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.

New blog

See andrewtalksaboutmoviesetc.blogspot.com for a more serious look at film, along with other kinds of culture.

Review: No Country for Old Men

Seen three times and 6/15/15

4/4

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.