The New World

Terrence Malick, USA, 2005
2.5 out of 4 stars

When I watch a movie like this, I feel like I am still trying to calibrate my exact level of snobbery and/pompousness. While I clearly register higher on that scale than most of my friends, this film, which has been lionized on various film websites including the ones I frequent as the best film ever and so on, shows me that I’m not going to max it out anytime soon. I just don’t really get it. Pompous, slow, stereotypical (supposedly it transcends or undermines stereotypes but I don’t see it)… what’s to like exactly? Yet I can’t really justify in any absolute terms why I love most of Wong Kar-Wai’s films and dislike this. Although some film geeks seem to like designating certain movies as those you must like if you are to show that you have any choice, I would never try to argue to somebody about the absolute aesthetic value of Wong over Terrence Malick (even if I had seen Malick’s earlier films), because I don’t believe the argument can be made. It’s not that every aesthetic judment needs to be preceeded by “it’s just my opinion but…” It’s merely that I don’t think anyone has the right to assert an opinion as fact (well you know unless it’s really obvious). This seems self-evident but it’s not at some of the places I spend time in online.

Source: New Line recut 35mm print
29 January, 12:45 PM

Hoop Dreams

Steve James, USA, 1994
3.5 out of 4 stars

A film like this seems especially valuable in today’s climate of Big Momma’s House 2 and take your pick of whatever else. A really compelling look at ghetto life; I don’t think I really had a clear idea of what it’s like (for some) until I saw this. Of course it’s 12 years later and things have changed, but I imagine, not for the better. It’s also a scathing example of how white basketball coaches display their contempt for the black kids they coach (although maybe this guy isn’t racist, he might just be inhuman). The dedication of the team involved is amazing. They actually follow these two boys and their families for the entire four years of high school. One can argue that the film lacks visual pizzaaz, but it’s hardly ever boring despite the length.

Source: Home Vision DVD
28 January, 9 PM

Brokeback Mountain

Ang Lee, USA, 2005
3 out of 4 stars

First off, I really don't see what the big deal is about watching two men have sex, make out, and what not. I felt some trepidation about seeing it only because it was socially generated. But I saw a far more graphic gay sex scene last year in Wong Kar-Wai's Happy Together so really I knew it would not be a big deal. It would actually be an interesting experience to watch that movie not knowing that they're going to get it on.

If anything bugged me about that movie, it would be how they portrayed the main female character, the way the ending kinda dragged, and finally, that it's not as good as is being said by so many. Also, it shouldn’t be forgotten that there have been "gay films" before. The fact is that this is a blockbuster gay film, which is a cultural landmark for reasons that aren't exclusively tied up with the artistic or entertainment value of the film in and of itself. I'm glad it's doing well, but I also doubt that any red state woman is going to vote in favor of gay marriage (if it comes up on the ballot) after seeing it.

Source: Universal 35mm print
22 January, 1:20 PM

Chinatown

Roman Polanski, USA, 1974
4 out of 4 stars

Excellent, a “classic” that actually lives up to the film geek hype. I don’t think I realized that Jack Nicholson used to be a bad-ass (the old man version just isn’t cutting it), and the plot really hits you, especially at the end, which admittedly does feel tacked on, all the more so after you learn that Roman Polanski rewrote it against the screenwriter’s wishes (it works thematically but it doesn’t entirely make sense with regards to plot and characters). Without knowing enough about moviemaking I can tell that it’s very well shot. The idea of Chinatown being a menacing place not because of anything that we see actually happen there, but because of the bad memories they have of what has happened there, memories that ultimately have no relevance what happens at the end.

Finally, the effect of having his snooping go on in real time (actually showing him fiddle around until the receptionist gets fed up and gets him who he’s asked to see) is quite amazing. You’d think that would only fly in art flicks, and it’d be boring regardless, but I guess the 1970s were a different time for movies, and more importantly, Nicholson can pull it off here.

Source: Paramount DVD
20 January, 10:30 PM

Great Expectations

Alfonso Cuarón, USA, 1998
3.5 out of 4 stars

I might have liked this one more than it deserves, but I am a big fan of Alfonso Cuarón (see also his later works, Y tu mamá también and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, or as I like to to call it, "the only HP film that works as a film"). As such, the film is just very pretty.

My understanding is that it was savaged by critics, because they felt that it fell far short of the the David Lean version. I've never seen it, although I intend to do so later this year, but I suspect that this film needed to be judged on its own merits. It isn't much more than a visual feast superimposed upon the artfully arranged skeleton of the Dickens plot, inventively modernized and Americanized.

I personally enjoy adaptations a great deal, and I think I might like to do my thesis on "adaptation" eventually. I used to consider my habit of comparing the version at hand to the previous (or "original") version to be a detriment to the viewing process, because it seemed like it kept me from being involved in what I was seeing. Increasingly, as I come to value analysis more when I watch films, I enjoy what is a rather easy angle towards analysis. I like seeing what they change, and so increasingly it bores me when they change nothing (and squander the essence in the process). I'm looking at you, first two Harry Potter films. I'll take Cuarón's approach anyday.

Source: Fox DVD
17 January, 10 PM

Happy Here and Now

Michael Almeredya, USA, 2002
3 out of 4 stars

I watched this very obscure film because I was writing a paper on another film by the director, Michael Almereyda, namely his version of Hamlet mentioned earlier. Usually I would hate this kind of film, because there is no ending whatsoever. I don't mean that kind of "emotional ambiguity" ending like we see in Broken Flowers or A History of Violence (although I liked the first example better actually), but instead, the kind of ending that gives no emotional climax, tension or anything of the sort, and in fact invalidates the plot. It honestly lets you know that that seemed to matter actually mattered! Almereyda really seems to think that he has transcended narrative. The fact that this film sat on the shelves for three years after its first festival showing before getting a two-screen release and a DVD right after in December 2005 seems to suggest he was wrong.

With all the reasons stated for why I couldn't possibly recommend this film, I was surprisingly forgiving of all these sins. The atmosphere was quite engaging and the indulgent "philosophical" dialogue wasn't too off-putting. Plus, the reason this film finally became available was that it showed the usually unfilmed parts of New Orleans, the parts largely destroyed by Katrina. The film therefore has a value that has very little to do with the intentions behind it (although kudos still goes to Almereyda for filming something other than the French Quarter).

Source: Sony DVD
16 January, 8 PM

Grizzly Man

Werner Herzog, USA / Canada, 2005
4 out of 4 stars

A masterpiece. I was especially impressed by the inane attempts to understand the nature Treadwell's transgression. We have the pilot who recognizes that Treadwell couldn't take animals on their own terms but then starts assigning said animals the ability to determine a human "mentally retarded." We have the supporter who haltingly reads a few letters in order to characterize all opponents as anti-environment (effectively debunked later, as if there was any question).

And finally there is director Werner Herzog, who assigns a murderous, chaotic malevolence to a nature that is basically just the mirror image of Treadwell's own Disney-nature. Herzog really rips apart this view when showing Treadwell's distress at the natural consequences of drought and scarcity, but ultimately superimposes his own totalizing view on "the world" with a few lines of narration.

Finally, I was particularly fascinated by Treadwell's wistful speculation on how much easier it'd be for him if he was gay; the last time I laughed that hard was David Brent saying that "mixed race" people were his "favorite" on The Office Series 2. In my mind, this is the level on which the so-called "meta-bigot" works, in which we see the full perversity of such views from a remove without the slipperiness of direct narrative participation. It seems appropriate that Herzog doesn't provide narrative reactions to the individual personal revelations Treadwell provides in that segment of the film.

Source: Lionsgate DVD
13 January, 9:30 PM

The Mission

Roland Joffé, UK, 1986
2 out of 4 stars

Total “historical epic” schlock, with corny dialogue, dumbed-down history, and all. Politically, this whole notion that there were some virtuous white colonizers that would have done the missions in a nice way is just galling, but even if you don’t agree or don’t care, the film still sucks for the above reasons. At least in this film, Robert De Niro gives no hint as to why he is so well-regarded, whereas Jeremy Irons is at least respectable.

Source: Warner VHS
13 January, 4:15 PM

Look at Me

(Comme une image)
Agnès Jaoui, France 2004
3.5 out of 4 stars

This film can be jarring at first, because you don’t really know what one person’s relationship to another is, and the whole film is about relationships. As it unfolds, it becomes really involving and touching even, but I question whether that initial alienating effect is really beneficial or just an extra flourish. More important, though, is that the characters are well-drawn and the story is interesting, and once you know what is going on, the choppy way in which the story is given to you (with parts being left out) is quite fascinating.

Source: Sony DVD
6 January, 10 PM

Batman Begins

Christopher Nolan, USA, 2005
3.5 out of 4 stars

This worked a lot better for me the second time, in that it was easier for me to see and appreciate the nuance in this interpretation of Batman and his origin. The first time, I recognized it but wasn't entirely taken in with it. I was certainly impressed with how they had achieved an adaptation that was faithful and unfaithful to every version of Batman in one way or another. But I think watching it again, I saw how all the thematic elements worked so well together. A great film, I can say with confidence that I look forward to the sequel (despite having been proven wrong a few times with that).

Source: Warner DVD
5 January, 10:30 PM

The Secret of Roan Inish

John Sayles, Ireland / USA, 1994
3.5 out of 4 stars

A very amiable, fairly slow moving family film that could potentially be pointless for a family audience that no longer includes children (meaning I watched it with my folks, because I like John Sayles). Instead, I was very well involved with the "magic" of it without having to make any special effort. That is because this is a very well-executed piece of "magical realism," of course, but the emphasis on oral tradition and retelling also makes it quite engaging. The young female protagonist strikes just the right balance of preciousness without veering into annoyingness. Also, it's not so good natured that you don't care what happens. Partly, this is because what's at stake is the very survival of a culture (and an imaginary subculture) which invests this film with a lot of significance and makes it fascinating from start to finish.

Source: Sony DVD
2 January, 7 PM

Hamlet

Michael Almereyda, USA, 2000
3 out of 4 stars

Well believe it or not, the film gets better with each viewing. I loathed this adaptation the first time I watched it. I believed that everyone, with the possible exception of Bill Murray, completely flubbed their lines and that the script was cut so much that if you weren't already intimately familiar with the plotline of the play, you wouldn't even be able to follow along.

A lot of that is still true, but as I wrote a paper on this for a seminar (watching it again), then wrote a "revision" that was basically a new paper, for a conference (watching it this time), I began to appreciate this interpretation for what it is. When I watched the Branagh again in 2004, I realized that Michael Almereyda actually does certain scenes better (these are actually the only two versions I've seen). Furthermore, Julia Stiles' awkward line readings actually inform the version of her character portrayed here (on which my paper was centered).

So, deciding to study a film you don't think much of can eventually give you more of an appreciation for it. I still wouldn't recommend this film, but without seeing the Zeferelli or the Olivier (and having little interest, admittedly), I can't say that there is a definitive Hamlet film. But why should there be?

Source: Buena Vista DVD
1 January, 3:20 PM