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.
Monday, March 30, 2015
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)