Goodfellas

Martin Scorsese, USA, 1990
3.5 out of 4 stars

Okay, I have to admit it; all these gangster movies really blur together after a while. Whereas I usually have a strong preference for forming my own opinion before reading any other reviews, I’ve found that films from this genre only really become legible for me after I find and read a piece that puts the innovations of that film into focus for me. To take just a trivial example, it’s hard to even think of this film as particularly violent, even 18 years later, yet the article reminds us how it was viewed at the time.

All this is not to say I didn’t enjoy it. I felt like the youth scenes were particularly well done, setting the tone quite effectively and avoiding sentimentality. The narration really holds the film together (why does every film I see recently have it?), and the addition of narration by the female lead, Lorraine Bracco, is a particularly nice touch, as it injects some hint of female agency (as uninspiring as her character actually is) into the hyper-macho proceedings.

Unfortunately, Bracco’s narration seems to disappear about halfway through the film, right when we most want to know what she was thinking. That’s not the only problem I had with the picture. In particular, I’m not quite convinced by Ray Liotta, however; is he supposed to sound like a psycho when he laughs (Joe Pesci seems to have that role taken) or is he just supposed to seem like someone who’s trying too hard (or is that the actor, not the character?). Pesci and Robert De Niro also largely content themselves with hamming it up and revisiting their personas, which only pushes me towards my blasphemous suspicion that De Niro doesn’t quite merit the hallowed tones with which people usually speak of him.

That said, there’s a lot of style here and I think it all works. There’s also a good helping of social critique, although I was a bit oblivious to it while watching it. I feel like the glorification of gangster mythology (particularly in gangsta rap, with which I am ultimately more familiar than the films that inspired it) has really obscured the meaningful (if not unproblematic) things that the filmmakers were trying to say, even in a film that tries to demystify everything. I also feel like I will probably be taking a break from this genre for the time being!

Source: Warner DVD
9 Sep, 9:55 PM

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Andrew Dominik, USA, 2007
3.5 out of 4 stars

I’m sure there are exceptions, but most of the films I’ve seen lately that run 2.5 hours or longer seem to have had fairly obvious sections that could have been removed. It’s to the credit of Andrew Dominik that, in the exhilarating closing sequence of the film, he made me forget these relatively-extraneous scenes, but sitting down to write this “review,” they are slowly coming back to mind. I still have to conclude that they don’t mar the film to any great degree, but they do raise questions about editing as well as the sometimes-lazy assumption that a film can instantly achieve “prestige” with a longer-than-average running time.

That said, Dominik and his crew have otherwise done a technical job that is unimpeachable. The visuals are crisp and engrossing, the shot composition is inventive but unobtrusive, and the narration is delivered effectively, especially in comparison to Woody Allen’s more recent effort. Thematically, the film is what you’d expect from the title; it deals with the ambivalent and unpleasant aspects of celebrity worship, addressing itself to what seem to be postmodern problems while simultaneously reminding us that some cultural diseases reach back into supposedly more idyllic times.

The only question is whether the plot is focused enough, as Dominik sometimes makes long detours to follow Jesse James (Brad Pitt) to his meetings with ex-underlings. The overall thrust of the picture suggests that Bob Ford (Casey Afflect) is the subject of the piece, and Jesse’s dealings with others do provide context to Bob’s trials, but overall I felt as if, at least in retrospect, the meandering was a bit self-indulgent and unnecessary.

Source: Warner DVD
5 Sep, 10:29 PM

Hamlet 2

Andrew Fleming, USA, 2008
3.5 out of 4 stars

I really loved this film, even if it made me cringe at times, but I definitely think there’s a possibility that I’m giving the filmmakers too much credit for sophistication. It doesn’t help that, when I heard about the concept, I immediately wanted it to be great or at least good, as it just seemed like something too good to squander. It was this that caused me to overlook the mixed reviews and go see the thing in theaters.

It’s indisputable that some level of “meta” is going on in Hamlet 2, as it opens with Dana Marschz, a drama teacher played by Steve Coogan, mouthing the words to a staging of his own “adaptation” of Erin Brockovich (which, in itself, shows how easy it is to take the piss out of "earnest" films just by repeating them with less conviction and skill). Yes, his eventual decision to create the play after which the entire film is named is actually a step forward in originality for this guy, and when he is confronted with an influx of “troubled” (or are they?) Latino students in his drama class, he reaches into that same category for reference to “classics” of middlebrow underdog uplift, especially Dangerous Minds. His students, of course, initially waver between disinterest and mockery.

Most of the film, then, consists of Coogan acting pathetic in almost every way possible, but Dana is not exactly deluded, which is what I’m used to in this “zany” sad sack portrayals. The most important part, for me, is that Coogan and the filmmakers make the effort to actually extract jokes from this patheticness, rather than just merely reveling his lameness and trolling for unearned laughs, as so many “lowbrow” comedies do nowadays.

Where the film gets more complicated, and where I start to become more uncertain about what’s really going on, is when the inevitable staging of the “sequel” play occurs. It’s certainly entertaining in a perverse way, but it finally concludes with a brief sequence almost devoid of laughter; I have my theories as to why it happened, but it’s here that I may have especially been over-interpreting. The way I see it, either they were making a very clever move near the end there, or they eventually got lazy (or went soft) with their subject matter. Honestly, I’m not even sure if it’s a satire. I guess you can see why it got mixed reviews, right? It may be worth a look for you, but it’s probably a better bet for DVD, where I’m sure most will see it as it becomes a cult classic.

Source: Universal 35mm print
9 Sep, 1:00 PM

Memories of Murder

(Salinui chueok)
Bong Joon-ho, South Korea, 2003
3 out of 4 stars

This film takes us to a rural Korean village in 1986, where a uniformly incompetent and undertrained police force is fumbling about, attempting to find a serial murderer. Korean film is somewhat famous for its unlikely mix of comedy and melodrama, but Memories of Murder manages to combine these elements very organically (moreso perhaps than Bong Joon-ho’s follow-up film, The Host, although I think ultimately that film is more rewarding). Much of this film’s effectiveness comes from setting up the usual oppositions, in this case between the oafish, out-of-shape local policeman and the suave, professional detective from Seoul, and then gradually undermining our expectations as things progress. Meanwhile, characters who initially seem indistinguishable gradually distinguish themselves in often-shocking ways.

Indeed, the filmmakers have clearly set out to shine a light on the incompetence of these rural cops, but the film clearly shows that it was not so much a failure of will, but rather more of a structural problem. The abuse of power that the police frequently engage in is subtly put into a larger political context by occasional scenes of military force and pointed comments, one of which is particularly devastating and therefore best left unspoiled (it might help to know that South Korea was still under a dictatorship during this period, but I think even if you were ignorant of this fact, you would be able to gather it from the scenes I’m referring to). Once again, I thought that the political barbs were a bit subtler than in Bong’s later film.

You might still be wondering where the humor comes from, and how it can possibly be appropriate. I think it works because of the gap between what the police want to accomplish and what they are actually capable of accomplishing, considering the significant structural limitations they are operating under. I certainly found this picture to be much more valuable than my the "typical" serial killer film, at least as I understand it (I rarely watch films about this subject), as it addresses much larger issues than the usual cat-and-mouse game. That said, Zodiac is certainly an even-better attempt at broadening the genre, and it is made with greater technical and creative flourish. Memories of Murder is well-done, but it didn’t always hold my interest, although it’s hard to say exactly why.

Source: UMVD DVD
31 Aug, 11:45 PM

Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Woody Allen, USA / Spain, 2008
3 out of 4 stars

I’m not sure what to make of this movie. A spoiler-heavy review that I read after I’d decided not to see this movie (a decision I obviously reversed) indicated that it was just another example of Allen’s simplistic, misogynist depictions of women, which possibly primed me to react unfavorably when the two titular protagonists were introduced via a condescending, brutally reductive monologue, delivered by an unseen, apparently omniscient male narrator. These women are clearly presented as types; one is free-spirited, the other is straight-laced, and while they may not do what you (on the most superficial level) might expect them to do at all times, they largely stay true to their characterizations.

So is this misogyny, or merely a kind of (im)morality play, with the characters representing life paths rather than real people, and the narration constituting a judicious use of what Bertolt Brecht called the alienation effect (with which, I must confess, I have only a passing familiarity)? As the film progressed, with the narration continuing but becoming more infrequent, I found myself more accommodating of the latter hypothesis, and later, my female friend did point out that the men are easily more loathsome or pathetic (usually not at once) than the women, hands down. I’m not sure that debunking the misogyny accusation is as simple as merely pointing that out, but there’s something to it.

Overall, then, it’s an entertaining film with some dubious values (I don’t know just how laughable I should regard the depiction of “European men,” for one thing, as the one presented here seems more like a cinematic cliché than anything). I laughed quite a bit throughout, although I wasn’t always sure if I was supposed to be laughing (which, I suppose, is better than being sure that you’re not supposed to be laughing). I don’t quite recommend it, largely because there does seem to be a certain emptiness of purpose here, but it’s not that bad either.

Source: MGM 35mm print
22 Aug, 9:30 PM

A Moment of Romance

(Tian ruo you qing)
Benny Chan, Hong Kong, 1990
2 out of 4 stars

A jewelry heist leads to a getaway, which leads to a hostage situation, which leads the most carelessly-run police lineup I’ve seen in a film (who knows if the Hong Kong police were or still are that careless), which to an unlikely, and somewhat poorly-motivated, love between a triad (Andy Lau) and a well-off, sheltered young woman (Wu Shien-lien. The English title is perhaps misleading in that the majority of the “moments” in the film are devoted to “romance.” The gangster plot, while crowded with violent but ill-defined feuding bigshots whose machinations are difficult to follow, is mostly relegated to the backdrop.

Despite all this, A Moment of Romance is a particularly unfocused film even in its brief 90 or so minutes. Characterization is all but nonexistent; instead all the principles, including a “sidekick” who hints at being developmentally challenged, are just one-dimensional stock characters, which is perhaps unsurprising considering that the plot is also quite clichéd; there are a couple flirtations with moral ambiguity, but even those seem to be rote in the context of the overall film. Furthermore, nothing about how the film unfolded encouraged me to relate to the characters or to be concerned about their fates; the closest I came to that was a highly-detached, mild curiosity about which of the several conventional paths the filmmakers would take as the ending loomed (and it’s not all that hard to guess, either).

Of course, style can sometimes make up for these failings, but despite some promising flourishes in the early car chase sequence, there is little about the film that is stylistically compelling either. As is typical of even the better Hong Kong films from this era, the music is uninformly horrible, either baroque or repetitive, and at least three interminable Cantopop song montages caused me to decrease the volume. Honestly, it wasn’t an entirely painful experience, but I’m at a loss as to why this was recommended on various websites (I forget which, exactly). Perhaps it was more a product of its time than anything, or perhaps I just don’t appreciate the style.

Source: Tai Seng DVD
17 Aug, 11:06 PM

The Godfather

Francis Ford Coppola, USA, 1972
3.5 out of 4 stars

The key question here is, was the enjoyment I got from actually, finally watching The Godfather greater than the entertainment value I got from all the times people asked me, dumbfoundedly, “you’ve never watched The Godfather?!” As much as I would like to be a perverse contrarian (I admit it), yes, it was worth the trade-off.

There is, however, something of a profound miscalculation involved in watching a film like this when one is already 27 years old, which is to say that almost nothing in film could seem as familiar as this. I’m usually not that good at anticipating things, but this time I was able to see almost every murder or atrocity coming. Recognizing the origin not only of well-worn but sometimes-amusing catchphrases, not to mention the entire gangster genre as we know it today, with its tortured attitude towards glamorization of the practice, is fun in a way, but also invariably distancing.

The fact is, some seminal, watershed films were not as heavily imitated (because people didn’t “get it” at the time) and still have amazing power even now, while some were a bit too successful and as such can be robbed of their power by the legion of imitators that one may have had the misfortune to have seen first. Let me just say that the story is compelling, but moreso in the beginning, that the characters are interesting, but not especially complex, that the depiction of and attitude towards women could have been worse, but is still pretty pitiful (so what is the point of Michael’s first marriage, exactly?), and that (and this is perhaps the most regrettable) expectations for hyper-violence and confrontation have been inordinately escalated to the point where this film seems, dare I say it, quaint in some aspects. That we, the bloodthirsty mail viewers, don’t entirely get what we want (even if, at the time, we might not have known that we wanted it), constitutes one of the few suggestions that we should actually not admire and envy the mafia; of course, the glamour is there in enough quantity that that is not the overall message most young men got from the film (in particular, an entire generation of “gangsta rappers” who made names like Corleone even more familiar for me).

I am a bit curious about seeing the next one, as I could readily imagine how it might indeed be better. I will probably wait a while, though.

Source: Paramount DVD
8 Aug, 8:08 PM

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

Guillermo del Toro, USA / Germany, 2008
3.5 out of 4 stars

I was greatly relieved to see that this film actually was a tremendous improvement upon its predecessor; the potential was clearly there in the firs tone, and it was finally lived up to here! I would go so far as to say that if you haven’t seen either film, you could go ahead and just see this one, as I don’t think that the sequence is particularly crucial here (a prologue sequence primarily sets up the plot but also gets viewers up to speed on the premise).

Just as I had read, there were in fact many more monsters in this film, part of an overall improvement in visual effects and all-out imaginativeness. The fight scenes are filmed more dynamically, and have more variety in how they are carried out. The pacing is worlds better than it was before; whereas before I was frequently bored by the languid scenes of character interactions, here I was laughing quite frequently, and I was otherwise invested in what happened to the characters. The plot is much more interesting, but also much less convoluted, and the villain, while still not portrayed by the most compelling actor, at least has a stronger motivation and a more interesting and even poignant scheme.

Finally, to only is Rupert Evans’ putrid “regular guy” character gone, but there is no attempt to create another character to take his place. Instead, Jeffrey Tambor is given more screen time in his often-hilarious role as the hapless, incompetent human handler of the “weirdos,” and in his case, I thought they did a good job of building upon his relationship with Hellboy as it stood at the end of the last one.

That does however lead to the one complaint I had, which is that the principle characters’ attitudes regarding regular human agents of the BPRD (Hellboy’s bureau), already somewhat callous before, has become starker, particularly in the beginning of the film, and whereas Hellboy at least was chastised for it then, it goes completely unremarked upon here. While I understand that his character is supposed to have some sort of “edge,” it doesn’t quite work with his colleagues. It might be peevish to object to the time-honored use of canon fodder, and I’m not doing so on grounds of “realism” (the female lead should have been killed within the first 10 minutes, but it’s not as if I actually want to see that), but more on moral grounds, as the idea that the non-special people are expendable is one that, in fact, I do find objectionable.

Source: Universal 35mm print
4 Aug, 8 PM

Get Carter

Mike Hodges, UK, 1971
2 out of 4 stars

At first, I felt sheepish about not getting into this more, as the plot (gangster Jack Carter leaves London for Newcastle because something about his brother’s death seems suspicious to him) isn’t even clear without reading the Netflix sleeve (for once I was glad that I did), at least not until about 15 minutes into the film, and because everything moves really slowly. Because this is a gangster film, you know that you will eventually get some carnage, but (and perhaps there is something to be said for this) it’s far some satisfying when you do (although I did let out some grim chuckles here and there). It was around the time that Jack started doling out comeuppance that I realized that I was, surprise, under no obligation to consider this a good film.

I actually tend to think of myself as someone who’s fairly fond of antiheroes, but Jack Carter makes me realize just how warm and fuzzy most contemporary antiheroes really are. The only thing that keeps you on his side is that he is trying to avenge a clear wrong; it’s equally clear that no one would ever root for him in any other situation. That’s another way of saying that crime itself is not even remotely glamorized here, which I suppose is also commendable.

Yes, Jack lacks flair for the most part, and he mostly lacks humor (and unquestionably lacks romance). I’m sure that it’s still possible to make an engrossing movie centered around an entirely despicable, joyless character with no redeeming or endearing qualities, but this doesn’t quite seem to be it. I respect what Caine and the filmmakers were trying to do, and the more I think about it, the more I do consider it to be “responsible” in a perverse sort of way, but I can’t consider it entertaining. The film itself does contain a few interesting shots, but is overall similarly lacking in flair. And I suppose it goes without saying that the sexual politics of this film are quite heinous. I can’t say it’s bad er se, but I can’t say that it’s recommended either.

Source: Warner DVD
31 Jul, 8:42 PM

Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind

(Kaze no tani no Naushika)
Miyazaki Hayao, Japan, 1984
3 out of 4 stars

I think my opinion of this film was jinxed due to a very brief, somewhat dismissive review that I scanned shortly before reading this, but perhaps I would have inevitably regarded this as something of a dry run for, or rough draft of, Miyazaki’s later masterpiece, Princess Mononoke. In fact, it’s easy to summarize the plotline so that it sounds exactly the same: diabolical empires hubristically reignite ancient ecological problems in the face of dire warnings from wiser characters (alright, perhaps slightly different).

One thing this film does have going for it is the main character, Nausicaä, who is I suppose the first of Miyazaki’s strong female heroes (so common his work and so rare in other works). Miyazaki strikes a good balance with his depiction of her character, although the peoples’ obsessive devotion to their princess is a bit unnerving and is never suitably interrogated (although we get some brief glimpses into the strain it puts on Nausicaä herself).

It might seem strange to focus on the political aspects of the film, but as previously mentioned, a critique of militarism and an advocacy of ecology are key elements throughout. Perhaps Minyazaki ultimately takes the Dickens route in this film, suggesting that we just need better leaders in order to minimize the problems we’ve encountered so far; I think that the views expressed in Mononoke do suggest some sort of philosophical development, in that case.

Concerning the plot and the overall structure, Nausicaä ultimately comes off as too complex and too simple at the same time. Each sequence in the film seems to introduce yet another piece of mythology or another plot by an abruptly introduced nation, inspiring both excitement and confusion in the viewer; yet when the film ends, we feel as if everything was resolved relatively easily despite all the complications (and we wonder if, were we to think about the plot more carefully, if everything that had been brought up truly was resolved). The simplicy also derives from the relatively narrow focus on the one principle character (as I said, everything revolves around her). To return to the comparison one last time, Mononoke seems to reverse this phenomenon by providing us with a story that seems both richer and more streamlined.

All that said, this is certainly a beautiful, imaginative and worthwhile film. If you haven’t seen Miyazaki’s later works, there might even be something to be said for watching this first!

Source: Buena Vista DVD
29 Jul, 10:17 PM

The X-Files: I Want to Believe

Chris Carter, USA, 2008
1.5 out of 4 stars

I knew it wasn't going to be that good, but I just wanted to see Mulder and Scully again. Having seen it, I realize that this is what I get for making fun of all those people who unthinkingly ran out to see Harrison Ford crack the whip for one last time. Hopefully I've learned my lesson, and next time something comes out that interests me purely as a nostalgia piece, I'll wait for the rental!

The first problem is that Mulder and Scully aren't anywhere near as fun or as interesting as they should be. This is, frankly, inexcusable. David Duchovny tries his best and his character is written to be as appealing as possible, but he just looks old and worn out for most of the film. Gillian Anderson, meanwhile, has aged quite well, but Chris Carter heinously saddles her with a newfound commitment to hospital work, which leads her to deliver lines more suitable to the tiresome "nagging wife" stock character that we see in so many movies about any form of heroism. Scully may even be justified, in the "real world," in voicing these sentiments, but in a film like this, the viewer just feels resentful towards her for being a stick-in-the-mud... and later, resentful at Carter for doing that to his once-great female hero character. In fact, there are other things in the film that struck me as misogynist, not to mention aspects of xenophobia and homophobia. It made me wonder if this was always in the show, or if Carter has just gotten worse, politically speaking.

As for the plot, it's uninteresting, and without question insufficiently paranormal. As you have no doubt heard, the film is in line, structurally speaking, with the "monster of the week" format the show engaged in roughly more than half of the time (as opposed to the "mythology" episodes that advanced the conspiracy plot), but the phrase is misleading in this case, as the villains are shockingly mundane. There is also a possibly psychic, child-molesting ex-priest, but I'm sure that this wouldn't have been enough paranormality to fuel an episode of the show.

To sum up, I really don't know what Carter (or anyone who worked with him) was thinking, as there's nothing here that even has the potential to be good. Forget waiting for the rental on this one; I should have just rented some of the best episodes of the show from Netflix!

Source: Fox 35mm print
25 Jul, 5:40 PM

The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh

Wofgang Reitherman & John Lounsbery, USA, 1977
3.5 out of 4 stars

First, some background information. Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree was released as a half-hour theatrical short (aired before some forgotten film) in 1966. It was followed by And the Blustery Day in 1968, with And Tigger Too! released in 1974. Apparently a bit short on material in 1977, Disney packaged all three together in this feature presentation, which features very minor new transitions, and a surprisingly moving ending sequence. The latter was, however, somewhat undermined by the eventual release of And a Day for Eeyore in 1983, which is included as a bonus feature on the DVD.

As a child, I had the latter two shorts on videotape, and I occasionally had access to the first two, but I’d never seen the feature version until now. If the same could be said for you, I would say that the aforementioned ending is alone worth renting this version. If on the other hand you’ve simply never seen the adventures of (sometimes) British youngster Christopher Robin and his menagerie of talking stuffed animals, you should certainly remedy that now.

There’s no question that this series of eminently British children’s tales has been Disneyfied and Americanized to a certain extent; it’s more that, in the context of other Disneyfications, the treatment that Pooh-bear underwent seems comparatively minor. I would say about half of the songs are good, and the others are inoffensive, and the comedic attempts, slapstick and all are surprisingly effective even for a jaded graduate student such as myself.

Of course it would not surprise you to learn that the “film” is very episodic, and not just because it wasn’t originally a feature; each short comprises roughly two stories usually connected only by vague, thematic concerns, and this feeling of disunity is perhaps the only weakness of the Pooh tales, which probably would be better viewed separately when it comes right down to it. What makes this work at all is the use of the Narrator character, through which the filmmakers introduce a degree of ‘meta” that is still fresh and surprising even when, 21 years later, we live in an age increasingly familiar with such fictional self-referentiality. The Narrator manipulates the book and firmly locates the characters within its confines. It’s one of my fondest memories of the Pooh cartoons, alongside the nostalgic pleasure of Pooh himself, once more.

Source: Buena Vista DVD
20 Jun, 9:08 PM

Hellboy

Guillermo del Toro, USA, 2004
2.5 out of 4 stars

I decided to watch del Toro’s first adaptation of Mike Mignola’s comic book almost entirely because, probably owing to the success of Pan’s Labyrinth, he had been able to release another one. I figured that, if possible, I should try to avoid seeing the sequel first, and I would also try to see if I’d really be interested in paying $5-$10 for it. Well, I’ve read a few of the early issues of Mignola’s series, focused around a demon raised by humans who work for the government, along with his other paranormal colleagues, and I like the idea although I’ve never been blown away enough by it to seek out the whole series. One thing you notice in del Toro’s version is that there is basically no attempt to emulate the shadowy, impressionistic quality of Mignola’s art (perhaps this just wasn’t possible). Hellboy himself is after all bright red, and there was no willingness to alter his appearance into something more film-friendly or shadow-friendly (as they did in, say, the X-Men films, with the black uniforms replacing the bright costumes of the comics). Fidelity seems to be the bywords here, and it seems to have unfortunately been a limiting factor in the film’s success. The scenes added back in for the director’s cut may well have been worthwhile, but the augmentation probably should have been accompanied by some reduction.

Another hindrance seems to have been a disregard for pacing and an unwillingness to excise or trim languid, less-than-engrossing scenes. The “Nazi mysticism” opening is actually quite interesting, albeit campy, but the film starts to stumble as soon as del Toro moves us to the present day, and continues to kind of amble along after that. The fight scenes, when we get to them, are fun to watch and involving, but hindered here by the lack of variety, as Hellboy fights the exact same monster on at least three different locations.

Hellboy himself, as played by Ron Perlman, has a strong if overly laconic presence. Doug Jones complements him well as Abe Sapien, but most of the time Perlman is playing against his neophyte handler, John Meyers. Rupert Evans plays the ultimately pointless, but unduly-emphasized role of the would-be audience identification character with almost no spine or wit, and not that much intelligence either. I’m not sure if the studio forced del Toro to include a “regular guy” figure (for the first part of the film, he almost seems to be the main character!) but even if they did, they still could have done better than this (and there is at least one more interesting “regular guy” character present here). I should also mention that the archvillain, Rasputin (yes, that Rasputin) gets more and more ridiculous as his scenes get longer and you have to actually listen to him.

All that said, this very imperfect attempt made me want to see del Toro take another shot at doing it right this time, particularly in light, of course, of Pan’s Labyrinth. I am heartened by reports I have read indicating that there are many more monsters in the sequel, as I am by indications on IMDB that Evans is not returning (and in fact seems not to have made it in Hollywood at all). I do suspect, though, that seeing this film first may not actually have been necessary, as I’m sure the sequel was made with full knowledge that the original was not a great success.

Source: Sony director's cut DVD
18 Jul, 12:00 PM

The Dark Knight

Christopher Nolan, USA, 2008
4 out of 4 stars

Let me just say that I’m glad we got to have Iron Man, and to a lesser degree, Hancock before we got this film, so we could have some optimistic superhero films to gently lead us into easily the grimmest summer blockbuster I can recall in the last several years. I imagine this feeling is only heightened if you spend the film ruminating upon the tragic end of Heath Ledger, an actor who did indeed seem to be improving more and more with every film. In fact, I barely thought about Ledger’s fate or even Ledger himself while watching, which in and of itself I take as a testament to the spectacular job that he did here.

I disagree strongly with the friends I saw it with, who felt that Ledger’s performance was the only standout element of the picture. It is true that Ledger outshines Christian Bale here, but that only stands out as much as it does because Batman Begins focused more on the backstory and development of Bruce Wayne than almost any other Batman screen adaptation that I can recall. Christopher Nolan, however, continues to eschew the traditional focus on the villain’s origin. Instead, we get an amazing, unrelenting confrontation between Batman and The Joker, which builds organically out of another, much more benign rivalry between Batman/Bruce and Harvey Dent, played excellently by Aaron Eckhart. Depending on your level of Bat-expertise, you may or may not know what awaits Harvey, but either way, they are some surprises in store.

Overall, the environment of Gotham City is fully fleshed out (a detour to Hong Kong is interesting but perhaps extraneous), but most importantly, the film has a very foreboding, almost oppressive atmosphere, especially in the second half, although even in the first half, there’s hardly anything like humor or romance to distract the viewer. In this case, the strategy works: The Dark Knight is the most focused, artistically coherent superhero film that I can recall seeing. Although Nolan eventually throws a crumb to mainstream sensibilities near the end (it isn’t quite pandering, as it works more-or-less organically), overall he avoids the something-for-everything approach to blockbusters that so often makes them feel more like a two-hour theme park tour than a wholly-realized motion picture. I don’t really want to spoil anything for you, so you should just go check this out… and you should probably also watch something really goofy the next day!

Source: Warner 35mm print
18 Jul, 12:00 PM

Hancock

Peter Berg, USA, 2008
3 out of 4 stars

It's not that the second half of the film is bad, it's just that it is not as good as the first half, and that it probably would have been better as a second film; the two halves just don't fit together. This is especially interesting hot on the heels of Wall-E another film with a two-part structure that seemingly holds an even greater break between the halves but nonetheless manages to hold them together much more effectively.

The first half concerns what you saw in the preview; Will Smith as Hancock, a misbehaving, alcoholic superhero, correctly perceived by the media as a negligent destroyer of property. I can't recall seeing Smith as a full-on bum, and it's interesting as it provides some variety for him from his appealing-but-familiar "cocky" persona; he seems to capture the right-level of self-loathing. He is however outdone to some degree by Jason Bateman, who unlike Smith is fully operating within his Arrested Development persona, that hilariously-cheesy but genuinely well-meaning regular guy who tries his hardest to bring stability and respectability to a spectacular screw-up. Bateman's PR agent comes up with a plan to rehabilitate Hancock's image, and the scenes between the two of them are terrific; I found myself laughing at almost every silly thing that Bateman says.

The thing is that we seem to have already reached a resolution (albeit an imperfect one) when the entire plot shifts with a "twist," and while the reveal doesn't immediately imply that the plot will suffer, the relegation of Bateman to the sidelines goes along with an increasingly jarring shift in subject matter. It's not that there weren't hints that something was up, it's just that they were more fun as hints.

The "wayward superhero" concept seems much less "new and shocking" to a comic book fan as it might viewers familiar with the cinematic adaptions of Marvel and DC series, but it is still fun to see it on the big screen. The second half is, even with its somewhat-daring overreach, actually more familiar for the cinema. It's not quite a success on 's own terms, but it's an interesting concoction.

Source: Sony 35mm print
8 Jul, 1:45 PM

Wall-E

Andrew Stanton, USA, 2008
4 out of 4 stars

It's not perfect, I have to admit. At times, I found the title character to be just a little too pathetic, and some of his behavior is frankly disturbing if you look at it a certain way, even if the director clearly tries to spin it in a later scene. I enjoyed the ending, but I'm not sure if it's justified by the film. Although it's endearing enough, one has to scratch one's head just a little bit at the imposition of entirely recognizable and familiar heterosexuality (or any sexuality, I suppose) onto robots. And I'm not sure if the two disparate halves of the film are wedded together in the most effective manner.

With that out of the way, let me make it clear that I absolutely loved this film. The message (critiquing consumerism) is delivered in a way that would be positively shocking in any film, and I believe is not significantly undermined when you "consider the source" (this actually just makes it more shocking my view). While I recognize that there is pandering going on (the ending), overall I am really impressed with how much the filmmakers decided to challenge the viewers, yet if the kid in the row behind me is any indication, effectively reach them at the same time.

There are also any number of scenes of incredible wonder, visual magnificence, and subtle humor. There are mistakes and there are conditional mistakes, but overall this is a film that reaches high and succeeds most of the time.

Source: Disney 35mm print
6 Jul, 7:20 PM

Vantage Point

Pete Travis, USA, 2008
2 out of 4 stars

After some perfunctory exposition, the president is assassinated, while introducing an anti-terror conference in Spain! Then a building is blow up! And yet, soon, we are asking, why should we care?

More precisely, we're asking what exactly we're supposed to care about, or even how. In fact, I think the spectacular terribleness of the incident was one of the only things that kept my interest in the first place.

Having shown us this tragedy, the film rewinds back to show it (and some preliminary goings-on) from another perspective, and does so again two or three more times until finally reaching a conclusion. Of course there is some repetition, although this is kept to a minimum, it still wore on my patience to see much of any material repeated in what is only a 90 minute film.

So we soon come to the problem of what character to focus on, and the answer seems to be none of them (although this answer seems to change again in the ending scene). Although many have commendable qualities (in one case, to an improbable and annoying degree), the film mostly seems to be about displaying a certain imagined cleverness as far as the "how'd it happen?" question goes. If anything, this just served to alienate me from the film. As usual, it didn't help that the most potentially interesting "twist" was spoiled in the trailers, which I saw a few months ago.

Politically, Vantage Point is all over the place, and not even in a particularly interesting manner. On the one hand, the president, when we finally meet him, seems to be some kind of liberal fantasy, showing an restraint in military matters that only the deluded could truly expect from, say, a President Obama. On the other hand, the filmmakers seem to enjoy showing the degradation of a reporter who intentionally bucks the corporate line on air and rails against censorship to her boss; what's strange is they seem to be agreeing with her at that point, so did they just fail to realize that it would seem as if they were delivering her her comeuppance afterward? It's quite hard to say.

As usual, the ending is also quite objectionable, as you don't realize until the film has concluded that the goalposts, so to speak, have been shifted in a way that raises uncomfortable questions about our nation's priorities (in contrast, once again, to the more internationalist ideology that the film sporadically promotes).

Source: United uncut pan-and-scan airplane video
30 Jun, 1:20 PM

Kung Fu Panda

Mark Osborne & John Stevenson, USA, 2008
3 out of 4 stars

The title, as well as the studio (DreamWorks) was enough to tell me that this was a must-avoid, but an invitation from friends led me to notice a surprisingly-high rating on Rotten Tomatoes, so I went ahead and checked it out. The first thing that hit me, not having seen any trailers in advance, was that this film is clearly operating on a entirely different visual level from almost all previous DreamWorks efforts (if you can call them that). Colors are lush, movement is dynamic and kinetic, and backgrounds are beautiful and detailed (character designs are less impressive, perhaps, but still solid). I might even venture the slightly blasphemous opinion that Kung Fu Panda is prettier than some Pixar films!

Of course, when it comes to plot, this falls behind probably all Pixar films, but it's still surprisingly workable, if a bit rambling and, let's say, uncluttered. Although the film has its usual voice actor roster overcrowded with stars (many of them almost unrecognizable due to their marginal personalities and small roles), the film is dominated by Jack Black, who plays Po with minimal crudeness (there were for instance far less fart jokes, perhaps almost none, it's hard to recall, then you would expect for a character primarily known for his size and propensity to eat). Po is very clearly a fanboy, seemingly unsuited for a destiny as a fighter, but nonetheless intimately familiar with their history, and while this is a familiar cartoon plot, it was nonetheless endearingly done by Black. The other interesting character choice is Dustin Hoffman's portrayal of Shifu, Po's reluctant, diminutive master; as far as I can tell, his vocal performance is a pastiche of the English dubbing voices used on kung fu films of the 70s.

If anything, I was tempted to overvalue this picture while watching it, but in the end it is not at all transcendent, just a surprisingly solid example of pop, mainstream filmmaking with a lot of appeal and a minimum of idiocy or nastiness. It should also be added that despite being an American film about China, there is almost nothing offensive in the picture (although I'm sure you could get some mileage out of looking at which characters actually read as "Chinese" and which don't).

Source: Paramount 35mm print
7 Jun, 3:40 PM

Children of Men

Alfonso Cuarón, UK / USA, 2006
4 out of 4 stars

Luckily, this film is just as strong on a repeat viewing, although I suppose it didn’t hurt that I had forgotten many of the major plot points (this is the upside to not watching your favorite films too often). One thing that really struck me was how directly Cuarón chose to visually quote from the Abu Gharib photos when the heroes enter the detention center. Of course, the parallel would have been obvious in any case. I tried to point this out to my students, but of course they didn’t even know what Abu Gharib was! I suppose they were around 13 years old at the time, but I still find that unacceptable. It makes me wonder if there is any real need for the pervasive propagandizing that this film portrays; even when the press openly and extensively reports on a heinous offense, the average person still remains blissfully ignorant of it.

The other interesting element is that Cuarón is combining the “terrorist detention” crisis with the “illegal immigration” crisis. Perhaps I’m being naïve to even view them as separate “issues,” but in any case, I do find the conflation of the two problems (and by problem, of course, I am referring to how the West and particularly the US has dealt with things) somewhat illuminating, as if Cuarón is sketching out for us the whole continuum of heinous treatment of the other, and perhaps reminding those of us who may be only, or more, concerned with one problem than the other, that these things can bleed into each other after a while.

Source: Universal DVD
30 May, 2:28 PM

A Mighty Heart

Michael Winterbottom, USA / UK, 2007
3.5 out of 4 stars

I was a bit surprised by some of the less-than-charitable reviews that I saw of this film after watching it, but upon further reflection, I think that the disparity of opinions can be readily explained by its somewhat-divided nature.

On the one hand, we have scenes of Marianne Pearl (Angelina Jolie) working alongside people from various agencies to find her husband, Danny, who has been kidnapped (and if you read the news, you know how this ends, but the film doesn’t inform you at the beginning if you aren’t already aware of it). Jolie pulls off a fairly competent attempt at mimicry, made a bit politically dubious in that they seem to have darkened her face ever so slightly in order to make her look more like the French-Afro-Cuban Mrs. Pearl (I also felt that, in her biggest “acting” moment near the end, Jolie embarrassed herself a bit, although I am not sure whose fault that is or if my reaction is even fair). I found Archie Panjabi and Irfan Khan to be particularly likeable, the former as a colleague and roommate (who unfortunately, due in part to the somewhat-elliptical storyline, comes off as an assistant at first), the latter as the main Pakistani investigator.

As I later learned, all these scenes involving Jolie in the Pearl house were actually shot in India for security reasons, and many of the actors playing Pakistani characters, such as Khan, are from Bollywood (Panjabi is British). And while these scenes are fairly strong, some of the most interesting stuff happens in the scenes that were actually shot in Pakistan, where the actual investigation gets underway (leaving behind the ostensible main character for large periods of time, more and more as the film continues) Because there is a bit more of a story in the conventional sense, the film was able to keep my attention a little more thoroughly than Michael Winterbottom’s earlier films that used this as a setting, namely In This World and, to a lesser extent, The Road to Guantánamo.

I only watched the first minute of the DVD’s “making of” featurette, but I was interested by Winterbottom’s explanation that he found something in Pearl’s memoir (by the same name) that resonated with his own experiences in Pakistan, making those earlier films. What he didn’t say, I imagine, was that by making use of the cachet from both the star system and the cult of the “true story” (not that this isn’t an important true story), he could try to convey what he’s seen about this area to the mainstream audience who has missed his previous work. He does so with some of the best filmmaking I’ve seen from him, using very short scenes and abrupt, yet seamless transitions in order to get plenty of information and sensation across without indulging himself or boring the viewer. I don’t know if this film is actually better than his other “political” films or if I am still just mainstream enough that I need something conventional to latch on to, but I do think that it’s an effective combination, if a little uneven when you really think about it.

Source: Paramount DVD
29 May, 9:11 PM

Raise the Red Lantern

(Da hong deng long gao gao gua)
Zhang Yimou, China / Hong Kong / Taiwan, 1991
3.5 out of 4 stars

I have become an admirer of Zhang Yimou's work (you may be noticing a pattern here, as I seem to be drifting towards some kind of partial adherence to the "auteur theory"), starting with his most successful film (at least here), Hero, and I frequently saw this film mentioned in reviews of his later work. Up until last year, however, there was no decent DVD version, meaning that I saw his less-well-regarded but more recent films first.

Having finally made it back to this one, widely regarded as a classic, I almost felt as if I had failed some kind of test, because while I certainly liked it, I think I got more out of films like Not One Less or Riding Alone for Thousands of Miles, both of with are more in the neo-realist mode with the usual cast of nonactors.

This one has some of the same sense of languidness, as it follows Songlian (Gong Li) character through four seasons as the fourth wife of a polygamous nobleman in 1920s China. At least for me, it was hard to be sure of the time period until I looked it up afterwards (perhaps this would not be the case for a Chinese audience). The palace, if it can be called that, is expansive but decaying, and the outside world is never shown after Songlian arrives. This creates a very striking feeling of isolation, as you might imagine.

On top of that, the family has its own elaborate customs which seem explicitly concocted with the aim of heightening the already-inevitable tension and conflict between the four wives. Althoug she is the heroine, Songlian certainly doesn't take the high road, as she tries her best to play the game and win advantage for herself. While she seems to have an advantage due to her youth and beauty, we soon start to wonder if her late introduction is too much of a disadvantage. The maneuvering that go on are subtly depicted, and Gong does a good job of depicting the anguish that exists just below the surface of her crumbling, icy facade (to mix some metaphors). Certainly not a fun time, and the very end seems slightly half-baked or at least forced, but interesting, undoubtedly.

Source: Fox DVD
28 May, 7:38 PM

Helvetica

Gary Hustwit, UK, 2007
2 out of 4 stars

On certain occasions, I can be somewhat susceptible to persuasion when someone makes an off-the-wall film recommendation, particularly in the classroom for some reason, and this is a perfect example of it; a feature documentary on a font, for gosh sakes, that a guest lecturer in my “history of the book” seminar enthusiastically recommended.

I actually respect it as a valiant effort, but of course it turns out to be largely boring to someone who doesn’t already care about fonts or design. Helvetica consists of two kinds of scenes; talking-head interviews with designers and typographers, and series of brief shots of Helevtica use, mostly in various street signs. I’m slightly more interested in fonts than most people, and I was surprised to realize, for instance, how many major logos are all in this same font, which honestly in its large street-style is almost unrecognizable from its computer version. I found the London sequence to have some particularly interesting visual touches, but overall these sequences are quite repetitive.

As for the interviews, I felt that relatively few of the people with whom the director spoke with were either interesting or insightful (much less both). The young designers come off as pompous art-school twits with almost nothing to say, while the experts who tried to explain its historical origins nearly bored me into a stupor. A few people make some interesting points about Helvetica’s cultural and economic significance, and at times I almost felt like the film was worth it. Overall, it’s not; this could have been an interesting article but for the unconverted it cannot be an interesting film.

Source: Red Envelope DVD
19 May, 9:05 PM

Iron Man

Jon Favreau, USA, 2008
3.5 out of 4 stars

When the script and the actors suck, a superhero action movie, with minimal action and maximum buildup and exposition can be one of the most painful things to suffer through. The best recent example of this is the excreable Fantastic Four, which doesn't even feature a battle sequence until the last 15 minutes of the film, rather spending most of its running time as the lifeless cast blandly ruminates over powers that only took them a minute to obtain. Thankfully, Iron Man is more in the vein of Batman Begins, another film in which a man with no inherent superpowers accumulates both the skills and the experiences necessary to ultimately inhabit his role as superhero.

Yet although I've given them the same rating, I should be clear that Batman Begins was definitely a deeper, more complex and more thought-out film. Iron Man would probably be significantly worse without the presence of Robert Downey, Jr., who seems to be gradually making up for last time, even as he cleverly trades off of his own unfortunate public persona in his role as the dissolute-but-brilliant Tony Stark. Unlike Bruce Wayne, Tony is not traumatized, he's just in a stage of arrested development that has prevented him from considering the consequences of his actions as a weapons designer/merchant. It takes an origin story centered in Afghanistan to reorient his thinking and kick off some gradual, but worthwhile, character development.

Interestingly, the original Iron Man was born of the Vietnam War, and that story's attitude towards said war was much less complicated, to put it lightly. The comics have already updated both the setting and the politics, so I'm not sure how this stacks up to more recent incarnations (I only really started recognizing Marvel injokes during the very last scene), but I think Jon Favreau's film walks a fine line regarding the depiction of terrorists and ultimately succeeds in avoiding the main pitfalls. Overall the attitude is one of sophistication, although some things are nonetheless overlooked out of necessity.

As for the action, well, as I said there's not exactly tons of action in this film, but the story and acting are such good quality that the action feels even more earned. Watching Iron Man fly around is in itself exciting, which is somewhat surprising considering that "you'll believe a man can fly" was the original superhero movie tagline, even before I was born. Above all, it did leave me looking forward to the sequel (and I wouldn't mind if there was a bit more action that time).

By the way, if you go see it, make sure to stay until after the credits.

Source: Paramount 35mm print
16 May, 8:00 PM

Solaris

Stephen Soderbergh, USA, 2002
3 out of 4 stars

Something, not quite explained, is going wrong at the end (or at least it feels like it) of space, but despite the somewhat-goofy spacesuits, the significance of the events is much more focused on the interpersonal. Sent to investigate this phenomena (even the message apparently doesn't mean what it seems to mean), Chris Kelvin (George Clooney) is soon visited by someone who could not actually be there, specifically his wife Rheya (Natascha McElhone). Flashbacks ensue (not for the last time, either) in which we get a surprising level of detail about their relationship, from beginning to end.

All this unfolds at a fairly deliberate pace, despite the short running time, and it can be quite captivating at times; there is a certain visual appeal to the shot composition (really starting to wish I had the language to describe this stuff better) and the performances are often compelling. Overall, though, I couldn't quite get involved enough in the thing, even though I felt like I cared about the characters, and was at least interested in what was going on without being too removed from it. The spaceship sets don't look particularly good on a mid-sized television (I'm gonna assume that they look much better on a movie screen), which is a bit of a problem considering how long we end up staring at them when not that much is going on. The ending is interesting, but I wish I knew what it meant, although I suspect that I'm being needlessly obtuse here (it was probably the best part of the film). I consider this a good film, overall, but I'm not sure that I would recommend it; it's just too hard to get a handle on.

Source: Fox DVD
9 May, 8:56 PM

Sólo con tu pareja

Alfonso Cuarón, Mexico, 1991
4 out of 4 stars

I have been working my way through Cuarón's filmography ever since, believe it or not, I saw Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and I was just as pleased with this film, his feature debut, as I had been with his others. It's basically an absurdist sex comedy, at times solidly in the realm of farce, while other times it verges into even stranger or darker territory. Despite the more limited resources and the seemingly less-conducive subject matter, the film looks great and has the same sense of visual inventiveness that one sees in his later films

The protagonist is the usual lothario type, who we meet in the process of fooling around with both his boss and the nurse that works for his amiable neighbor, a good bourgeois doctor who is content to live vicariously through tales of his sexual exploits (although even this leads to problems for both characters on more than one occasion). We also learn that the hero is not particularly concerned about protection, which also becomes an issue.

I definitely wouldn't try to claim that the film is entirely original; it seems fresh enough to me, but some aspects of the story are more familiar than others. What I like is that there is nonetheless a good balance of optimism and cynicism which allows the viewer to forgive some of the lapses. More importantly, the film just gets more and more hilarious, particularly the darker it gets. It's definitely worth looking into.

Source: Image DVD
3 May, 9:57 PM

No End in Sight

Charles Ferguson, USA, 2007
3 out of 4 stars

I was slowly making my way through "Bush's War", a two-part "episode" of PBS Frontline, when I got the notification that this movie would be the next to arrive in my mailbox. The redundancy seemed unfortunate, but I ultimately became so consumed with what I learned in "Bush's War" that I found myself interested in seeing and learning more, so I went ahead and watched the film. The result of all of this is that I found myself in a better position to actually judge No End in Sight on its merits as a work, rather than giving it a knee-jerk four-star rating due chiefly to the shock of what I learned from it.

Instead, I found this documentary to be a solid piece of work, but perhaps a bit undeserving of its de facto status as the flagship Iraq War documentary. Part of this is indeed because Frontline has in fact, it turns out, been doing shows on this stuff for years; "Bush's War" was something of a synthesis of earlier shows, with the focus to some extent being on the decision-making process that led us to war, whereas No End in Sight is more interested in the colossal mistakes made in the beginning of the occupation (there is apparently a Frontline on this subject as well, and director Charles Ferguson even uses a clip from it at one point!). Being that it is PBS, it is also pretty neutral on the face of it; of course, the facts line up to present a picture so damning that there is no real need to lay it on with any extraneous, overt ideological critique.

Ferguson, of course, is not a public television journalist, so he has no need to strive for objectivity; even so, he seems to have sensed that the facts speak for themselves (not something I always believe, mind you, but clearly the case here). The question is, really, whether he has made any use of film as a medium. There seems to be a very small amount of original footage (although who knows how original), but it's mostly a talking-head piece. This is compelling enough, as much of the things we learn are quite shocking, and not all of it was covered at least in the particular Frontline that I saw. The downside to Ferguson's approach and his status is that he is able to get only one unrepentant proponent of the Bush policies. With this guy, he sets up a very theatrical, indirect "confrontation" with one of his key witnesses; the narrator makes a point of informing us that these two men were interviewed again in order to reconcile contradictions between their testimonies. Although contrived, it's also satisfying in that you always wish that these things were actually "resolved" more thoroughly, and the confrontational aspect of it is something that Frontline largely eschews.

Overall, though, this is best suited for television; I really can't imagine watching it in a movie theater (although the occasional use of split screen did render some footage hard to focus on for someone with a modest-sized television). For film, I think I would be more interested in one of the docs that actually focuses on original, on-the-spot footage. Ferguson does augment the work of the PBS journalists, but he ultimately comes off as a little redundant. All that said, you're more likely to want to see this film then you are to watch three hours of "Bush's War" on streaming video, so on that basis alone I recommend it; this is stuff you need to know, and you will be better off, albeit angrier, for having seen it.

Source: Red Envelope DVD
29 April, 9:41 PM

One Nite in Mongkok

(Wong gok hak yau)
Derek Yee, Hong Kong, 2004
3.5 out of 4 stars

They tell you from the beginning, if you're paying attention, that this movie is about fate. Although many of the Hong Kong films dealing with cops and gangsters emphacize some form of honor or heroism, this picture very quickly sets the stage for a tale that is grittier not in the sense that it depicts unpleasant events (although there is that too), but in that it does not provide us with these comforting lenses through which to observe the action.

For one thing, it takes quite a while for the protaganist, a young man from the mainland hired to kill a gang boss, to even appear in the picture. Although his story ultimately drives the film, albeit with frequent cutaways to the police and their attempt to avert a gang war, the fact that he doens't show up until events lead to his introduction seems to show that, even though our focus is on him, he is only a part of larger events. In fact his introduction is surprising, as before we meet him the film seems heading towards more of an ensemble approach, but Daniel Wu turns in a good performance as the often-conflicted, somewhat naive and moralistic would-be killer. His costar, Cecilia Cheung, does overplay her more cliched "prostitute with a heart of gold" role (although it may just be overwritten as well), but their relationship, strange as it is, is nonetheless appealing, as they are both in Hong Kong due to similarly dire conditions in their home villages, bringing in an important social critique to the film (not something I've seen in many Hong Kong cop films).

I enjoyed this film quite a bit, in part because it is extremeley foreboding, particularly the closer you get to the end, but is not unrelenting. Rather than whip you up into some exaggerated frenzy of dread, One Nite in Mongkok (pity about the idiotic spelling in the English title) is more about the banality of coincidence (or fate, I guess) and the compromises that all the characters have made with varying degrees of deliberateness. This makes for a film that is both more interesting and more challenging than most.

Finally, although I lack the filmic vocabulary to go into detail, the film is shot with a good degree of energy and artistry. While ultimately it falls under the umbrella of mainstream film, there does seem to have been an artsy inclination on the part of the filmmakers, and in this case I'd say their ambition was well-realized.

Source: Tai Seng DVD
21 April, 8:45 PM

Modern Times

Charlie Chaplin, USA, 1936
3 out of 4 stars

Honestly, I am tempted to give the first two sequences 4 stars and the rest of the film 2 stars; as it is, I split the difference and ended up with the good-but-not-great 3 star rating.

This is actually my first Chaplin film, and as I am not a film student (but rather a "projectionist," in which capacity I saw this film), it will most likely be my last. I didn't find the conventions of the "silent" (with occasional speech near the beginning and sound effects throughout) film too difficult to get a hold of, and for the most part the humor was not incomprehensible.

If anything, the bar was perhaps set too high by the first sequence, in which Chaplin's "Little Tramp" desperately tries to make his way through a day at the factory, becoming increasingly unhinged with results that myself and most of the undergraduates found absolutely hillarious. No surpise that an English professor would assign this, as Chaplin demonstrates the "alienation of labor" concept far better than Karl Marx or any of his followers could hope to!

There are flickers of brilliance throghout (the first jail sequence is pretty solid), but the film increasingly becomes repetetive (near the end the Tramp ends up in yet another factory, even mirroring many of the earlier gags albeit in a different context. It seems that Chaplin was regrettably unable to maintain the high level of both social commentary and humor that he shows at the beginning.

Source: Warner DVD
15 April, 7:10 PM

The Host

(Gwoemul)
Bong Joon-ho, South Korea, 2006
3.5 out of 4 stars

This Korean mega-blockbuster came to my attention during its small but respectable American run thanks to major critical Internet hype, to the point that I watched it despite my general antipathy to "monster movies," and in this case the hype was mostly justified. The random attacks on the people of Seoul by a large mutant fish-creature serve as a very interesting vehicle for biting social commentary on Korean society (surprisingly easy to grasp despite my general ignorance about said society), and more importantly, a critique on the US' paternalistic, borderline-malevolent (at least here) relationship with the Republic of Korea.

Political themes are not that rare to horror films, I understand (not so much from watching them as from reading reviews), and the perspective on America is not unfamiliar to me from the handful of American films I've seen, dealing both with the early 21st century and the mid 20th century. Nonetheless, The Host, like all the best blockbusters (increasingly an oxymoron, at least domestically) is a terrific genre mishmash of satire, melodrama and suspense. The fact that certain scenes, such as a notably excessive display of grieving by the family around which the film revolves, leave the viewer unsure as to whether they are meant as melodrama or satire (or both) only increases the impact and appeal of the film.

The plot itself is aimless in a good way, as the twists and turns effectively convey the sense of frustration with the South Korean and American governmental and military response to the monster, as well as the struggle of the average (perhaps even below-average), regular family to fight both the monster and the monstrously uncaring systems they are at the mercy of. There are definitely flaws; the main female character is woefully undeveloped particularly in comparison to her male counterparts, and there was one glaring aspect of the film that I found to be extremely problematic (but cannot reveal for fear of spoilers), but overall this is a surprisingly effective piece. And for those who care, there is thankfully not too much gore (the most extreme scene is probably the one where the monster belches out an improbably large heap of bones).

Source: Magnolia DVD
14 April, 9:52 PM

The Battle of Algiers

(La Battaglia di Algeri)
Gillo Pontecorvo, Italy / Algeria, 1966
4 out of 4 stars

I expected this to be more of a "broccoli" film, meaning that it would be "good for me" but not particularly interesting. Yet from fairly early on (after some getting used to it), I was very impressed by how engrossing, even thrilling at times, a film about terrorism could actually be.

Calling it "terrorism" might sound wrong, considering that this is a film that very much celebrates the national liberation struggle of the Algerians against French colonialism (a situation that, while never all that far from our American experience, is more uncomfortably familiar to even the most clueless citizen than it has been for us in quite a while). Part of what makes this film great, though, is that while it does glamorize to an extent through sheer cinematic force, it also forces you to take a clear look not only at what's at stake but also at precisely who will, for instance, die in a bomb blast (children included). As such the film manages to transcend both propaganda and facile, disingenously "neutral" docudrama to create something altogether more compelling and troubling.

Finally, when I mention terrorism I am also referring to what is sometimes called state terrorism, as the second half of the film, roughly speaking, is dedicated to the French Army's response to the revolutionary upheaval. While their leader might arguably be portrayed in an overly-sympathetic manner, the main Algerian rebel is still clearly the hero, and furthermore, the fact that the colonel does have a sense of "honor" only makes his actions the more disturbing. As the press corps finally start to reflect a growing civilian unease with harsh military tactics (sound familiar?), the best moment comes when the colonel reminds just how implicated they are in the colonial project. I should also note that the Ennio Morricone score is quite awesome!

Source: WEA subtitled VHS
10 April, 6:10 PM

The Taste of Others

(Le Goût des autres)
Agnès Jaoui, France, 2000
3 out of 4 stars

Some time ago, I watched a film called Look at Me and enjoyed it enough to add director Agnès Jaoui's earlier (and first) film to my Netflix queue, but not, apparently, enough to make it any kind of priority. My conclusion is that this is a solid, entertaining effort, but that Jaoui definitely improved in her subsequent outing.

There is definitely a similar style at play here, as we have witty but often dry dialogue, frequent cuts between different sets of characters, and a somewhat sudden and jolting introduction into the plot (you figure out who is who and what relationship they have to each other about 15 minutes into the film). Although this film does juggle several storylines, most of the focus is on a bumbling, bourgeois industrial manager who becomes more interested in his English lessons (forced upon him by higher-ups so that he will be able get this international deal through) when he becomes enamored of his tutor during her performance in the theater. This plot allows for the filmmakers to provide amusing but not entirely earthshaking commentary about the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the art-intellectual caste, among other things. While some of the characters may seem simplistic at first, most ultimately become sympathetic and invovling.

That said, this film does ultimately seem a bit slight. Jaoui and her husband, co-writer Jean-Pierre Bacri (also the de facto star here) try to weave together all these characters, but some ultimately don't seem to contribute too much, concerning the plot or the overall conceptual thrust of the piece, which as I said is not eathshattering in and of itself. While Look at Me wasn't perfect, either, Jaoui and Bacri seem to have worked out some of these problems in their following film, so it's a bit disconcerting to go backwards as I ended up doing with their work. I guess on the off chance that you were to see either of these films, you should see the first one first, or only see the second one.

Source: Buena Vista DVD
1 April, 10:09 PM

Offside

Jafar Panahi, Iran, 2006
4 out of 4 stars

Iranian women, as the text at the beginning helpfully explains to American audiences, are barred from attending sporting events, which of course means that this film is about a handful of young women, who, for different reasons, try to sneak in to particularly important soccer match that will decide whether or not Iran will make it to the 2006 World Cup. It bears noting, by the way, that much of this film was actually shot in the background during the game (although you won't see much of it).

The film, then, is about gender in Iran, but it is also about class, as the often-hapless soldiers who become the reluctant guards of these seemingly privileged city women come from rural, provincial backgrounds, and its theme inherently leads to a consideration of nationalism as well. We know that there are “bad guys,” so to speak, in the Iranian system, but for the most part those figures stay offscreen; instead, we have two mostly sympathetic groups who both have legitimate grievances. The director chooses to present both of these sides rather than telling us what to think. It might be tempting to chalk all this restraint up to an aspiration to see the film screened in its own country and not just in international markets (it didn’t work), but I think that the presentation of the film is actually quite sincere and insightful, albeit very subtle (I'm sure plenty of the nuances escaped me from my vantage point).

Like all the other handful of Iranian films I’ve seen (almost all of which were banned domestically by Iranian censors), this one is filmed in a neo-realist style with long takes and a cast of mostly non-actors. Ths one, however, is undoubtedly my favorite of the ones I’ve seen, as it is the first one with an overall comic tone, which is pretty rare not just in Iranian film but in any neo-realist film. While it does start slow, the confrontations are amusing while also thought-provoking, and the characters are quite engaging, but the comic nature of the film does not mean that important questions are being dodged; although Persepolis was a good film, I felt like this one was in many ways more enlightening and entertaining. Even if you’re skeptical about this kind of film, I would recommend you give it a chance.

Source: Sony DVD
16 March, 10:17 PM

Super Size Me

Morgan Spurlock, USA, 2004
3.5 out of 4 stars

I’m gonna assume that everyone has heard about this movie, and as such, I’m not gonna spend any time describing it for you. The first thing I will say is that it probably benefited from really low expectations on my part. Intellectually, I still object to Spurlock’s methodology; it’s the film version of what a public radio panel recently referred to as “extreme sports writing,” and I think that documentaries should not, in general, be documents of stunts. Furthermore, It’s hard not to be bothered by the futility of the whole thing, and it’s also hard not to wonder what would have been the point if, say, he had managed to get himself permanent kidney damage.

My greatest critique of this film, prior to actually watching it, was that it dramatized the obvious, and therefore must not have any real purpose; in this respect, I believe myself to be proved wrong. The truth is that what is obvious to some is not obvious to others, and I found myself increasingly uneasy at the degree to which I personally felt indicted by the film. I remember feeling this way when I first read Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation, but the effect has not been the same upon reviewing it for my class (the film was also shown during three class periods, interspersed with some other activity), and any case, I think the visual effect is very crucial; I was disturbed simply by the sight of how gigantic the now-defunct “super size” actually was.

The real question is whether this film can cause anyone to change their behavior; Spurlock obviously would like the government and corporations to change theirs, but he explains the lobbying system (overlapping with Schlosser here, as he often does) clearly enough to show us that that’s not going to happen, so he does leave it up to us in the end. Initially, I felt irritated at being condemned without actually being enlightened (it’s not like I didn’t know that I shouldn’t eat that Western Bacon Cheeseburger, after all), but over time I feel more hopeful that I may have actually internalized some of the message. And most importantly, the film is much more entertaining than I expected, due mostly to its shock value; aside from that, the interviews in particular and such consist of a more complete package than the marketing would suggest (in fact the central stunt is largely just a marketing gimmick when it comes right down to it). My students did not react audibly as often as I did, but many of them had after all seen it before. But if I’m gonna measure this by how much impact it had on me, I should probably come back in a month and raise or lower the rating based on how concerned I am by that point!

Source: WEA DVD
5 March, 3:20 PM

Breach

Billy Ray, USA, 2007
3 out of 4 stars

The film launches with some footage of a press conference with John Ashcroft in early 2001, as he announces the capture of a mole in the FBI; a title card takes us two months back and engages us in the story of a young operative, Eric O’Neil (Ryan Philippe), tasked to play the obedient subordinate to grumpy old man Chris Cooper and dig up some dirt on him. Of course, things are not what they seem and Philippe’s character has not been told the whole truth, but the film for the most part plays out as a complicated dance between the competent young hero and the grizzled, prickly character actor. It’s not just about the guys, though, as Philippe’s real boss, gamely played by Laura Linney, shows up every now and then to act tough; the obligatory cameos by the Wife Who Doesn’t Understand are as annoying as they usually are, but you can tell the filmmakers sorta know this, and it does pay off more than you might expect.

So as the critics say, Cooper’s performance is often compelling, and Philippe does a reasonably good job at keeping up. The film can also be very tense at times, and Ray does a good job selling us on the gravity of the whole situation. Ultimately, however, I can’t help but feel like the film is not quite exciting or significant enough due to its excessive dependence on standing up to the scrutiny they felt would ensue from the “based on a true story” tagline; this impression was only strengthened after viewing the bonus features, in which you see. I do think that they made the right choice, even in an artistic sense, in not seeking to “explain” Cooper’s character anymore than they did, as this would only detract from his performance. The problem is that the filmmakers seem to have decided that just putting on a fairly compelling reenactment of a recent even is enough of a raison d’être. Honestly, how can you do a story about intelligence failure in that brief pre-9/11 Bush period without trying to say, I don’t know, something about it! And finally, the ending really underwhelms; perhaps this was unavoidable, but perhaps a director should also ask if the thrill of a “true story” necessarily justifies a plot that will eventually just sorta go flat (I’m sure they punched it up a bit here and there, but it feels like they didn’t do so enough). As entertaining as the film is, it ultimately comes off as a more mature, more polished version of America’s Most Wanted.

Source: Universal DVD
6 March, 8:42 PM

There Will Be Blood

Paul Thomas Anderson, USA, 2007
3 out of 4 stars

I’m beginning to wonder if I have overly specific expectations for films about historical problems. You probably wouldn’t expect me to draw parallels with Sweeney Todd and my reception of it, but once again I found myself a little miffed, at least when the film was over and I reflected on it, that a filmmaker had almost threatened to make a film about something like the social impact of the early 20th century oil boom on a small town, but had instead decided to focus on how crazy this one guy is.

The parallels are limited, admittedly. I thought this was a much stronger film, partly because I didn’t really notice the missed opportunities until after. Just as all the critics said, Day-Lewis is a captivating presence, although there is a valid question as to whether he is believable as a fully-realized character, rather than as a human phenomenon.

And maybe I’m being too literal in my approach to the film. You see, there is a scene where the main character, Daniel Plainview, makes copious promises for economic and infrastructural development to the aforementioned small town. We are probably supposed to gather that he is lying, but you never even get enough of a glimpse of the world outside Plainview himself to really ascertain the truth of his statement. His story of demented, solitary obsession is compelling, but particularly considering the length of the film, it’s remarkable that it is depicted in isolation to such a pronounced degree. Maybe his character progression (if you can call it that) is supposed to represent the social trends, and maybe his rivalry with a young churchman played by Paul Danno is supposed to serve the same purpose, but the approach ultimately led, for me at least, to a sort of decontextualized feeling, the feeling of “what’s the point?”

I actually still did get something out of this film and you very likely will too. I don’t quite think the critics and the Oscar voters are wrong; I just think they are conditioned to value, perhaps even overvalue, certain things, and this movie is to some extent designed with those things in mind. A familiar story, of course.

Source: Paramount 35mm print
12 February, 2:50 PM

Paprika

Kon Satoshi, Japan, 2006
3.5 out of 4 stars

When a film centers around a device that enables psychotherapists (at least that's what I think they were) to enter into the dreams of their subjects, you expect for there to be a certain amount of trippy, mind-bending imagery, and perhaps even a general abandonment of literal narrative in favor of a more "dreamlike" approach. Of course, we do get plenty of this imagery (parades full of monuents and "Children's Day" dolls, amusement parks, and so on), and it's both exhilitaring and disturbing in a way that no other film I've seen lately has been (nice to see the Japanese still doing something with animation, particularly the mostly-hand-drawn, traditional kind). However, the odd thing about Paprika is that this imagery is contained within an overall plot structure that bears many of the trappings of a straightforward narrative, as the scientists, sometimes with the help of a police detective, try to recover a missing device and deal with the havoc apparently caused by its misuse.

It's only as the film continues that it becomes apparent that the filmmakers are not playing as straight with us as they initially lead us to believe. Most of the characters in this film have unexpected relationships with each other, and these relationships are generally revealed in very awkward, confusing ways, usually after quite a bit of time has elapsed. Some of these are obvious whereas others just seem like they should have been obvious. Yet even though the audience had been left hanging about certain aspects of the plot, the occasional reveals leave us expecting a greater degree of narrative closure than we are ultimately afforded by the film. We are in fact cleverly misled into expecting more of an explanation.

Of course, I don't believe that any of this is accidental, although it did frustrate my friend a lot more than it did me; I suppose I was in the mood for something that didn't entirely want to make sense, and I really do think the trojan horse of the traditional narrative was cleverly implemented. As to what the film is saying philosophically, well, as usual I'm at a bit of a loss as far as that goes. I found the use of what I understand to be stock anime depictions of women (cold-hearted scientist, peppy bright-haired witch-type), not to mention men (stern detective, absent-minded old man) to be both somewhat tiresome and seemingly knowing at the same time (it's interesting that it shows up in what strikes me, perhaps incorrectly, as more of an "art-house" anime). I should also mention that as much as the "dream device" and the amusement park imagery sounds horribly unoriginal when I describe it, much like something that has showed up in one Star Trek or X-Files episode too many, it is in fact much more mindblowing than it sounds. Check it out but be prepared for weirdness and incoherency!

Source: Sony DVD
18 Jan, 9:21 PM

Killer of Sheep

Charles Burnett, USA, 1977
3.5 out of 4 stars

You may or may not have heard of this film; it's was a UCLA film school thesis long ago, never got distribution until last year due to music rights issues (too expensive). It's basically European-style neo-realism applied to a depiction of working-class life in Watts (and if all that sounds like I am cribbing off of introductory remarks by academics from my university, well that's because I am).

I'm afraid that I don't really have much to add to what others have said about this film, but I'll solider on anyway since this may possibly be your introduction to it. I was impressed by the degree to which, as many pointed out, narrative was entirely eschewed throughout. Sometimes I find this frustrating, but it seems both appropriate and effective in this instance. Too many films about oppressed people rely too heavily on grand, impending tragedy, while the Hollywood version usually relies on implausible or unearned, uplift, but Burnett shows us that things are not that simple in this environment. He chooses to focus, to some extent, on the unspoken turmoil of a family man working in a slaughterhouse, drawing obvious but understated parallels between his job and the conditions of living in his neighborhood. People bluster their way through various mundane (and sometimes, grimly hilarious) situations, but are largely unable to articulate their deeper problems. Interspersed throughout are scenes of children playing, roughly, trying to claim their post-industrial spaces as best they can, visually paralleled directly with the sheep. I can't claim that I was able to come to that profound of an understanding of the film on my own, so I will say that I appreciated seeing it in this "academic" context. It's worth a look as long as you know what you are getting into!

Source: New Yorker DVD
17 Jan, 6:26 PM

Reno 911!: Miami

Robert Ben Garant, USA, 2007
1.5 out of 4 stars

This is of course one of those films that defeats criticism, if only in the sense that when you say it’s bad, people who are likely to agree with you say “no duh, why did you watch that anyway?” while people who disagree with you will call you names like “elitist,” or tell you that it’s supposed to be dumb. Admittedly I am not a big fan of stupidity for its own sake, but I have found the show fairly entertaining in small doses – if you’re not familiar with it, it centers around really idiotic and obscene police officers in Reno, sort of a broad Cops parody with a strong basis in improv.

I think it’s pretty clear that there was no real chance of the material being made into a good film, as the people involved just don’t seem to have the discipline for it. One bit that really struck me was an extended sequence in which successive interactions consistently had an awkward dissolve transition as the editor had to skip over the unsuccessful improvisations the actors had probably stumbled through. I could go on about other ways in which this film was poorly thought-out or shoddily made, but the main point is that, for the most part, it was not particularly funny. The best praise I can give is that I didn’t really think that much about how bad or pointless it was until afterwards; I wasn’t really enjoying it, but neither was I angry about how bad it was (and that is saying something, with me)

Source: Charter VOD
10 Jan, 9:13 PM

Persepolis

Marjane Satrapi & Vincent Paronnaud, France / USA, 2007
3.5 out of 4 stars

Ah, it’s nice to see a good movie again. It’s certainly not perfect. I’ve read the first volume as published in the US, and I definitely felt that the second half of the film, adapting the second half, was not as strong. The first half deals with Satrapi’s childhood in Iran and has some really interesting things to say about how children struggle with and process the complex, yet inane, political changes around them in times of extreme strife, such as the Iranian Revolution. We are not robbed of a sophisticated treatment through this perspective, rather we gain new insight on something that most of us probably didn’t have much insight into in the first place!

The second part of the film, meanwhile, is on her high school experiences as a lone member of the diaspora in Vienna – still strong, but more familiar – and her college years back in Iran, which is a bit stronger. None of this, however, reduced my positive feeling towards the movie too much. The animation, while stylized, is very expressive. Little Marjane is cute but not overly so, and the imaginative universe (in which she talks with God) is effectively juxtaposed against the dark reality of political purges without missing a beat. There are a few awkward transitions between various short episodes, paradoxically moreso in the mostly-stronger first half, but this is mitigated by the surprisingly-high level of humor (when appropriate, that is).

It’s something new, different, and worthwhile as animation is concerned, and as far as “third world memoir” is concerned; there are flaws but they are quite easily overlooked. Go see it, when you can!

Source: Sony subtitled 35mm print
5 Jan, 1:30 PM

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Tim Burton, USA / UK, 2007
2.5 out of 4 stars

The sad thing is, I enjoyed most of this movie, particularly its atmosphere (sure it’s the same as the other Burton films, at least aside from the blood, but Burton still does a good job at pulling you in as always) with two major reservations. The first of these was, of course, that the performances of Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter were definitely not good enough to justify their casting in light of their insufficient vocal talents. It’s slightly unfair to lump them together, as Carter, as much as I like her, is significantly worse than Depp. Either way, it’s a shame, as the songs were really awesome and the orchestration in particular does its best to prop up these singers, allowing you to overlook their faults as much as possible.

My second problem with the film was that it seemed to be dragging on a bit, and this was only compounded when it took a turn that I had trouble following. You see, the title character undergoes a pretty complete shift in modus operandi something like three-quarters of the way through the film. I don’t know if this worked better in the musical, but in the film, I really felt like the transition was just unsatisfying and incoherent, and from there on out, I had a lot more trouble “relating” to the action, as it were. Although I might not like the musical any better, I suspect that I’m just not impressed with Burton’s psychology or his social conscience, as he usually operates on the surface and this work asks for a greater insight into Todd’s mentality than Burton can ultimately provide us. Or maybe the premise just doesn’t work for me in the first place.

Source: Paramount 35mm print
3 Jan, 1:50 PM

The Great Debaters

Denzel Washington, USA, 2007
2.5 out of 4 stars

There are a lot of unflattering things I could say about this movie, and believe me, I will say them. Much of it seems over-familiar, such as the love triangle, the pubescent fantasies, and even the general whiff of what some critics call “underdog uplift.” It’s definitely weighed down too heavily with conventionality, something my compatriots and I were quick to blame on the fact that it comes out of Oprah Winfrey’s production company.

So, it’s not entirely a good film, but nonetheless, I found that as it went on, my reservations about the often ham-handed execution were increasingly overridden by my interest in the story itself, because if aspects of it are too familiar, there’s something about the overall thrust that seems worth telling in a sociopolitical sense. That is to say, this movie should have been better, but it still may indeed be good for you, or at least for someone, and it doesn’t entirely lack complexity either.

The subject here is a debate team at a black college in 1930s Texas, coached by a leftist agitator type played by the director. One can’t help but feel that one is being patronized a bit by how their debates transpire – we are given to understand that they do not get to choose the position they will take on an issue, but, mysteriously, they are nonetheless always depicted as taking positions consistent with civil rights and leftist thoughts in general, while their black (at least initially) opponents always sound like Clarence Thomas or worse.

Clearly, the filmmakers aren’t really comfortable with the idea of “debating.” I would assume that if the position is not chosen by the debaters, they must occasionally have had to defend unpalatable positions, but that’s apparently too complex for this film. That said, I couldn’t help but feel after a while that there was something, dare I say it, uplifting about seeing these young people triumphing through showing their verbal prowess and speaking truth-to-power, and of course, uplift is the more important goal for the filmmakers.

Aside from that, I felt that there was some real insight in some of the formulations the film puts across regarding racial injustice at the time, specifically considering the sometimes-contradictory intersections between poverty and race. It also doesn’t shy away from the horrific nature of phenomena such as lynching, something that is in itself valuable for any historically-illiterate young person (this being almost a redundant statement). Finally, I really appreciated how the relationships were put across, as there seemed to be some interesting things being said about black masculinity, specifically regarding how relationships are strained by the pressures of racism, but ultimately preserved out of mutual understanding and the not-uncritical support of women.

Source: MGM 35mm print
2 Jan, 3:40 PM