy"; a hurricane of misogyny. Is this to cope with the loss of his mother, particularly the experience of having to watch her suffer and die with him at such a young age, and with no other man to help take care of her? Is this exercising control over women as overcompensation for the lack of control he felt in his mother's situation? He has thoroughly suppressed that time of his life from his mind; he denies his mother's existence to the interviewer, and seems to be confronting thoughts of his father for the first time in decades when the exchange between father and son occurs. Maybe "Seduce", as he affectionately calls it, has pushed the pain of his childhood out of mind, but it certainly hasn't eradicated it: the pain violently contorts his face as he sobs beside the father he hates. It is clearly still fresh and present.
Jim the cop:
He has a simple worldview: he just wants to be loved and accepted. We see his online dating profile, which asks for nothing more than loving acceptance. The one secret he reveals to Claudia is his embarrassment within the squad--his non-acceptance. He must be deeply insecure--he speaks to himself in the car. Or is he speaking to his baton, or his police car? He is looking for somebody to connect with. Why is he so insecure? He is wise, and courageous, and does his job well. He does the right thing. He loves and accepts. And he loves and accepts in the clearest form, at the end--forgiveness.
Quiz Kid Donnie Smith:
Claudia:
Jimmy Gator:
Linda Partridge:
Earl Partridge:
Phil:
In progress..............
Magnolia is a powerhouse. A beast of a movie. An emotional colossus. A thematic universe. I would have no problem calling Magnolia the greatest film I have ever seen.
I first saw Magnolia a few years ago; I was barely 16. Despite its wrenching and draining 3 hours and 8 minutes, I watched it again the next day. I had an immediate knowledge that I had never seen a more brutally truthful movie. Around 3 years later, I still hold it in my top three favorite movies, and I still haven't cracked its iron shell.
There is a lot to manage here: paying attention to character connections, soaking in the style and atmosphere, deciphering the great thematic enigma, controlling one's own emotions...
Indeed, there is no film tougher to handle and make sense of than Magnolia. It has been criticized for being tragically meaningless, a sobbing senseless wreckage. But I don't see it that way. There are portraits of humanity in this movie, and I know that there are meaningful strings tying it all together. There are probably a number of themes--Paul Thomas Anderson's goal wasn't to speak on any single topic or message, but rather to provide the ultimate encapsulation of human existence in California's San Fernando Valley, where Anderson himself grew up. To display humanity so completely, one must deal with many different issues; perhaps each character is fighting the extreme circumstance of a given human experience, each of them different from the others.
Now that I consider it, forgiveness arises in many stories:
-Jim the cop must forgive his detainees
-Claudia must forgive her molesting father
-Linda must forgive herself for her own marital indecency
-Earl must forgive himself before dying for his marital indecency
-Frank must forgive his selfish, absent father
-God must forgive Egypt/California for its sins?
Perhaps we have something here.
The style and mood switches throughout the film. Many times it is jumpy and stressful, with whipping pans of the camera, loud music, moving bodies and alternate storylines interjecting on each other. At other moments, it is still and hypnotic; we hear Earl's long, tortured deathbed speech dragging into another scene. We stare silently at Tom Cruise's obliterating cry, the camera mercilessly staying on him for way too long, leaving us in pieces by the time it's over. No music plays as the frogs fall from the sky, none other than the music of frogs slapping and splatting against pavement at a hundred miles per hour. The realism of this surreal moment is terrifyingly overwhelming. This is what Paul Thomas Anderson does; he creates scenes that cross us as surreal but then dig into the deeper parts of ourselves, and we experience them as truth.
Stanley the kid:
He is a kid-genius being exploited by his father and game show host Jimmy Gator and all of America through his participance on the show "What Do Kids Know?". He genuinely loves accumulating knowledge; it's not that that he feels taken advantage of for. It's the money he wins on the show that goes to his dad; it's the laughs America puts out upon hearing him speak his mind; it's the archetype America places on his face--the face of a human, not an object. Stanley is able to paint a devastated look across Jimmy Gator's face with the truth he speaks when he addresses the inhumanity of modern media. In some ways, Stanley is the wisest, although youngest, character in the film. When the frogs fall, he is the only one who stays content: he glances around, calmly, exclaiming "This happens. Things like this really happen" with a smile. He is satisfied with the chaos--more than just accepting of it, which is itself more than any other character can manage. Something about his learning has brought him improbable wisdom.
Frank T.J. Mackey:
His soul is stained by the absence of his father, Earl Partridge, during Frank's mother's degeneration and death. He has now created an empire of sexual aggression seminars and merchandise entitled "Seduce and Destroy"; a hurricane of misogyny. Is this to cope with the loss of his mother, particularly the experience of having to watch her suffer and die with him at such a young age, and with no other man to help take care of her? Is this exercising control over women as overcompensation for the lack of control he felt in his mother's situation? He has thoroughly suppressed that time of his life from his mind; he denies his mother's existence to the interviewer, and seems to be confronting thoughts of his father for the first time in decades when the exchange between father and son occurs. Maybe "Seduce", as he affectionately calls it, has pushed the pain of his childhood out of mind, but it certainly hasn't eradicated it: the pain violently contorts his face as he sobs beside the father he hates. It is clearly still fresh and present.
Jim the cop:
He has a simple worldview: he just wants to be loved and accepted. We see his online dating profile, which asks for nothing more than loving acceptance. The one secret he reveals to Claudia is his embarrassment within the squad--his non-acceptance. He must be deeply insecure--he speaks to himself in the car. Or is he speaking to his baton, or his police car? He is looking for somebody to connect with. Why is he so insecure? He is wise, and courageous, and does his job well. He does the right thing. He loves and accepts. And he loves and accepts in the clearest form, at the end--forgiveness.
Quiz Kid Donnie Smith:
Claudia:
Jimmy Gator:
Linda Partridge:
Earl Partridge:
Phil:
In progress..............
Rethinking a "My Favorite Movies" List
Synecdoche, NY
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Magnolia
2001: A Space Odyssey
Birdman
The Place Beyond the Pines
There Will Be Blood
Mulholland Drive
What I need to see again in order to confirm its spot:
Interstellar
Melancholia
Blue Valentine
The Tree of Life
A current pantheon:
Interstellar
Birdman
The Tree of Life
Mulholland Drive
Synecdoche, NY
Melancholia
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Magnolia
2001: A Space Odyssey
Birdman
The Place Beyond the Pines
There Will Be Blood
Mulholland Drive
What I need to see again in order to confirm its spot:
Interstellar
Melancholia
Blue Valentine
The Tree of Life
A current pantheon:
Interstellar
Birdman
The Tree of Life
Mulholland Drive
Synecdoche, NY
Melancholia
Monday, May 11, 2015
Review: The Best Years of Our Lives
Seen 5/11/15
2/4
While The Best Years of Our Lives was hugely successful in its time (1946), it stands today as nothing but a film with a good heart. The ideas and techniques are totally dry, such that to consider it Existentialist is, sadly, a joke. But I can say that I enjoyed the film, and really liked some of its characters. Especially striking were the two Stephenson women, who were acted with strength and genuineness. The men, on the other hand, were easily the weak point. The three leads were far cheesier than the women, and the actors gave worse performances. Fascinating is the fact that Harold Russell (Homer) won an Oscar and wide acclaim for his performance, which amounted to no more than a real veteran with no hands playing a veteran with no hands, and doing it with zero talent. He's not an actor! I'm sorry again..... I liked the film. But I actually found nothing to like in any characters but the two women and some supporting roles. However, those two characters were entirely enough to keep me invested.
2/4
While The Best Years of Our Lives was hugely successful in its time (1946), it stands today as nothing but a film with a good heart. The ideas and techniques are totally dry, such that to consider it Existentialist is, sadly, a joke. But I can say that I enjoyed the film, and really liked some of its characters. Especially striking were the two Stephenson women, who were acted with strength and genuineness. The men, on the other hand, were easily the weak point. The three leads were far cheesier than the women, and the actors gave worse performances. Fascinating is the fact that Harold Russell (Homer) won an Oscar and wide acclaim for his performance, which amounted to no more than a real veteran with no hands playing a veteran with no hands, and doing it with zero talent. He's not an actor! I'm sorry again..... I liked the film. But I actually found nothing to like in any characters but the two women and some supporting roles. However, those two characters were entirely enough to keep me invested.
Monday, May 4, 2015
Review: Groundhog Day
Seen 5/4/15
2/4
I am confused as to why this is considered one of the most profoundly philosophical movies out there. I really didn't find much; I'm sure there is a little that I missed, but whatever that is can be no more than technical terminology applied unnecessarily to common-sensical phenomena. This movie isn't very profound at all; it simply echoes a situation, unintentionally, that appears in Existential philosophy, particularly in Camus.
As far as the movie goes.... I don't hate it. I appreciate the resolution-- Bill Murray's newfound compassion. While I despise his acting deep within my stomach, I didn't mind the relationship. Murray is certainly better here than in Razor's Edge, but even so, his level of talent is pitiful.
There are funny moments, and a nice feeling throughout, so this movie sits better with me than most of its genre.
2/4
I am confused as to why this is considered one of the most profoundly philosophical movies out there. I really didn't find much; I'm sure there is a little that I missed, but whatever that is can be no more than technical terminology applied unnecessarily to common-sensical phenomena. This movie isn't very profound at all; it simply echoes a situation, unintentionally, that appears in Existential philosophy, particularly in Camus.
As far as the movie goes.... I don't hate it. I appreciate the resolution-- Bill Murray's newfound compassion. While I despise his acting deep within my stomach, I didn't mind the relationship. Murray is certainly better here than in Razor's Edge, but even so, his level of talent is pitiful.
There are funny moments, and a nice feeling throughout, so this movie sits better with me than most of its genre.
Saturday, May 2, 2015
Review: Interstellar
Seen 5/1/15
4/4
In my view, this is one of the most important films ever. It pulls us out of human civilization and therefore forces the question of the value of a population so minute and so easily threatened. I have never had a film experience that so begs me to ponder the value of my species, and other than Synecdoche, New York, no film has affected me so personally and so deeply. Interstellar reaches insane levels of profundity through emotion, aesthetics, exploration into the unknown, and Existential philosophy. I certainly think that Christopher Nolan cut some corners and the movie isn't perfect, but I don't care; it took me places far beyond where any other movie has gone, and I'm not just talking about into space. Therefore, for all its imperfections as a film, Interstellar has the ambition and beauty to totally revolutionize the film industry, and I pray that everyone sees the possibilities that it opens.
4/4
In my view, this is one of the most important films ever. It pulls us out of human civilization and therefore forces the question of the value of a population so minute and so easily threatened. I have never had a film experience that so begs me to ponder the value of my species, and other than Synecdoche, New York, no film has affected me so personally and so deeply. Interstellar reaches insane levels of profundity through emotion, aesthetics, exploration into the unknown, and Existential philosophy. I certainly think that Christopher Nolan cut some corners and the movie isn't perfect, but I don't care; it took me places far beyond where any other movie has gone, and I'm not just talking about into space. Therefore, for all its imperfections as a film, Interstellar has the ambition and beauty to totally revolutionize the film industry, and I pray that everyone sees the possibilities that it opens.
Monday, April 27, 2015
Review: Crimes and Misdemeanors
Seen 4/27/15
3/4
My second Woody Allen exposure, after Annie Hall, is many orders of magnitude darker, and in my opinion, noticeably better. Annie Hall was a film so full with Woody Allen witticisms there wasn't much room for anything else. Crimes and Misdemeanors, on the other hand, puts Allen as an actor as only half of the lead, inserts a large amount of pure philosophy, conveys real emotion and darkness through its story and characters, and leaves out most of the clever intellectual jabs that had no human element behind them. This film is much more profound and striking; it deals with similar existential questions as Annie, but gives the issues power, rather than treating them as purely an endeavor of intellectual entertainment. There is murder, mental illness, despair... And the philosophy is fascinating. Woody Allen proves himself to be a profound mind with all the thought he places so skillfully into this story. I liked the film quite a bit, and found it thoroughly interesting, funny, intelligent and meaningful.
3/4
My second Woody Allen exposure, after Annie Hall, is many orders of magnitude darker, and in my opinion, noticeably better. Annie Hall was a film so full with Woody Allen witticisms there wasn't much room for anything else. Crimes and Misdemeanors, on the other hand, puts Allen as an actor as only half of the lead, inserts a large amount of pure philosophy, conveys real emotion and darkness through its story and characters, and leaves out most of the clever intellectual jabs that had no human element behind them. This film is much more profound and striking; it deals with similar existential questions as Annie, but gives the issues power, rather than treating them as purely an endeavor of intellectual entertainment. There is murder, mental illness, despair... And the philosophy is fascinating. Woody Allen proves himself to be a profound mind with all the thought he places so skillfully into this story. I liked the film quite a bit, and found it thoroughly interesting, funny, intelligent and meaningful.
Friday, April 24, 2015
Review: Planet Earth
Ep. 1: From Pole to Pole
Seen 4/24/15
3/4
The BBC's nature doc is off to a terrific start.
The feel of this 2006 British series is a bit dated and distant compared to its competitors; however, that shows up mostly just in the narration and the musical score. The age of the filming itself is hardly noticeable, at least to my somewhat-uneducated eyes. We have become greedy nowadays, with the Hollywood big-budgeters and Terrence Malicks of the world lighting up the screen in blinding color. Of course, watching BBC depict nature's glory with the definition of modern film would be something like heaven, but I'm willing to cope.
The most incredible part about the series so far is the filmmakers' ability to capture the intimate, the colossal, and the isolated parts of nature. It is unbelievable to me how this could have happened, and I plan to watch the accompanying special features sometime in my life.
The first episode began at the South Pole, jumped up to the North quickly and then worked its way all the way back down while our tough old Emperor penguins were bearing their winter. There were numerous predator-prey stories-- a staple of nature-documentary-filmmaking. Shockingly, the first such instance, which arrives right at the start of the film, ended in an unsympathetic victory of evil! The predator caught its lovable prey, bit into it, and the narrator moved on to an entirely different biome! It was fascinatingly heartless. Similar things happened throughout the show, and what I learned is a necessity to see nature as victimless. If you go through this whole series believing that there are good guys and bad guys, you are bound to be depressed beyond rescue by the end. It is almost not enough to accept "Nature is tough. Survival of the fittest." You must see how easily we are psychologically pulled as viewers of a nature documentary, and that none of the morality we attach to the events onscreen is legitimate. Zero.
With this in mind, it becomes respectable how willing the film is to show what we would consider horror. It's not that it doesn't accelerate in us an emotional pulse (it does this with the dramatic musical score, and the choice of who to film and in what environment cunningly creates good and evil)--- it's that the pulse is created and propelled with such force that when it comes to a screeching halt in the terrifying death of a cute animal, which is handled with such intentional nonchalance, we are left breathless and devastated.
I respect this and I don't want it, all at the same time. The tragedies really don't feel good, but it is probably necessary education for the sheltered individuals who will be watching this, including me.
The most fulfilling part of the film for me is simply the exposure to nature--- different kinds of animals, interesting and foreign biomes, universal amorality.... This is a new and extremely valuable part of my intellectual life, I am realizing. I will surely continue this path, and with great joy, interest, and self-development. The quality of the filmmaking is secondary; the exposure to nature entirely makes this experience.
Seen 4/24/15
3/4
The BBC's nature doc is off to a terrific start.
The feel of this 2006 British series is a bit dated and distant compared to its competitors; however, that shows up mostly just in the narration and the musical score. The age of the filming itself is hardly noticeable, at least to my somewhat-uneducated eyes. We have become greedy nowadays, with the Hollywood big-budgeters and Terrence Malicks of the world lighting up the screen in blinding color. Of course, watching BBC depict nature's glory with the definition of modern film would be something like heaven, but I'm willing to cope.
The most incredible part about the series so far is the filmmakers' ability to capture the intimate, the colossal, and the isolated parts of nature. It is unbelievable to me how this could have happened, and I plan to watch the accompanying special features sometime in my life.
The first episode began at the South Pole, jumped up to the North quickly and then worked its way all the way back down while our tough old Emperor penguins were bearing their winter. There were numerous predator-prey stories-- a staple of nature-documentary-filmmaking. Shockingly, the first such instance, which arrives right at the start of the film, ended in an unsympathetic victory of evil! The predator caught its lovable prey, bit into it, and the narrator moved on to an entirely different biome! It was fascinatingly heartless. Similar things happened throughout the show, and what I learned is a necessity to see nature as victimless. If you go through this whole series believing that there are good guys and bad guys, you are bound to be depressed beyond rescue by the end. It is almost not enough to accept "Nature is tough. Survival of the fittest." You must see how easily we are psychologically pulled as viewers of a nature documentary, and that none of the morality we attach to the events onscreen is legitimate. Zero.
With this in mind, it becomes respectable how willing the film is to show what we would consider horror. It's not that it doesn't accelerate in us an emotional pulse (it does this with the dramatic musical score, and the choice of who to film and in what environment cunningly creates good and evil)--- it's that the pulse is created and propelled with such force that when it comes to a screeching halt in the terrifying death of a cute animal, which is handled with such intentional nonchalance, we are left breathless and devastated.
I respect this and I don't want it, all at the same time. The tragedies really don't feel good, but it is probably necessary education for the sheltered individuals who will be watching this, including me.
The most fulfilling part of the film for me is simply the exposure to nature--- different kinds of animals, interesting and foreign biomes, universal amorality.... This is a new and extremely valuable part of my intellectual life, I am realizing. I will surely continue this path, and with great joy, interest, and self-development. The quality of the filmmaking is secondary; the exposure to nature entirely makes this experience.
Monday, April 20, 2015
Review: Razor's Edge
Seen 4/20/15
0.5/4
This movie is either very smart, or absolutely stupid--the stupidest movie I have seen in months or years. I'm pretty convinced of the latter.
What it depends on is whether or not it knows it's terrible, incoherent, amoral, ridiculous in every sense... and this largely relies on Bill Murray, who starred and co-wrote the script. Does he know that he gave one of the worst performances I have ever seen in a movie? Does he know that his script adaptation omits every bit of sense that I'm sure the novel granted the characters and plot, and ends up looking like a giant, disgusting heap of garbage?
If the filmmakers had any idea what they were doing, I would applaud them infinitely for their subtlety. If there is anything to this movie (disregarding what it robs [not takes, robs] from the book), it is disguised as an unforgivably unenjoyable and worthless piece that cannot be considered art, nor entertainment, nor even film.
I'm serious.
I could not stand a second of this movie. I watched it in an Existentialism class and wanted to leave, literally, after the first five minutes. But I stuck on, trying to pull some philosophy from it, or to find some sort of coherency in the mess. All I could possibly find was what was obviously straight from the novel. I can see how a couple of lines would work in a sensible rendition of the story, and the story itself would be alright with good direction. But it's as if Bill Murray stole three famous lines from an acclaimed novel and wrote in a bunch of stupid Bill Murray jokes and then pretended to act for two hours. I can't believe it.
Either this movie is crap, or I'm wrong and should never review another film.
I'm serious.
~~To clear something up, I was saying that this movie is only forgivable if it knows how bad and senseless it is--- by this I mean that if its objective is to be absurd and amoral, as is the case with most existentialist films, then it is doing its job, and doing it with amazing subtlety. If that is the case, then I respect it highly. But I am convinced otherwise. I think that the only existentialism came from W. Somerset Maugham, and the movie ruined itself. I think that the writers and actors and director are not talented, and perhaps even committed a poor and inaccurate reading of the text. I can't think of a greater sin in cinema.
0.5/4
This movie is either very smart, or absolutely stupid--the stupidest movie I have seen in months or years. I'm pretty convinced of the latter.
What it depends on is whether or not it knows it's terrible, incoherent, amoral, ridiculous in every sense... and this largely relies on Bill Murray, who starred and co-wrote the script. Does he know that he gave one of the worst performances I have ever seen in a movie? Does he know that his script adaptation omits every bit of sense that I'm sure the novel granted the characters and plot, and ends up looking like a giant, disgusting heap of garbage?
If the filmmakers had any idea what they were doing, I would applaud them infinitely for their subtlety. If there is anything to this movie (disregarding what it robs [not takes, robs] from the book), it is disguised as an unforgivably unenjoyable and worthless piece that cannot be considered art, nor entertainment, nor even film.
I'm serious.
I could not stand a second of this movie. I watched it in an Existentialism class and wanted to leave, literally, after the first five minutes. But I stuck on, trying to pull some philosophy from it, or to find some sort of coherency in the mess. All I could possibly find was what was obviously straight from the novel. I can see how a couple of lines would work in a sensible rendition of the story, and the story itself would be alright with good direction. But it's as if Bill Murray stole three famous lines from an acclaimed novel and wrote in a bunch of stupid Bill Murray jokes and then pretended to act for two hours. I can't believe it.
Either this movie is crap, or I'm wrong and should never review another film.
I'm serious.
~~To clear something up, I was saying that this movie is only forgivable if it knows how bad and senseless it is--- by this I mean that if its objective is to be absurd and amoral, as is the case with most existentialist films, then it is doing its job, and doing it with amazing subtlety. If that is the case, then I respect it highly. But I am convinced otherwise. I think that the only existentialism came from W. Somerset Maugham, and the movie ruined itself. I think that the writers and actors and director are not talented, and perhaps even committed a poor and inaccurate reading of the text. I can't think of a greater sin in cinema.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
Review: Only God Forgives
Seen 4/18/15
2/4
This movie is as shallow and pornographic as it gets. Nicolas Winding Refn crafts his revenge-fantasy film out of a quiet Ryan Gosling character, weird Bangkok imagery and senseless violence (which is insane, and is the best part of the movie).
Only God Forgives has much of what made Drive great--- the epic brutality, the surrealism, the electro-dance music, the slow-motion, the mysteriousness of Gosling's character... but what it's fatally missing is the heart and the light that Drive had. I remember loving Gosling's character in that movie. He was a "real human being, and a real hero", as the song goes. Only God Forgives takes the cheap aspects of that character and trashes the soul. In fact, nobody in this film is human. There is no heart to this movie, and no connection with the audience, so that the only thing we hope to see happen is not success or redemption for a character we love, but rather more brutality, because we know that's all Refn is going to give us.
If there was more violence, I would have liked the movie more. What I didn't like is watching the devil-character sing cheesy Thai-pop songs, or watching the mother speak in her vulgar American terms. What I'm saying is, if Refn is going to go to these extremes of violence and mystique, I'd rather he went all the way and didn't try to do anything else with the movie, like develop a disturbing mother-son relationship, or give Gosling's character any sort of personality. It's wasted energy.
I guess what is interesting is Julian's sense of morality. He won't kill the man that murdered his brother if he feels that the man was justified, and he would kill his partner over a child. He makes clear moral decisions. But yet, he would cut open the stomach of his dead mother and stick his hand inside. He clearly has an ultimate affection toward her, probably over anything in the world. When Mai disrespects her, he screams maniacally.
The film is cool in some ways, and at 89 minutes it's worth putting in one's catalogue, but beyond that there's not much to be had.
Only God Forgives has much of what made Drive great--- the epic brutality, the surrealism, the electro-dance music, the slow-motion, the mysteriousness of Gosling's character... but what it's fatally missing is the heart and the light that Drive had. I remember loving Gosling's character in that movie. He was a "real human being, and a real hero", as the song goes. Only God Forgives takes the cheap aspects of that character and trashes the soul. In fact, nobody in this film is human. There is no heart to this movie, and no connection with the audience, so that the only thing we hope to see happen is not success or redemption for a character we love, but rather more brutality, because we know that's all Refn is going to give us.
If there was more violence, I would have liked the movie more. What I didn't like is watching the devil-character sing cheesy Thai-pop songs, or watching the mother speak in her vulgar American terms. What I'm saying is, if Refn is going to go to these extremes of violence and mystique, I'd rather he went all the way and didn't try to do anything else with the movie, like develop a disturbing mother-son relationship, or give Gosling's character any sort of personality. It's wasted energy.
I guess what is interesting is Julian's sense of morality. He won't kill the man that murdered his brother if he feels that the man was justified, and he would kill his partner over a child. He makes clear moral decisions. But yet, he would cut open the stomach of his dead mother and stick his hand inside. He clearly has an ultimate affection toward her, probably over anything in the world. When Mai disrespects her, he screams maniacally.
The film is cool in some ways, and at 89 minutes it's worth putting in one's catalogue, but beyond that there's not much to be had.
Review: The Tree of Life
Seen 4/17/15
3.5/4
It would be accurate to call this film a cinematic poem, or a meditation. It doesn't follow the conventions of film very closely, making for a fantastically original and tantalizing experience. The first hour or so is like a revolution-- a gorgeous piece of art, painted by a genius. That genius would be Terrence Malick. It involves ethereal reflections on death, grief and God's apparent absence from the happenings of our world. The end of this section spirals into a breathtaking display of humanity's place in the universe next to the awesome and raging power of God. After about an hour, the film focuses on the family it had previously only shown in sweeping philosophical abstractions. It is a family in small-town Texas, around the '50s or '60s, with a few boys, a soft and caring mother, and a menacingly authoritarian father. The whole family is built around a fear for displeasing him, and what's probably the point of this section is to show the effects that has on the growth of his eldest boy.
After this relatively slow section (it's the movie's low-point), it flies back into its human-nature meditation-poetry. It would be interesting to watch the movie again and try not to cut it into three sections, but rather to fully integrate them all into one cohesive picture. I do believe that this film is cohesive and coherent--- it's not just visual rambling. The opening shot is a passage from Job, who is punished arbitrarily, despite his faithfulness, and doubts God because of it. God responds with an onslaught of accusations, the one shown in this movie being along the lines of 'where were you when I formed the Earth, and all the angels were singing my name?'. This opening passage reveals for the movie the theme of humanity's ant-like existence against the size and might of God, and also the existential question of how divine punishment and praise can be distributed arbitrarily.
I call the film a poem because of its excessive imagery, included not for the sake of plot or with any rational connection, but as the abstract images and emotions that seem to surround a theme. This is like what poets do in their writing.
I call it a meditation because it has some clear themes, but Malick explores them not by writing a film that sits cleanly within them. He doesn't cheat. Rather, I think he has some ideas about humanity and God, and so he sets up the ideas in the first part and then paints an objective picture of a family to see whether or not the ideas correspond to reality. It is a passive and objective filming, with some ideas in mind, so it is something like a meditation.
The film is beautiful and powerful-- watching it is an experience rich with awe and amazement. There may be no other film which explores philosophical themes in such uniquely poetic terms, and so for all its seemingly aimless story, I call The Tree of Life an excellent movie.
3.5/4
It would be accurate to call this film a cinematic poem, or a meditation. It doesn't follow the conventions of film very closely, making for a fantastically original and tantalizing experience. The first hour or so is like a revolution-- a gorgeous piece of art, painted by a genius. That genius would be Terrence Malick. It involves ethereal reflections on death, grief and God's apparent absence from the happenings of our world. The end of this section spirals into a breathtaking display of humanity's place in the universe next to the awesome and raging power of God. After about an hour, the film focuses on the family it had previously only shown in sweeping philosophical abstractions. It is a family in small-town Texas, around the '50s or '60s, with a few boys, a soft and caring mother, and a menacingly authoritarian father. The whole family is built around a fear for displeasing him, and what's probably the point of this section is to show the effects that has on the growth of his eldest boy.
After this relatively slow section (it's the movie's low-point), it flies back into its human-nature meditation-poetry. It would be interesting to watch the movie again and try not to cut it into three sections, but rather to fully integrate them all into one cohesive picture. I do believe that this film is cohesive and coherent--- it's not just visual rambling. The opening shot is a passage from Job, who is punished arbitrarily, despite his faithfulness, and doubts God because of it. God responds with an onslaught of accusations, the one shown in this movie being along the lines of 'where were you when I formed the Earth, and all the angels were singing my name?'. This opening passage reveals for the movie the theme of humanity's ant-like existence against the size and might of God, and also the existential question of how divine punishment and praise can be distributed arbitrarily.
I call the film a poem because of its excessive imagery, included not for the sake of plot or with any rational connection, but as the abstract images and emotions that seem to surround a theme. This is like what poets do in their writing.
I call it a meditation because it has some clear themes, but Malick explores them not by writing a film that sits cleanly within them. He doesn't cheat. Rather, I think he has some ideas about humanity and God, and so he sets up the ideas in the first part and then paints an objective picture of a family to see whether or not the ideas correspond to reality. It is a passive and objective filming, with some ideas in mind, so it is something like a meditation.
The film is beautiful and powerful-- watching it is an experience rich with awe and amazement. There may be no other film which explores philosophical themes in such uniquely poetic terms, and so for all its seemingly aimless story, I call The Tree of Life an excellent movie.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Review: La Strada
Seen once and 4/13/15
2/4
Let me tell you: there is very little reward in this experience, even for the philosopher, even for the viewer accustomed to mid-20th-century film. The depressing nature of this film is hardly even its subject matter--rather, it's the horrible acting, the bland plot and script, etc. If there is anything here, it's cinematic innovation (irrelevant to me) and symbolism (which cannot carry an experience). There must be more that works in order for me to call this a good film in the present era. I can see a few themes, and I commend Fellini for presenting them with such subtlety, but I simply can't make this fit into my 21st-century life.
My best philosophical interpretation of this film, after essentially just one viewing, is an analysis of Gelsomina as a Sartrian character. This was difficult to see, given how much the immediate events, style and bad acting distracted from the whole. But her life echoes some key ideas in Sartre's writing, which makes this film more interesting to me. What I must do, when encountering styles that are imminently distracting, particularly those of films from before the '60s, is try to see the film as a whole; as one cohesive idea.
2/4
Let me tell you: there is very little reward in this experience, even for the philosopher, even for the viewer accustomed to mid-20th-century film. The depressing nature of this film is hardly even its subject matter--rather, it's the horrible acting, the bland plot and script, etc. If there is anything here, it's cinematic innovation (irrelevant to me) and symbolism (which cannot carry an experience). There must be more that works in order for me to call this a good film in the present era. I can see a few themes, and I commend Fellini for presenting them with such subtlety, but I simply can't make this fit into my 21st-century life.
My best philosophical interpretation of this film, after essentially just one viewing, is an analysis of Gelsomina as a Sartrian character. This was difficult to see, given how much the immediate events, style and bad acting distracted from the whole. But her life echoes some key ideas in Sartre's writing, which makes this film more interesting to me. What I must do, when encountering styles that are imminently distracting, particularly those of films from before the '60s, is try to see the film as a whole; as one cohesive idea.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Review: Mulholland Drive
Seen twice and 4/10/15
3.5/4
Mulholland Drive is filled with beauty and insanity--- it has many layers, as is focused entirely on experience. Coherency is secondary, if there even is any. I view this as an experiment into how David Lynch can make his audience feel. I can almost guarantee that not all parts fit together cleanly-- sure, all of the stories are interwoven, and maybe there is one great idea that structures the film, but how can things like the the man behind the wall or the personality of the cowboy or the scene with Billy Ray Cyrus be explained such that they have a purpose for being here, other than to play with the viewer's conceptions?
With the idea that experience is the driving force behind this movie, some of my favorite experiences are as follows:
"Llorando". The women enter a secluded theater just after their love scene, when Naomi Watts is revealed to be much more than she is. They experience a performance telling them that nothing is real; it is all a tape recording. Then a woman comes out and starts singing in Spanish. Her expression and voice are breathtaking, and the melody devastatingly sad, and the two women start crying. It's as if we know the whole backstory, like some tragedy has occurred, and we are experiencing the grief with Betty and Rita. That's how authentic this part of the scene feels. Then the woman falls over and her voice continues. Betty finds a blue box in her purse and the scene ends.
As I think more about this scene, I realize how profoundly valuable the actress chosen to play the singer was. It was not just singing a melody; it was a performance. A facial and vocal ensemble of emotion. I give serious acting props to her.
"The Cowboy". Adam follows a winding road up a hill to a spot overlooking Los Angeles, where he meets with The Cowboy. The Cowboy seems to appear out of nowhere, and has a terrifyingly direct way of speaking. His face looks like a porcelain doll's, adding to his eerie effect. His lines are fantastic, and his time onscreen ends with a mysterious premonition: "you will see me one more time if you do good. You will see me two more times if you do bad."
The dream outside Winkie's. This comes early in the film, and is the first foreshadowing that this seemingly-conventional noir film is something much more. A man describes his recurring nightmare to another man inside the diner. He begins smiling about its absurdity to avoid looking insane, but gradually his tone darkens and he can't even try to escape the dream's hold on him. As the two men walk outside to confront the crux of the nightmare, he is sweating. This walk is legitimately frightening to me. Then we think there's no way the man appears, not this early in the film, and this is just a dream anyways. And he appears. The first time I saw this, I thought I was bracing myself, but my subconscious thought there was absolutely no way this was going to happen. So when it did, I was not prepared.
Every scene with Diane Selwin. After Betty and Rita disappear into the box, the movie phases back to the girl on the bed, but this time it's the new Betty-- restless, haunted, much darker. Naomi Watts puts on a fantastic new face, carrying this new darkness through scenes relentlessly horrible, such as the new Camilla kissing other people with malice right in front of the heartbroken Diane, and of unbridled horror, such as the scenes in her apartment. Watts is absolutely terrifying when in one shot her face turns from a joyous smile to shivering fear as her hallucination turns from the woman she's in love with to her own self, staring straight back at her. In the scenes at Adam's flat, her eyes and quivering mouth tell the whole disturbing story. She is perfect the entire movie through.
Naomi Watts is perfect, and the direction is perfectly unsettling. When I last saw this movie, four years ago, I had the thought that "it turns from a dream into a wet dream into a nightmare". I agree with that now--- none of it is reality, it's all some haunting delusion. It is an unforgettable movie experience, trying to assemble all the parts amidst the rising terror. It's a mental and emotional game unlike any other in film.
My first viewing, 4 years ago, I loved. Second viewing I felt I hated. Now, for good, I love it.
3.5/4
Mulholland Drive is filled with beauty and insanity--- it has many layers, as is focused entirely on experience. Coherency is secondary, if there even is any. I view this as an experiment into how David Lynch can make his audience feel. I can almost guarantee that not all parts fit together cleanly-- sure, all of the stories are interwoven, and maybe there is one great idea that structures the film, but how can things like the the man behind the wall or the personality of the cowboy or the scene with Billy Ray Cyrus be explained such that they have a purpose for being here, other than to play with the viewer's conceptions?
With the idea that experience is the driving force behind this movie, some of my favorite experiences are as follows:
"Llorando". The women enter a secluded theater just after their love scene, when Naomi Watts is revealed to be much more than she is. They experience a performance telling them that nothing is real; it is all a tape recording. Then a woman comes out and starts singing in Spanish. Her expression and voice are breathtaking, and the melody devastatingly sad, and the two women start crying. It's as if we know the whole backstory, like some tragedy has occurred, and we are experiencing the grief with Betty and Rita. That's how authentic this part of the scene feels. Then the woman falls over and her voice continues. Betty finds a blue box in her purse and the scene ends.
As I think more about this scene, I realize how profoundly valuable the actress chosen to play the singer was. It was not just singing a melody; it was a performance. A facial and vocal ensemble of emotion. I give serious acting props to her.
"The Cowboy". Adam follows a winding road up a hill to a spot overlooking Los Angeles, where he meets with The Cowboy. The Cowboy seems to appear out of nowhere, and has a terrifyingly direct way of speaking. His face looks like a porcelain doll's, adding to his eerie effect. His lines are fantastic, and his time onscreen ends with a mysterious premonition: "you will see me one more time if you do good. You will see me two more times if you do bad."
The dream outside Winkie's. This comes early in the film, and is the first foreshadowing that this seemingly-conventional noir film is something much more. A man describes his recurring nightmare to another man inside the diner. He begins smiling about its absurdity to avoid looking insane, but gradually his tone darkens and he can't even try to escape the dream's hold on him. As the two men walk outside to confront the crux of the nightmare, he is sweating. This walk is legitimately frightening to me. Then we think there's no way the man appears, not this early in the film, and this is just a dream anyways. And he appears. The first time I saw this, I thought I was bracing myself, but my subconscious thought there was absolutely no way this was going to happen. So when it did, I was not prepared.
Every scene with Diane Selwin. After Betty and Rita disappear into the box, the movie phases back to the girl on the bed, but this time it's the new Betty-- restless, haunted, much darker. Naomi Watts puts on a fantastic new face, carrying this new darkness through scenes relentlessly horrible, such as the new Camilla kissing other people with malice right in front of the heartbroken Diane, and of unbridled horror, such as the scenes in her apartment. Watts is absolutely terrifying when in one shot her face turns from a joyous smile to shivering fear as her hallucination turns from the woman she's in love with to her own self, staring straight back at her. In the scenes at Adam's flat, her eyes and quivering mouth tell the whole disturbing story. She is perfect the entire movie through.
Naomi Watts is perfect, and the direction is perfectly unsettling. When I last saw this movie, four years ago, I had the thought that "it turns from a dream into a wet dream into a nightmare". I agree with that now--- none of it is reality, it's all some haunting delusion. It is an unforgettable movie experience, trying to assemble all the parts amidst the rising terror. It's a mental and emotional game unlike any other in film.
My first viewing, 4 years ago, I loved. Second viewing I felt I hated. Now, for good, I love it.
Friday, April 3, 2015
Review: The Master
Seen twice and 4/3/15
3.5/4
The Master is Paul Thomas Anderson's endlessly interesting and original take on religion, loyalty, hedonism and power. The characters he crafts are fascinating, and the dialogue is even better. As with his other movies, when the characters speak there is some strange power in the words that cuts to the core of human nature. Anderson is fearlessly insightful--he pushes himself to write scenes which no other filmmaker is daring enough to even fathom. Example: Amy Adams performs a strange act on Philip Seymour Hoffman to evoke her womanly power that will convince him to bend to her will. Another: Joaquin Phoenix smacks his own face three times as punishment for not being able to stare down his past, and Hoffman's piggish face, without blinking. Another, evoking classic There Will Be Blood Anderson: Phoenix has a bout of violence on a customer amidst a mall of onlookers that begins abruptly and continues with such awkwardness it becomes the epitome of despicable. This writing is the meaning of 'reckless abandon' in art.
The character of Freddie Quell is extremely fascinating, despite his simplicity. Perhaps the intrigue is actually in his simplicity--it seems unbelievable that he could be so juvenile in mind and manner. It is new for Anderson, to develop a character of such low complexity. Freddie really demonstrates Lancaster Dodd's notion of man as animal--he has no ambition or conscience but to obtain animalistic pleasure and serve somebody with unbridled loyalty. He is like that dragon which Dodd teaches to sit, stay and roll over.
Lancaster Dodd is also interesting. He seems unable to accept doubt, and blows his top at any doubter or critic. He is very charismatic--he has some hypnotic power that grasps every one of his listeners and causes them to believe in everything he says. They even laugh at his smallest humor. This is not comedic to the viewer, but striking.
Both of the two main actors play their roles extremely well. Philip Seymour Hoffman is Philip Seymour Hoffman, and his character probably wasn't difficult for him to find, but Joaquin Phoenix inhabits a soul that is almost unearthly. He embodies every characteristic nuance of Freddie Quell, all the disgustingness, all the despicableness, the lip, the laugh, the walk... It is an amazing performance.
This movie is fascinating in so many ways. It is mostly Anderson's quality and originality of writing which brings unspoken truths to the forefront, and it is purely awesome. So many scenes are historically good--I consider them among the best I've ever seen on film.
As a whole, I think that this is far less perfect than There Will Be Blood. But it is also less minimalist, and more stylistic, so there is more room for error. Nevertheless, it has an extreme appeal to my mind, and I will hold it as one of my signature movies for the rest of my life.
3.5/4
The Master is Paul Thomas Anderson's endlessly interesting and original take on religion, loyalty, hedonism and power. The characters he crafts are fascinating, and the dialogue is even better. As with his other movies, when the characters speak there is some strange power in the words that cuts to the core of human nature. Anderson is fearlessly insightful--he pushes himself to write scenes which no other filmmaker is daring enough to even fathom. Example: Amy Adams performs a strange act on Philip Seymour Hoffman to evoke her womanly power that will convince him to bend to her will. Another: Joaquin Phoenix smacks his own face three times as punishment for not being able to stare down his past, and Hoffman's piggish face, without blinking. Another, evoking classic There Will Be Blood Anderson: Phoenix has a bout of violence on a customer amidst a mall of onlookers that begins abruptly and continues with such awkwardness it becomes the epitome of despicable. This writing is the meaning of 'reckless abandon' in art.
The character of Freddie Quell is extremely fascinating, despite his simplicity. Perhaps the intrigue is actually in his simplicity--it seems unbelievable that he could be so juvenile in mind and manner. It is new for Anderson, to develop a character of such low complexity. Freddie really demonstrates Lancaster Dodd's notion of man as animal--he has no ambition or conscience but to obtain animalistic pleasure and serve somebody with unbridled loyalty. He is like that dragon which Dodd teaches to sit, stay and roll over.
Lancaster Dodd is also interesting. He seems unable to accept doubt, and blows his top at any doubter or critic. He is very charismatic--he has some hypnotic power that grasps every one of his listeners and causes them to believe in everything he says. They even laugh at his smallest humor. This is not comedic to the viewer, but striking.
Both of the two main actors play their roles extremely well. Philip Seymour Hoffman is Philip Seymour Hoffman, and his character probably wasn't difficult for him to find, but Joaquin Phoenix inhabits a soul that is almost unearthly. He embodies every characteristic nuance of Freddie Quell, all the disgustingness, all the despicableness, the lip, the laugh, the walk... It is an amazing performance.
This movie is fascinating in so many ways. It is mostly Anderson's quality and originality of writing which brings unspoken truths to the forefront, and it is purely awesome. So many scenes are historically good--I consider them among the best I've ever seen on film.
As a whole, I think that this is far less perfect than There Will Be Blood. But it is also less minimalist, and more stylistic, so there is more room for error. Nevertheless, it has an extreme appeal to my mind, and I will hold it as one of my signature movies for the rest of my life.
Review: Jane Eyre (Cary Fukunaga)
Seen 4/2/15
3.5/4
Jane Eyre is a fantastic story by Charlotte Bronte, put on by fantastic actors. The protagonist and the man are tremendously intriguing characters, and the pair is just as strong (up until one point, which I will explicate later). But not only are the characters powerfully engaging in their own right--indeed, reading this book would be a large and grand experience in itself--the actors Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender add a whole new dimension of greatness and intensity. Yes, I would call this adaptation "great", having never read the book, but feeling almost uniform consistency and strength throughout the film. Fukunaga made a great and powerful film, regardless of whether it appealed to the book.
My single complaint with the film is the speed to which Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester acclimate as equals upon his proposal and the advent of their unbridled romance. Beforehand, there was a subtle intensity and profoundness to every word spoken between the two of them. While he could say anything he pleased (which, no mistake, was always fully worth hearing), she had to be careful as his subordinate. Suddenly, once he declares his love, she is able to let down every barrier that pushed her from him, barriers that had existed all her life in relationships. It seems very unlikely, and it is de-characterizing, which is the saddest sin the filmmakers could have committed after crafting such incredible characters.
But soon, as Jane learns of Bertha Antoinetta Mason, her manner is restored and the rest of the film feels corrected and true.
I love the character of Jane Eyre, the character of Fairfax Rochester, the two together, Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, the pre-Victorian English setting, the Romantic-era string music, and I love the film Jane Eyre.
To be clearer, it is not Jane's letting her guard down and releasing her sense of inferiority that disappoints me in that scene in the field. In fact, that whole scene rests fairly well with me. It is rather the following couple of minutes, where every aspect of their personalities around one another vanish and they are instantly a "couple", playful and comfortable, with hardly the intellection that had defined them prior. Then the correction in the film occurs not because Jane takes to her inferiority again, but because the true state of their relationship--not as a seasoned and romantic couple, but rather transitionary--is restored. The film ends with a scene that is more pure and true to the characters than I could have imagined. The turn of events is extraordinary, and the film ends in a rightful state.
3.5/4
Jane Eyre is a fantastic story by Charlotte Bronte, put on by fantastic actors. The protagonist and the man are tremendously intriguing characters, and the pair is just as strong (up until one point, which I will explicate later). But not only are the characters powerfully engaging in their own right--indeed, reading this book would be a large and grand experience in itself--the actors Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender add a whole new dimension of greatness and intensity. Yes, I would call this adaptation "great", having never read the book, but feeling almost uniform consistency and strength throughout the film. Fukunaga made a great and powerful film, regardless of whether it appealed to the book.
My single complaint with the film is the speed to which Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester acclimate as equals upon his proposal and the advent of their unbridled romance. Beforehand, there was a subtle intensity and profoundness to every word spoken between the two of them. While he could say anything he pleased (which, no mistake, was always fully worth hearing), she had to be careful as his subordinate. Suddenly, once he declares his love, she is able to let down every barrier that pushed her from him, barriers that had existed all her life in relationships. It seems very unlikely, and it is de-characterizing, which is the saddest sin the filmmakers could have committed after crafting such incredible characters.
But soon, as Jane learns of Bertha Antoinetta Mason, her manner is restored and the rest of the film feels corrected and true.
I love the character of Jane Eyre, the character of Fairfax Rochester, the two together, Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, the pre-Victorian English setting, the Romantic-era string music, and I love the film Jane Eyre.
To be clearer, it is not Jane's letting her guard down and releasing her sense of inferiority that disappoints me in that scene in the field. In fact, that whole scene rests fairly well with me. It is rather the following couple of minutes, where every aspect of their personalities around one another vanish and they are instantly a "couple", playful and comfortable, with hardly the intellection that had defined them prior. Then the correction in the film occurs not because Jane takes to her inferiority again, but because the true state of their relationship--not as a seasoned and romantic couple, but rather transitionary--is restored. The film ends with a scene that is more pure and true to the characters than I could have imagined. The turn of events is extraordinary, and the film ends in a rightful state.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Review: A Serious Man
Seen 3/30/15
2.5/4 or 3/4
I am not sure how autobiographical A Serious Man really is. The answer matters though.
The Coens are Jewish, and this film takes place entirely within a Jewish community and paradigm. But one assumes that the filmmakers are in the perspective of looking back on a Jewish life and worldview after maturing. If the film ends up not being based on life events and characters, or only very loosely, it is a baffling art piece. This is more than just absurdity--the Coens are subtle and thoughtful, and there's a great chance that this film is allegorical in the same way as O Brother, Where Art Thou? In such a case there would be a lot to chew on here. Otherwise, if the film is just a meditation on the brothers' upbringing, a small picture painted with visionary creativity and skill as nothing more than a "project" which grapples playfully with characters and events of their past, I would regard it as just a funny and inventive quirk of a movie.
Indeed, it is a pretty funny movie, and it is very interesting the way characters interact with each other, with the world and with themselves. I definitely think that there are profound ideas behind the entertainment; I trust the Coen brothers. Either way, it is an innovative and enjoyable film.
2.5/4 or 3/4
I am not sure how autobiographical A Serious Man really is. The answer matters though.
The Coens are Jewish, and this film takes place entirely within a Jewish community and paradigm. But one assumes that the filmmakers are in the perspective of looking back on a Jewish life and worldview after maturing. If the film ends up not being based on life events and characters, or only very loosely, it is a baffling art piece. This is more than just absurdity--the Coens are subtle and thoughtful, and there's a great chance that this film is allegorical in the same way as O Brother, Where Art Thou? In such a case there would be a lot to chew on here. Otherwise, if the film is just a meditation on the brothers' upbringing, a small picture painted with visionary creativity and skill as nothing more than a "project" which grapples playfully with characters and events of their past, I would regard it as just a funny and inventive quirk of a movie.
Indeed, it is a pretty funny movie, and it is very interesting the way characters interact with each other, with the world and with themselves. I definitely think that there are profound ideas behind the entertainment; I trust the Coen brothers. Either way, it is an innovative and enjoyable film.
Monday, March 23, 2015
Review: Grease
Seen many times, and 3/23/15
3/4
A very biased review, indeed. But as I moved into objective observation amidst this last viewing, I found that there was a quality I had mistaken in my childhood for entertainment that was never constructed but had always been. I saw that actors were acting, and lines had been written, and songs recorded. I saw that it was all very well-done---much better than it could have been done. I think that this is a high-quality portrayal of a caricature of '50s culture with high entertainment value--what more should I ask for than a good portrayal of something and entertainment? It would take intense Cartesian focus to produce an even decent analysis of the film, and the product would be relatively worthless, considering that this is not really a film, but rather a musical translated onscreen to reach a wide '70s audience and with no higher cinematic purpose. Nevertheless, from what intuition grants me, this is a well-executed parcel of joy and entertainment. I appreciate it in a sense that separates it from all other movies--it was a part of my childhood, but also its aim feels different. Perhaps I just haven't seen enough for Broadway movies to create a relative that would allow me to critique this well. But I can live with that.
3/4
A very biased review, indeed. But as I moved into objective observation amidst this last viewing, I found that there was a quality I had mistaken in my childhood for entertainment that was never constructed but had always been. I saw that actors were acting, and lines had been written, and songs recorded. I saw that it was all very well-done---much better than it could have been done. I think that this is a high-quality portrayal of a caricature of '50s culture with high entertainment value--what more should I ask for than a good portrayal of something and entertainment? It would take intense Cartesian focus to produce an even decent analysis of the film, and the product would be relatively worthless, considering that this is not really a film, but rather a musical translated onscreen to reach a wide '70s audience and with no higher cinematic purpose. Nevertheless, from what intuition grants me, this is a well-executed parcel of joy and entertainment. I appreciate it in a sense that separates it from all other movies--it was a part of my childhood, but also its aim feels different. Perhaps I just haven't seen enough for Broadway movies to create a relative that would allow me to critique this well. But I can live with that.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Review: Foxcatcher
Seen 3/15/15
2.5/4
Sigh. I am disappointed to say that this is little more than a sports drama. I am also disappointed to say that this is a true story. Therefore, the title means nothing; thematic cohesiveness is murdered for faithfulness; there are no "ideas" driving the work of art. It's watching Dateline.
The acting is tremendous, and the unknown-to-me world of wrestling is interesting, but Foxcatcher is a sad disappointment after what I saw in the previews and in the actors.
Friday, March 13, 2015
Review: Melancholia
3.5/4
WOW. This movie is an absolute nightmare. Part I is a human drama with only small undertones of anything more. But Part II obliterates. There is a deep terror that owns the last quarter of this film, and it is shaking and even mind-bending. It examines humanity through the most intimate apocalypse I have ever seen and in that way disturbs the viewer with a frighteningly new image. We know how to react to apocalypse movies with dramatic newsreels and big-city populations fleeing from disaster. We see that all the time. But how do we take in the end of the world from the perspective of three or four people, cut completely off from society? And could the group be more diverse? We have an astroscientist, a child, a detached prophet and an exactly-human woman. The set-up is fantastic. Even more powerful is the terror of the inevitable, which we experience through the woman of full humanity. We think of who we would want to spend Earth's last hour with. What if we had a child? What if we were alone somewhere? The consequences of the apocalyptic event, both physically and psychologically, are fascinating. While Part I was mostly depressing to me, and contributed almost nothing to the end, I can forget all of that for the ungodly ambition that made Part II a revelation. The movie was beautiful and powerful, and original in all capacities.
WOW. This movie is an absolute nightmare. Part I is a human drama with only small undertones of anything more. But Part II obliterates. There is a deep terror that owns the last quarter of this film, and it is shaking and even mind-bending. It examines humanity through the most intimate apocalypse I have ever seen and in that way disturbs the viewer with a frighteningly new image. We know how to react to apocalypse movies with dramatic newsreels and big-city populations fleeing from disaster. We see that all the time. But how do we take in the end of the world from the perspective of three or four people, cut completely off from society? And could the group be more diverse? We have an astroscientist, a child, a detached prophet and an exactly-human woman. The set-up is fantastic. Even more powerful is the terror of the inevitable, which we experience through the woman of full humanity. We think of who we would want to spend Earth's last hour with. What if we had a child? What if we were alone somewhere? The consequences of the apocalyptic event, both physically and psychologically, are fascinating. While Part I was mostly depressing to me, and contributed almost nothing to the end, I can forget all of that for the ungodly ambition that made Part II a revelation. The movie was beautiful and powerful, and original in all capacities.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Review: The Graduate
3/4
For all of the techniques that it utilizes and the subtlety of its thematic exploration, The Graduate is an interesting and respectable film. The music is what makes it enjoyable. I don't like this film all that much, and found it pretty upsetting and empty, but if I could have focused on ideas the whole way through I know I would have found much more reward in the experience. Like I said, Paul Simon's fantastic accompaniment was the sole factor contributing to my enjoyment of the film. That music saved the experience for me.
For all of the techniques that it utilizes and the subtlety of its thematic exploration, The Graduate is an interesting and respectable film. The music is what makes it enjoyable. I don't like this film all that much, and found it pretty upsetting and empty, but if I could have focused on ideas the whole way through I know I would have found much more reward in the experience. Like I said, Paul Simon's fantastic accompaniment was the sole factor contributing to my enjoyment of the film. That music saved the experience for me.
Friday, March 6, 2015
Review: Shrek
Seen 3/(3, 5, 6)/15 (broken up)
2.5/4
Amidst a couple varieties of crudeness and insensitivity (potty humor, African-American voice as annoying jackass sidekick, Scottish voice as big dumb drunkard, blonde American voice as beautiful princess), one can also find a surprising amount of maturity in Shrek--beyond the blatant innuendos. The artistry involves professional film techniques and adult-indie music, while the thematic material is somewhat socially profound and unconventional for kids' movies. The movie is funny enough and entertaining enough to function very well as a movie for children that can also hold an adult audience's attention--I feel that this is the scale on which I must rate movies of this genre, and Shrek holds up well.
2.5/4
Amidst a couple varieties of crudeness and insensitivity (potty humor, African-American voice as annoying jackass sidekick, Scottish voice as big dumb drunkard, blonde American voice as beautiful princess), one can also find a surprising amount of maturity in Shrek--beyond the blatant innuendos. The artistry involves professional film techniques and adult-indie music, while the thematic material is somewhat socially profound and unconventional for kids' movies. The movie is funny enough and entertaining enough to function very well as a movie for children that can also hold an adult audience's attention--I feel that this is the scale on which I must rate movies of this genre, and Shrek holds up well.
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Review: Cool Hand Luke
Seen 3/2/15
3/4
I want to see this movie again---my first experience of a "classic" movie is always tainted by modernist expectations, but I recognize that, within the parameters of the genre, this film is one I can greatly respect and personally appreciate. The protagonist is appealing in every sense of the word to me, while the thematic material is advanced for its time. The movie is certainly subject to, can I say, pre-70s cheesiness, but that doesn't hinder the effect of the film. Many themes resonated with me on an individual level, and it would be worth exploring again.
3/4
I want to see this movie again---my first experience of a "classic" movie is always tainted by modernist expectations, but I recognize that, within the parameters of the genre, this film is one I can greatly respect and personally appreciate. The protagonist is appealing in every sense of the word to me, while the thematic material is advanced for its time. The movie is certainly subject to, can I say, pre-70s cheesiness, but that doesn't hinder the effect of the film. Many themes resonated with me on an individual level, and it would be worth exploring again.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Review: The Passion of the Christ
Seen 2/(27-28)/15--(broken up)
2.5/4
This film is difficult to judge. Roger Ebert gave it four stars, because he took it with respect to its purpose. I am willing to do that in some ways, but also it is a film, and thus we must recognize its mediocrities in that regard.
Apart from the ceaseless brutality, you may be surprised to hear me call this film "childish". Its characters are one-dimensional and highly archetypal. Some of them could have been placed in a Disney movie without seeming too mature to belong. There are plenty of film-cliche sequences also. Mel Gibson is working straight from the Bible, but there is only so much material there, and he fills in the holes poorly and lazily.
The performance of John Caviezel shows in him extraordinary strength and determination as an actor. It seems there is no low he is not willing to touch.
Whose fault is it that I didn't recognize Caviezel's sufferer as Jesus Christ? Throughout the film, my deeper consciousness failed to truly make the connection. Instead, I felt as if I was just watching an arbitrary body being brutalized. And even in the serene sequences, the flashbacks, it wasn't Jesus I was seeing. Is it my strange connection/disconnection with Christianity that limited my perception? Is it Caviezel? Is it the dialogue? The direction? Maybe there is no way portray the most iconic human figure of all time to expectations, simply because the expectations are unmeetably high.
Indeed, I felt disappointed with my emotional connection to this film. I felt almost nothing but a constant grimace, a sickening feeling. There wasn't much for compassion, or gratefulness. I am glad I am not a Christian anymore; otherwise, I would feel guilty for such a lack of response.
The violence though; it is there, it is inescapable, and it is done well for the most part. At times it's that kind of Hollywood-epic violence, but mostly it's realism, which is exactly what I wanted. Unfortunately, the maturity-in-realism fails to extend beyond the violent visuals. That's why the rest of this movie is standard, barely par, and one can only rate it with any enthusiasm when one considers its purpose, which depended upon the violence. But even there, I sense that the purpose was ultimately to invoke compassion and appreciation, through merciless violence, whereas I only saw violence. But an experiential interpretation of this film must necessarily be highly personal.
I thought I was getting into a film of profound maturity that was built on the matter of adult-level cinema and thought. Reality was a bit disappointing.
2.5/4
This film is difficult to judge. Roger Ebert gave it four stars, because he took it with respect to its purpose. I am willing to do that in some ways, but also it is a film, and thus we must recognize its mediocrities in that regard.
Apart from the ceaseless brutality, you may be surprised to hear me call this film "childish". Its characters are one-dimensional and highly archetypal. Some of them could have been placed in a Disney movie without seeming too mature to belong. There are plenty of film-cliche sequences also. Mel Gibson is working straight from the Bible, but there is only so much material there, and he fills in the holes poorly and lazily.
The performance of John Caviezel shows in him extraordinary strength and determination as an actor. It seems there is no low he is not willing to touch.
Whose fault is it that I didn't recognize Caviezel's sufferer as Jesus Christ? Throughout the film, my deeper consciousness failed to truly make the connection. Instead, I felt as if I was just watching an arbitrary body being brutalized. And even in the serene sequences, the flashbacks, it wasn't Jesus I was seeing. Is it my strange connection/disconnection with Christianity that limited my perception? Is it Caviezel? Is it the dialogue? The direction? Maybe there is no way portray the most iconic human figure of all time to expectations, simply because the expectations are unmeetably high.
Indeed, I felt disappointed with my emotional connection to this film. I felt almost nothing but a constant grimace, a sickening feeling. There wasn't much for compassion, or gratefulness. I am glad I am not a Christian anymore; otherwise, I would feel guilty for such a lack of response.
The violence though; it is there, it is inescapable, and it is done well for the most part. At times it's that kind of Hollywood-epic violence, but mostly it's realism, which is exactly what I wanted. Unfortunately, the maturity-in-realism fails to extend beyond the violent visuals. That's why the rest of this movie is standard, barely par, and one can only rate it with any enthusiasm when one considers its purpose, which depended upon the violence. But even there, I sense that the purpose was ultimately to invoke compassion and appreciation, through merciless violence, whereas I only saw violence. But an experiential interpretation of this film must necessarily be highly personal.
I thought I was getting into a film of profound maturity that was built on the matter of adult-level cinema and thought. Reality was a bit disappointing.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Review: Seventh Seal
Seen 2/23/15
3/4
3/4
You know, I really don't have much to say about this film. Certain themes were portrayed skillfully, but did I learn anything? Does a movie wrestle with a topic just because it asks a question? Does it provide any insight one way or the other?
Perhaps Seventh Seal did. I am positive that there was more to it than I saw, and subtle symbolism and such is always really cool, but I'm not convinced that the film is truly that valuable to me. The reward in watching pre-60s films is, in general, dangerously slim---it basically lies only in techniques that one must watch out for. The acting and music is depressingly tacky.
I can appreciate a movie like this' influence, but personal reward? Value of experience? Low.
Monday, February 16, 2015
Review: Annie Hall
Seen 2/16/15
3/4
Although funny, intelligent and fascinating, I found Annie Hall to be characterized by an absence of pathos, and thus watching this movie was not an enjoyable experience for me. Overwhelming negative emotion is far more preferable to me than no emotion, whether experienced in the third or the first person, so I was simply depressed (in the most unfulfilled, meaningless sense of the mental state) by this film.
It is an overtly and self-consciously existentialist work; it discusses death, despair, disconnect, and other such things honestly, and searches for meaning in the human experience ("I quit smoking years ago." "What do you mean?" "Mean?......."). But what I found is that while I connect with the existentialist's search for meaning, and even respect part of the movement's conclusion that there is no cosmological significance to our lives' events, I am forever depressed by the notion of not finding personal meaning in the events of my life, especially with respect to relationships. Watching Woody Allen's character and his romantic other treat one another as if the universe's indifference manifests in them was difficult for me. I would probably claim to be in favor of the view that there is no objective significance to our actions and happenings, but the thought of treating another human being with that in mind is unfortunate and ugly. The same I can apply to hobbies and interests and other pursuits of mine. How I pass my time may not be significant to a deity or to the universe, by morality or by something else, but I can place meaning on it myself. I can be fulfilled by the things that I do, and I can perceive my life as meaningful.
Annie Hall doesn't do that. It deals in cold indifference. Absurdity. The arbitrary. There is neither good nor evil. I am fine with Woody Allen being an existentialist, and I am fine with him making movies that demonstrate the viewpoint that life is meaningless...he has my respect...but I just don't want to sit through that.
3/4
Although funny, intelligent and fascinating, I found Annie Hall to be characterized by an absence of pathos, and thus watching this movie was not an enjoyable experience for me. Overwhelming negative emotion is far more preferable to me than no emotion, whether experienced in the third or the first person, so I was simply depressed (in the most unfulfilled, meaningless sense of the mental state) by this film.
It is an overtly and self-consciously existentialist work; it discusses death, despair, disconnect, and other such things honestly, and searches for meaning in the human experience ("I quit smoking years ago." "What do you mean?" "Mean?......."). But what I found is that while I connect with the existentialist's search for meaning, and even respect part of the movement's conclusion that there is no cosmological significance to our lives' events, I am forever depressed by the notion of not finding personal meaning in the events of my life, especially with respect to relationships. Watching Woody Allen's character and his romantic other treat one another as if the universe's indifference manifests in them was difficult for me. I would probably claim to be in favor of the view that there is no objective significance to our actions and happenings, but the thought of treating another human being with that in mind is unfortunate and ugly. The same I can apply to hobbies and interests and other pursuits of mine. How I pass my time may not be significant to a deity or to the universe, by morality or by something else, but I can place meaning on it myself. I can be fulfilled by the things that I do, and I can perceive my life as meaningful.
Annie Hall doesn't do that. It deals in cold indifference. Absurdity. The arbitrary. There is neither good nor evil. I am fine with Woody Allen being an existentialist, and I am fine with him making movies that demonstrate the viewpoint that life is meaningless...he has my respect...but I just don't want to sit through that.
Monday, February 9, 2015
Review: Dr. Strangelove, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Seen 2/9/15
3.5/4
This is a finely-crafted narrative, with profound political and philosophical implications. It is very entertaining; funny, nervous, shockingly dark at times... It's a classic because the master Stanley Kubrick gives it style, humor, complexity and meaning.
3.5/4
This is a finely-crafted narrative, with profound political and philosophical implications. It is very entertaining; funny, nervous, shockingly dark at times... It's a classic because the master Stanley Kubrick gives it style, humor, complexity and meaning.
Friday, February 6, 2015
Review: Gone Girl
2.5/4
It has been months since I saw this film, but I remember impressions. I chose to review it because I watched it within the timeline of this blog--hence, within my period of maturity in filmgoing; because I want to get as much down as possible in this blog; and because I enjoy writing and rating.
I was quickly disappointed with Gillian Flynn's script, adapted from her own novel, because of its fast-paced, unrealistically witty and annoyingly suave dialogue. Anyone who has talked with me about film knows that this accounts for much of my life's misery.
But as the story progressed, I became intrigued. Flynn did in fact craft an enticing narrative, and the suave dialogue passed quickly. It was replaced with intensity. But what really pushed this movie to its maximum for me was the dark and pounding direction of Mr. David Fincher. When the disturbing story was paired with Fincher's dark-urban colors and Trent Reznor's horrifying score, I'll admit that it got me. Even now as I review, it's getting me all over again. It fried my nerves, especially the violent scenes. I don't ever want to watch those or even think about them again. So I guess Fincher did his job, and this movie deserves a solid rating.
I just don't think that it reaches far enough. The direction kills, but the dialogue leaves much to be desired. Also, the acting: I have a distaste for Ben Affleck. I have never liked his acting in a film, and I don't think that he fits the character at all here. Rosamund Pike, however, is frightening and beautiful. She gives the film much more power, where the other actors should have.
I recall being interested in Tyler Perry's part in the story, in the complexities of media and public image. It's all a worthless game, I know, but it was interesting to see him take it seriously and to see how an educated man would approach the idea of upholding an image.
I cannot give this film a 3/4 rating because of its weaknesses, but I do recognize its strengths. And it is extremely strong, in its unique ways.
It has been months since I saw this film, but I remember impressions. I chose to review it because I watched it within the timeline of this blog--hence, within my period of maturity in filmgoing; because I want to get as much down as possible in this blog; and because I enjoy writing and rating.
I was quickly disappointed with Gillian Flynn's script, adapted from her own novel, because of its fast-paced, unrealistically witty and annoyingly suave dialogue. Anyone who has talked with me about film knows that this accounts for much of my life's misery.
But as the story progressed, I became intrigued. Flynn did in fact craft an enticing narrative, and the suave dialogue passed quickly. It was replaced with intensity. But what really pushed this movie to its maximum for me was the dark and pounding direction of Mr. David Fincher. When the disturbing story was paired with Fincher's dark-urban colors and Trent Reznor's horrifying score, I'll admit that it got me. Even now as I review, it's getting me all over again. It fried my nerves, especially the violent scenes. I don't ever want to watch those or even think about them again. So I guess Fincher did his job, and this movie deserves a solid rating.
I just don't think that it reaches far enough. The direction kills, but the dialogue leaves much to be desired. Also, the acting: I have a distaste for Ben Affleck. I have never liked his acting in a film, and I don't think that he fits the character at all here. Rosamund Pike, however, is frightening and beautiful. She gives the film much more power, where the other actors should have.
I recall being interested in Tyler Perry's part in the story, in the complexities of media and public image. It's all a worthless game, I know, but it was interesting to see him take it seriously and to see how an educated man would approach the idea of upholding an image.
I cannot give this film a 3/4 rating because of its weaknesses, but I do recognize its strengths. And it is extremely strong, in its unique ways.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Review: World War Z
Seen 2/3/15
2.5/4
This was an enjoyable apocalypse movie. The best parts were Brad Pitt (I just personally like him) and the awesome violence and destruction of human bodies. The scenes with thousands of bodies forming wrangling piles, getting blown up, set fire to... The scenes with individual bodies being slaughtered... These were visually very cool. As far as Brad Pitt goes, I just loved seeing him as a heroic father and a good, strong-willed, rational man.
Other than that, there was nothing special about this movie. It did identical things to many other apocalypse movies. It had no reason to be made whatsoever, save for those epic scenes with thousands of bodies.
Was the director suggesting that this is symbolic of what will happen if we don't put a stop to climate change? Environmentalist message?
2.5/4
This was an enjoyable apocalypse movie. The best parts were Brad Pitt (I just personally like him) and the awesome violence and destruction of human bodies. The scenes with thousands of bodies forming wrangling piles, getting blown up, set fire to... The scenes with individual bodies being slaughtered... These were visually very cool. As far as Brad Pitt goes, I just loved seeing him as a heroic father and a good, strong-willed, rational man.
Other than that, there was nothing special about this movie. It did identical things to many other apocalypse movies. It had no reason to be made whatsoever, save for those epic scenes with thousands of bodies.
Was the director suggesting that this is symbolic of what will happen if we don't put a stop to climate change? Environmentalist message?
Monday, February 2, 2015
My Impressioned, Unofficial Ratings
3/4--Dogtooth
3/4--Lord of the Rings
3/4--Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives
3/4--Blade Runner
4/4--The Departed
3.5/4--Shutter Island
4/4--There Will Be Blood
4/4--No Country For Old Men
2/4--Being John Malkovich
2.5/4--Adaptation
3/4--What's Eating Gilbert Grape
1.5/4--Hitch
3/4--I Am Legend
4/4--Silver Linings Playbook
2.5/4--Hunger Games (total)
3/4--The Dark Knight
2.5/4--The Dark Knight Rises
3.5/4--The Truman Show
3/4--Drinking Buddies
3/4--Troy
1.5/4--12 Monkeys
2/4--Skyfall
3.5/4--Casino Royale
1.5/4--The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
2.5/4--Donnie Darko
3/4--Good Will Hunting
3/4--Wendy and Lucy
4/4--Blue Valentine
4/4--The Shining
2/4--The Silence of the Lambs
1.5/4--The Cabin in the Woods
2.5/4--Django Unchained
3.5/4--Pulp Fiction
2.5/4--Bernie
3/4--The Breakfast Club
3/4--Crazy, Stupid Love
4/4--Little Miss Sunshine
1.5/4--Bruce Almighty
3.5/4--As Good as it Gets
2/4--The Avengers
2.5/4--A Beautiful Mind
2.5/4--Argofuck Yourself
3/4--Gravity
4/4--WALL-E
3.5/4--Monster's Inc.
2.5/4--Up
3/4--Punch-Drunk Love
3.5/4--The Master
2.5/4--Leaving Las Vegas
3/4--Her
3/4--Lord of the Rings
3/4--Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives
3/4--Blade Runner
4/4--The Departed
3.5/4--Shutter Island
4/4--There Will Be Blood
4/4--No Country For Old Men
2/4--Being John Malkovich
2.5/4--Adaptation
3/4--What's Eating Gilbert Grape
1.5/4--Hitch
3/4--I Am Legend
4/4--Silver Linings Playbook
2.5/4--Hunger Games (total)
3/4--The Dark Knight
2.5/4--The Dark Knight Rises
3.5/4--The Truman Show
3/4--Drinking Buddies
3/4--Troy
1.5/4--12 Monkeys
2/4--Skyfall
3.5/4--Casino Royale
1.5/4--The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
2.5/4--Donnie Darko
3/4--Good Will Hunting
3/4--Wendy and Lucy
4/4--Blue Valentine
4/4--The Shining
2/4--The Silence of the Lambs
1.5/4--The Cabin in the Woods
2.5/4--Django Unchained
3.5/4--Pulp Fiction
2.5/4--Bernie
3/4--The Breakfast Club
3/4--Crazy, Stupid Love
4/4--Little Miss Sunshine
1.5/4--Bruce Almighty
3.5/4--As Good as it Gets
2/4--The Avengers
2.5/4--A Beautiful Mind
2.5/4--Argofuck Yourself
3/4--Gravity
4/4--WALL-E
3.5/4--Monster's Inc.
2.5/4--Up
3/4--Punch-Drunk Love
3.5/4--The Master
2.5/4--Leaving Las Vegas
3/4--Her
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Review: Birdman
I watched Birdman in the theaters on January 31, 2014. It was one of the most exhilarating film experiences of my life.
I don't feel equipped to review it before I see it again. Although I do feel fairly confident in saying this: Birdman is fantastic.
----------------------------------------------------------
Seen 1/31/14 and 2/2/14
4/4
Birdman is soaring; sweeping; visionary; gorgeous.
It is an immersion into a new world. The world is brutally and beautifully honest.
The film reel rolls with perfect smoothness. To experience this movie is to experience perfect flow; to succumb to its current and ride on its sweeping camerawork and seamless dialogue.
After watching this film, I can call Inarritu a mastermind. He puppeteers the complex characters, the dangerous humor, the realism/absurdity balance, and the overall artwork that is film masterfully. This is a ground-breaking movie, but not only that----it is executed brilliantly.
I will probably love this movie for the rest of my life. It has probably broken into my immortal top tier; the all-time favorites.
I am not saying that it is one of the "greatest" movies of all time, or will live in legend for eternity. It is, after all, a black comedy, with limited thematic scope. It may not even win Best Picture this year. But for what it is, it is brilliant, and I can connect with its beauty and truth to the highest and the deepest level.
----------------------------------------------------------
Seen 1/31/14 and 2/2/14
4/4
Birdman is soaring; sweeping; visionary; gorgeous.
It is an immersion into a new world. The world is brutally and beautifully honest.
The film reel rolls with perfect smoothness. To experience this movie is to experience perfect flow; to succumb to its current and ride on its sweeping camerawork and seamless dialogue.
After watching this film, I can call Inarritu a mastermind. He puppeteers the complex characters, the dangerous humor, the realism/absurdity balance, and the overall artwork that is film masterfully. This is a ground-breaking movie, but not only that----it is executed brilliantly.
I will probably love this movie for the rest of my life. It has probably broken into my immortal top tier; the all-time favorites.
I am not saying that it is one of the "greatest" movies of all time, or will live in legend for eternity. It is, after all, a black comedy, with limited thematic scope. It may not even win Best Picture this year. But for what it is, it is brilliant, and I can connect with its beauty and truth to the highest and the deepest level.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Review: Che [Part I: The Argentine]
3/4
Che opens with a geographic representation of Cuba, establishing it as entertainment rooted in history. Part I closes with the main character's scolding of a few of his soldiers for stealing the enemy's car, identifying him as an ethical warrior.
The film is slow and methodical. It deals heavily in politics and history. But it also circles around a fascinating and legendary human being.
Ernesto Guevara is reserved, but strong. He is intensely rational. He has a clear and powerful mind. He is honest, civil, ethical, determined, compassionate, and as he claims is the most important characteristic in any revolutionary, loving. But he has no relationships in the film--he is devoting his entire existence to the revolution, and it is profoundly respectable in my mind.
The dialogue between he and the American reporter is intriguing and impressive. He answers questions with the perfect blend of philosophy and tactics, abstraction and application. He has many roles in the revolution, because he is simply so good at everything. He is a medic, a fighter, a leader, a teacher, a theorist, etc. It's all because of the quality of his mind. The Cuban revolution needed every one of its members to be like Che. The world needs everyone to be like Che.
Although, let's consider the context he chooses to put his mind in, which is war and brutal justice. As the film progresses, he seems to lose some of himself to the cause. After finishing the film, I am less zealous in praising him. Still, I am greatly interested in and hold great respect for him.
Benicio del Toro plays the revolutionary beautifully. His eyes tell the whole story; I am interested to see this actor in anything now.
This is quality filmmaking; the acting, directing, shooting... it's all there. My only problem is the film's lack of excitement, thematic material and reward. If you want history though, this is as good as it gets.
Che Guevara can be thought of as a controversial figure. After all, he is a guerrilla, a killer. So a significant part of interpreting this film is deciding whether or not Soderbergh is celebrating or condemning the man. Most of Part I is a celebration, but towards the end, I felt Che's image declining a bit. I'm anxious to see how he ends up in Part II; what Soderbergh's definitive view of his hero is.
As for me, I like Che. I can empathize with war, although it's not my preferred method of justice. And Che is a brilliant man, fighting for a good cause. So in my mind, so far, he really is a hero.
Che opens with a geographic representation of Cuba, establishing it as entertainment rooted in history. Part I closes with the main character's scolding of a few of his soldiers for stealing the enemy's car, identifying him as an ethical warrior.
The film is slow and methodical. It deals heavily in politics and history. But it also circles around a fascinating and legendary human being.
Ernesto Guevara is reserved, but strong. He is intensely rational. He has a clear and powerful mind. He is honest, civil, ethical, determined, compassionate, and as he claims is the most important characteristic in any revolutionary, loving. But he has no relationships in the film--he is devoting his entire existence to the revolution, and it is profoundly respectable in my mind.
The dialogue between he and the American reporter is intriguing and impressive. He answers questions with the perfect blend of philosophy and tactics, abstraction and application. He has many roles in the revolution, because he is simply so good at everything. He is a medic, a fighter, a leader, a teacher, a theorist, etc. It's all because of the quality of his mind. The Cuban revolution needed every one of its members to be like Che. The world needs everyone to be like Che.
Although, let's consider the context he chooses to put his mind in, which is war and brutal justice. As the film progresses, he seems to lose some of himself to the cause. After finishing the film, I am less zealous in praising him. Still, I am greatly interested in and hold great respect for him.
Benicio del Toro plays the revolutionary beautifully. His eyes tell the whole story; I am interested to see this actor in anything now.
This is quality filmmaking; the acting, directing, shooting... it's all there. My only problem is the film's lack of excitement, thematic material and reward. If you want history though, this is as good as it gets.
Che Guevara can be thought of as a controversial figure. After all, he is a guerrilla, a killer. So a significant part of interpreting this film is deciding whether or not Soderbergh is celebrating or condemning the man. Most of Part I is a celebration, but towards the end, I felt Che's image declining a bit. I'm anxious to see how he ends up in Part II; what Soderbergh's definitive view of his hero is.
As for me, I like Che. I can empathize with war, although it's not my preferred method of justice. And Che is a brilliant man, fighting for a good cause. So in my mind, so far, he really is a hero.
Thoughts on my favorite films
Synecdoche, NY (written a few months ago... late 2014. For some reason, was unposted)
My favorite movie is long, sad, slow, confusing, strange, thoughtful, beautiful, gruesome, honest, brutal, brutally honest... I think that Synecdoche can be called the most [intentionally] depressing movie of all time. However, it doesn't feel depressing to me. I understand that death is the subject matter, illness is unavoidable, disappointment is inevitable, relationships are meaningless... I see that everything is gray, sex is ugly, people are sad... But I don't feel depressed watching it. I feel connected. The human experience portrayed, however mercilessly depressing, is relatable. I am not depressed, and never have been, but watching this movie still feels like watching real life in its truer form, seeing only what's lying under the surface. It feels like observing real life through a gray lens, through the eyes of an existentialist who is honest with himself. I don't feel dark-hearted as this movie passes by me. The terrible things don't poison my insides as one would expect; rather, I accept them. They are acceptable to me. Everything happens, and it happens. There is little emotion connected to the progression of events, as if everything were inevitable. Life is inevitable. "The end is built into the beginning", it goes. The sermon of the preacher is empowering--"and they say there is no fate--but there is, it's what YOU create"--but this happens in the middle of a hurricane of dreadful disappointment. The sermon doesn't belong--thus it doesn't feel like the tiny but unwavering light in the midst of darkness, but more so like an unreachable ideal. Caden looks at the message--he faces it, literally--and then continues on with his life. Caden is tragic. What can he do? He can't reach for the light, grab hold of his fate. The illnesses eat away, time pushes on like a massive beast, death is coming. At every moment of life, death is working its way closer. This is the truth for everyone. The matter of existence is second by second transforming from all-life to all-death. Creeping on, yellowness chemically becoming grayness.
The moment something becomes what it should be--the moment something becomes right--it is instantly lost. Rightness vanishes nanoseconds after coming into existence. This is Caden and Hazel. Caden and Hazel is what is correct, but the universe must be incorrect. The universe builds itself toward correctness but then upon reaching its peak restores its natural state of incorrectness instantaneously. The laws of the universe conserve incorrectness, as they conserve momentum, energy and mass. "The end is built into the beginning", the universe cycles itself in restoring absurdity.
This is the world of Synecdoche. Everything is off: medical professionals are absurdly rude, poop is weird, paintings are impossibly tiny, warehouses are impossibly large, the impossible is all around. Nothing makes sense. The world is impossible to make sense of. Life happens in patterns of chaos. We exist and then things happen to us and then we don't exist. There is no salvation-giver--nothing to pull us out of the chaotic pool. Not love, nor Jesus. Not reason. There is a dominant power over the universe, and it deals in chaos and nonsense. And this is belittling for humankind. We want to be lifted up, but instead we are subject to a powerful arm of fate. That is why this movie is depressing. Because humankind wants to be more than it is. It believes in itself, so it tries. Fruitlessly. But this is not sad; the universe has no empathy. Humankind doesn't lament over its position, but crying is just a natural reaction to the non-pity of the universe on man.
The defining quality of life is that it comes before death.
.
.
.
My favorite movie is long, sad, slow, confusing, strange, thoughtful, beautiful, gruesome, honest, brutal, brutally honest... I think that Synecdoche can be called the most [intentionally] depressing movie of all time. However, it doesn't feel depressing to me. I understand that death is the subject matter, illness is unavoidable, disappointment is inevitable, relationships are meaningless... I see that everything is gray, sex is ugly, people are sad... But I don't feel depressed watching it. I feel connected. The human experience portrayed, however mercilessly depressing, is relatable. I am not depressed, and never have been, but watching this movie still feels like watching real life in its truer form, seeing only what's lying under the surface. It feels like observing real life through a gray lens, through the eyes of an existentialist who is honest with himself. I don't feel dark-hearted as this movie passes by me. The terrible things don't poison my insides as one would expect; rather, I accept them. They are acceptable to me. Everything happens, and it happens. There is little emotion connected to the progression of events, as if everything were inevitable. Life is inevitable. "The end is built into the beginning", it goes. The sermon of the preacher is empowering--"and they say there is no fate--but there is, it's what YOU create"--but this happens in the middle of a hurricane of dreadful disappointment. The sermon doesn't belong--thus it doesn't feel like the tiny but unwavering light in the midst of darkness, but more so like an unreachable ideal. Caden looks at the message--he faces it, literally--and then continues on with his life. Caden is tragic. What can he do? He can't reach for the light, grab hold of his fate. The illnesses eat away, time pushes on like a massive beast, death is coming. At every moment of life, death is working its way closer. This is the truth for everyone. The matter of existence is second by second transforming from all-life to all-death. Creeping on, yellowness chemically becoming grayness.
The moment something becomes what it should be--the moment something becomes right--it is instantly lost. Rightness vanishes nanoseconds after coming into existence. This is Caden and Hazel. Caden and Hazel is what is correct, but the universe must be incorrect. The universe builds itself toward correctness but then upon reaching its peak restores its natural state of incorrectness instantaneously. The laws of the universe conserve incorrectness, as they conserve momentum, energy and mass. "The end is built into the beginning", the universe cycles itself in restoring absurdity.
This is the world of Synecdoche. Everything is off: medical professionals are absurdly rude, poop is weird, paintings are impossibly tiny, warehouses are impossibly large, the impossible is all around. Nothing makes sense. The world is impossible to make sense of. Life happens in patterns of chaos. We exist and then things happen to us and then we don't exist. There is no salvation-giver--nothing to pull us out of the chaotic pool. Not love, nor Jesus. Not reason. There is a dominant power over the universe, and it deals in chaos and nonsense. And this is belittling for humankind. We want to be lifted up, but instead we are subject to a powerful arm of fate. That is why this movie is depressing. Because humankind wants to be more than it is. It believes in itself, so it tries. Fruitlessly. But this is not sad; the universe has no empathy. Humankind doesn't lament over its position, but crying is just a natural reaction to the non-pity of the universe on man.
The defining quality of life is that it comes before death.
.
.
.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Review: Away We Go
3/4
Please do not characterize this as a romantic comedy. There is no "romance" here, as there is none in Eternal Sunshine, another film whose image is decimated by that putrid genre assignment.
Away We Go is a film rich with sweetness and human quality. It's been a couple of months since I saw it, unfortunately, but I can remember how great an impression the center relationship made on me. I was praying that I had a relationship in my life so beautifully accepting. Indeed, it is much more a best-friendship of quirks and commitment--not a commitment of love and hearts and passion and faithfulness, but of time. These two best friends give each other all of the time of their lives, because they want to. They don't stray from each other, don't consider another life, because they are so genuinely, wonderfully happy being by each other's sides. I suppose I should call this a "companionship comedy". They are simple, like inseparable elementary-school best buddies. Simple-minded and simple in their wishes. It's a very appealing kind of existence.....
Considering the quality I saw in the center relationship, and considering the quirkiness that I'm sure most viewers post up, somewhat shallowly, as the defining characteristic of this film, it is easy to overlook one simple fact: that...wow... Away We Go is funny.
John Krasinski murders the role of Bert, the best relationship comedy central man character of all time. (Let me clarify two things: "murder" is a positive verb, and Bert probably isn't actually the best relationship comedy central man character of all time. But he's up there.) Bert is hilarious and wonderful: blunt, earnest, kind, foolish, awkward, and genuine in every sense of the word. He's also reflective at times, he cares a lot about people and life. He's more relatable, more funny and more genuine than is the norm for these kinds of movies. That's why he's undoubtedly the best relationship comedy central man character of all time.
Maya Rudolph was less special to me, but she's there, and she does it fine. I kind of actually liked a passive counterpart to Bert's flamboyancy. She seemed a little more reserved...if I'm remembering the film fully...and I wouldn't have liked the relationship or the film had there been an actor giving the character a bigger personality. Now that I think about it, I liked Maya Rudolph a lot. We need her.
So this isn't so bad a review---maybe the idea of reviewing long after seeing has an upside: I'm able to give overarching impressions that would be overshadowed by details if I could remember any details.
I liked the film a lot. It was funny and very, very sweet. I think.
Please do not characterize this as a romantic comedy. There is no "romance" here, as there is none in Eternal Sunshine, another film whose image is decimated by that putrid genre assignment.
Away We Go is a film rich with sweetness and human quality. It's been a couple of months since I saw it, unfortunately, but I can remember how great an impression the center relationship made on me. I was praying that I had a relationship in my life so beautifully accepting. Indeed, it is much more a best-friendship of quirks and commitment--not a commitment of love and hearts and passion and faithfulness, but of time. These two best friends give each other all of the time of their lives, because they want to. They don't stray from each other, don't consider another life, because they are so genuinely, wonderfully happy being by each other's sides. I suppose I should call this a "companionship comedy". They are simple, like inseparable elementary-school best buddies. Simple-minded and simple in their wishes. It's a very appealing kind of existence.....
Considering the quality I saw in the center relationship, and considering the quirkiness that I'm sure most viewers post up, somewhat shallowly, as the defining characteristic of this film, it is easy to overlook one simple fact: that...wow... Away We Go is funny.
John Krasinski murders the role of Bert, the best relationship comedy central man character of all time. (Let me clarify two things: "murder" is a positive verb, and Bert probably isn't actually the best relationship comedy central man character of all time. But he's up there.) Bert is hilarious and wonderful: blunt, earnest, kind, foolish, awkward, and genuine in every sense of the word. He's also reflective at times, he cares a lot about people and life. He's more relatable, more funny and more genuine than is the norm for these kinds of movies. That's why he's undoubtedly the best relationship comedy central man character of all time.
Maya Rudolph was less special to me, but she's there, and she does it fine. I kind of actually liked a passive counterpart to Bert's flamboyancy. She seemed a little more reserved...if I'm remembering the film fully...and I wouldn't have liked the relationship or the film had there been an actor giving the character a bigger personality. Now that I think about it, I liked Maya Rudolph a lot. We need her.
So this isn't so bad a review---maybe the idea of reviewing long after seeing has an upside: I'm able to give overarching impressions that would be overshadowed by details if I could remember any details.
I liked the film a lot. It was funny and very, very sweet. I think.
Hierarchies
Actors:
Ryan Gosling--(The Place Beyond the Pines, Drive, Blue Valentine, Half Nelson)
Philip Seymour Hoffman--(Magnolia, The Master, Boogie Nights, Synecdoche NY, A Late Quartet, Punch-Drunk Love, The Savages, The Talented Mr. Ripley)
Steve Carrell--(The Office, Little Miss Sunshine, Crazy Stupid Love)
Bradley Cooper--(American Hustle, Silver Linings Playbook, Place Beyond the Pines, American Sniper)
Leonardo DiCaprio--(The Departed, Shutter Island, Revolutionary Road)
Matt Damon--(The Departed, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Good Will Hunting)
Christian Bale--(American Hustle, The Dark Knight Trilogy)
Actresses:
Michelle Williams--(Blue Valentine, Take This Waltz, Wendy and Lucy)
Amy Adams--(American Hustle, Man of Steel [seriously])
Writers/Directors:
Paul Thomas Anderson--(Magnolia, There Will Be Blood, The Master, Boogie Nights, Punch-Drunk Love)
Charlie Kaufman--(Synecdoche, NY, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)
Stanley Kubrick--(2001, FMJ, The Shining, A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Eyes Wide Shut)
Derek Cianfrance--(The Place Beyond the Pines, Blue Valentine)
Francis Ford Coppolla--(The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, The Conversation)
David O. Russell--(Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle)
Ryan Gosling--(The Place Beyond the Pines, Drive, Blue Valentine, Half Nelson)
Philip Seymour Hoffman--(Magnolia, The Master, Boogie Nights, Synecdoche NY, A Late Quartet, Punch-Drunk Love, The Savages, The Talented Mr. Ripley)
Steve Carrell--(The Office, Little Miss Sunshine, Crazy Stupid Love)
Bradley Cooper--(American Hustle, Silver Linings Playbook, Place Beyond the Pines, American Sniper)
Leonardo DiCaprio--(The Departed, Shutter Island, Revolutionary Road)
Matt Damon--(The Departed, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Good Will Hunting)
Christian Bale--(American Hustle, The Dark Knight Trilogy)
Actresses:
Michelle Williams--(Blue Valentine, Take This Waltz, Wendy and Lucy)
Amy Adams--(American Hustle, Man of Steel [seriously])
Writers/Directors:
Paul Thomas Anderson--(Magnolia, There Will Be Blood, The Master, Boogie Nights, Punch-Drunk Love)
Charlie Kaufman--(Synecdoche, NY, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)
Stanley Kubrick--(2001, FMJ, The Shining, A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Eyes Wide Shut)
Derek Cianfrance--(The Place Beyond the Pines, Blue Valentine)
Francis Ford Coppolla--(The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, The Conversation)
David O. Russell--(Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle)
Review: American Sniper
2.5/4 (down from 3/4)
American Sniper is a solid film and not much more. I don't even feel like it tries to do a whole lot... Such is the nature of biopics, more often than not. I am frustrated by the genre as I am frustrated by adaptations of novels. American Sniper is both.
This is not to say that I can sympathize with Sniper, Eastwood in particular, for being handicapped by the genre he's working in. These directors fail to see the trap that adapting true stories or fiction from other mediums can lead to. It just doesn't fit. One cannot transcribe a story into another medium without extreme care, and a very talented eye. It just doesn't fit.
Besides those frustrations were the disappointments at the cheap, archetypal dialogue. The center romantic relationship was a cliche, in particular. The dynamic here felt like Godzilla: the awesome epicness and profoundness of the center plot plopped next to a lame romance that will keep Hollywood involved. I don't know about the rest of America, but I could do 2 hours and 15 minutes of solid combat, as I could do a whole movie of Godzilla-crap.
I cannot speak for whether the war-renderings were accurate--specifically, what matters most, the relationships between soldiers and the psyches involved--but I'd like more. I can't imagine that war is this... normal. It almost feels underromanticized. I have high expectations for emotion and thematic depth in films, because I know it's possible. I know Synecdoche and Magnolia. All other movies thus become weak.
I generally liked the tone of the film, which, like other Eastwood films, was primarily war-realism. The major weaknesses of the movie definitely came out off the battlefield, when Eastwood tried to create Hollywood human-life situations. We've seen those before.
The fighting was great though--but that's partially just me. I enjoy watching war; it is very interesting to me. Also, Bradley Cooper was very solid. He exited himself, perhaps for the first time I've personally ever seen. I didn't feel anything deep for his character though, oddly.
It was all good, well-done, fine and dandy. Some of it was powerful, some intense. If put in a setting other than war, though, I would have been dissatisfied.
American Sniper is a solid film and not much more. I don't even feel like it tries to do a whole lot... Such is the nature of biopics, more often than not. I am frustrated by the genre as I am frustrated by adaptations of novels. American Sniper is both.
This is not to say that I can sympathize with Sniper, Eastwood in particular, for being handicapped by the genre he's working in. These directors fail to see the trap that adapting true stories or fiction from other mediums can lead to. It just doesn't fit. One cannot transcribe a story into another medium without extreme care, and a very talented eye. It just doesn't fit.
Besides those frustrations were the disappointments at the cheap, archetypal dialogue. The center romantic relationship was a cliche, in particular. The dynamic here felt like Godzilla: the awesome epicness and profoundness of the center plot plopped next to a lame romance that will keep Hollywood involved. I don't know about the rest of America, but I could do 2 hours and 15 minutes of solid combat, as I could do a whole movie of Godzilla-crap.
I cannot speak for whether the war-renderings were accurate--specifically, what matters most, the relationships between soldiers and the psyches involved--but I'd like more. I can't imagine that war is this... normal. It almost feels underromanticized. I have high expectations for emotion and thematic depth in films, because I know it's possible. I know Synecdoche and Magnolia. All other movies thus become weak.
I generally liked the tone of the film, which, like other Eastwood films, was primarily war-realism. The major weaknesses of the movie definitely came out off the battlefield, when Eastwood tried to create Hollywood human-life situations. We've seen those before.
The fighting was great though--but that's partially just me. I enjoy watching war; it is very interesting to me. Also, Bradley Cooper was very solid. He exited himself, perhaps for the first time I've personally ever seen. I didn't feel anything deep for his character though, oddly.
It was all good, well-done, fine and dandy. Some of it was powerful, some intense. If put in a setting other than war, though, I would have been dissatisfied.
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Review: The Hobbit
2.5/4
Probably the only way that the Hobbit trilogy can hold much reward for someone is either if that person views movies from the surface, similar to a juvenile, or is heavily invested in Middle-Earth. Examined critically, The Hobbit does not have much significance in the cinematic world.
The story is less interesting than in the original Lord of the Rings trilogy, the characters less iconic and lovable--not just because the original is older and has had more time to sink into culture; the dwarfs as protagonists cannot hold a candle to Aragorn, Legolas, etc.--, the intricate universe less powerful and present. Everything is simpler, and less profound, though we may consider that this story WAS intended as Tolkien's YA-counterpart to the original trilogy.
That said, I enjoyed the three-part movie. The battling was epic. Bilbo and Gandalf were terrific presences, and of course any reference to the old movies sent happy tingles down my spine. But that's just it; besides my love for Bilbo and the quality battle sequences, I only really liked the Hobbit when it was put in respect to the other movies.
Probably the only way that the Hobbit trilogy can hold much reward for someone is either if that person views movies from the surface, similar to a juvenile, or is heavily invested in Middle-Earth. Examined critically, The Hobbit does not have much significance in the cinematic world.
The story is less interesting than in the original Lord of the Rings trilogy, the characters less iconic and lovable--not just because the original is older and has had more time to sink into culture; the dwarfs as protagonists cannot hold a candle to Aragorn, Legolas, etc.--, the intricate universe less powerful and present. Everything is simpler, and less profound, though we may consider that this story WAS intended as Tolkien's YA-counterpart to the original trilogy.
That said, I enjoyed the three-part movie. The battling was epic. Bilbo and Gandalf were terrific presences, and of course any reference to the old movies sent happy tingles down my spine. But that's just it; besides my love for Bilbo and the quality battle sequences, I only really liked the Hobbit when it was put in respect to the other movies.
Review: The Lord of the Rings
3/4
The Lord of the Rings are not great movies. They're very cheesy to watch today, and life is generally idealized, and the story is told with the expectation that the viewer is already familiar with the content, and there are so many cliches.
But... they are extremely enjoyable to experience, especially if one dives in with total commitment. The world of Middle-Earth is complex beyond grasp by these movies alone, but it is exhilarating putting what pieces are given together. To finally have a grasp on what Elvish word refers to what gives rise to an awesome pride and fulfillment. Soaking into the Tolkien universe is a highly fulfilling experience.
And for all its juvenility, there also exists some real, quality content. Tolkien was an able philosopher and writer, so looking beyond the simple "hero's journey with loyal sidekick and comic-relief characters fighting against evil forces and saving the world" model we can actually find some profound themes, character actions, spoken lines and philosophical ideas. The trilogy is a conglomeration of young-adult fiction and high-fantasy, both with juvenile and adult content.
The Lord of the Rings are not great movies. They're very cheesy to watch today, and life is generally idealized, and the story is told with the expectation that the viewer is already familiar with the content, and there are so many cliches.
But... they are extremely enjoyable to experience, especially if one dives in with total commitment. The world of Middle-Earth is complex beyond grasp by these movies alone, but it is exhilarating putting what pieces are given together. To finally have a grasp on what Elvish word refers to what gives rise to an awesome pride and fulfillment. Soaking into the Tolkien universe is a highly fulfilling experience.
And for all its juvenility, there also exists some real, quality content. Tolkien was an able philosopher and writer, so looking beyond the simple "hero's journey with loyal sidekick and comic-relief characters fighting against evil forces and saving the world" model we can actually find some profound themes, character actions, spoken lines and philosophical ideas. The trilogy is a conglomeration of young-adult fiction and high-fantasy, both with juvenile and adult content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)