[rating=4]

This is the last time I fly with Plymouth Air...

Knowing Your Critics…

Most of the times, the films that get mixed reviews prove to be the more interesting examples of filmmaking. The ones that divide opinions dramatically are generally the balls-out go-for-broke ones. When a film is uniformly well-reviewed, that sometimes insinuates that it panders to its critics, giving them exactly what they want – glossy, slick entertainment with a Hollywood stamp proudly emblazed on its sleeve (what “The Reader” strived so hard to achieve, but thankfully failed). And when a film is badly reviewed – well, it’s rare that it actually turns out to be any good (see (or rather don’t) the recent “Miss March”).

What I don’t get about “Knowing” is the fact that all the critics seemed to hate it – except one that happens to be my favorite: Roger Ebert. Ebert, especially recently, has been known to be a bit too kind on some films, but he always justifies his reviews, making them difficult – or interesting – to debate with. The man’s been around for a while, and agree or disagree – he knows film better than 99% of you out there. So how come he gave “Knowing” 4 stars, named it one of the best sci-fi films he’s ever seen, and got so inspired by it he went on to write a whole essay about determinism vs randomness, while every other critic seemed to hate the film?

Read more

[rating=3]

"Damn, they have a McDonald's everywhere these days!"

Lost in the Desert…

A misguided bus driver leads a group of unfortunate buffoons into the middle of the searing-hot African desert. They run out of gas in a stranded village overlooked by a sole elderly man, and containing nothing but rusted cans of carrots. Gradually, as their desperation mounts, to distract themselves from the impending doom they decide to stage Shakespeare’s King Lear.

Stories of survival in the wilderness have always intrigued audiences, because they present an opportunity to witness the dark side of people, when all humanity gets stripped raw by isolation and monotony. Kristian Levring’s The King is Alive may have been the inspiration for ABC’s Lost, although Lost is definitely more of a broad crowd-pleaser, while King takes the dogmatic (no pun intended), somewhat pretentious, pseudo-intellectual route: all handheld camera, big themes, lots of desert exposition and sweat. As with the majority of Dogme films, some of the film works, and some of it doesn’t.

We’ll start with what works. The film handles the societal crumbling theme well – it’s gradual; emotions are becoming more raw, painful and violent as the film progresses, but then they reach a certain point, and are suddenly sort of mute and blank, as if sun-stroked, with only occasional outbursts of vigor. (Take the scene where Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character agrees to sleep with a man so he’d join their play; then, sick and dying, she regurgitates the experience in the worst terms possible, as if verbally stabbing him.) When faced with each other and sheer nothingness, people become animals, following their primal instincts. King does a good job demonstrating that unnerving human capacity to turn on each other when having nothing but each other (and some canned carrots).

Read more

[rating=2]

"What do you mean 'I look gay in this robe'...?"

Cruise as Samurai!

Edward Zwick has displayed himself in the past as a true patriot. Just look at the protagonists in his films, striving for independence, justice and honor: Denzel Washington in “Courage Under Fire” and “The Siege”, Matthew Broderick in “Glory”, and now Tom Cruise who, as it turns out, represents the director’s patriotism like no other.

This is a star performance, and never for a second is Tom anyone but Tom. Observe, as with an expression of eternal pondering he gazes past the camera while riding a horse; or he lunges into battle with a spiritual moan, his freshly-shampooed hair getting splattered with all that mud and blood. The conversations between Cruise’s character and the samurai who captured him so that they could learn the techniques of Western battle, or know thy enemy, if you will, are filled with haiku-like laughably bad dialogue. Those supposed moments of existential reflection are in fact irritating interruptions between the battle sequences.

The film is like its star’s performance: while glossy and seemingly intelligent, it’s in fact shallow and predictable. The film follows a simple structure: Cruise as American – Cruise captured by samurai – Cruise trains – Cruise falls in love with the village and its people (including the wife of a man he killed) – Cruise as Samurai.

Ken Watanabe is a very Americanized version of a samurai. Cruise’s love interest, despite the best efforts by actress Koyuki, is nevertheless a one-dimensional character. And at the end, there is an extended battle, where the two protagonists remain alive long enough to pronounce the moral of the film. Blah.

Zwick’s film isn’t apparently flawed, but doesn’t break any new ground. It displays little affection for/understanding of its main subject. Watch Kurosawa’s classics instead – even Jim Jarmusch’s “Ghost Dog” has a more authentic samurai feel than this Hollywood by-product.

[rating=5]

She patiently (and fruitlessly) waited for the kiss...

Two Major Talents Out to Amuse…

Director Nick Reve (Buscemi) just wants to finish his film, but everything is going wrong. Lights explode, cameras fail, the smoke machine is broken, actors sleep with each other… The ultimate nightmare shoot.

If the above sounds suspicious, doubt no further – “Living in Oblivion” may be a one-joke film, but the joke is presented by two major comedic talents: the director Tom DiCillo (“Moonlight in a Box”), subsequently infamous amongst the ‘independent crowd’, and the star, Steve Buscemi, who here once again proves that he is one of the most versatile character actors working today. The result of these two individuals combining forces is one of the funniest motion pictures of the mid-1990s.

Most comedies nowadays either rely on dumb physical humor (celebrities grimace, puke, punch, scream, trip’n'fall…) or on recycled situational gags. Genres like romantic comedies are sickeningly predictable (Richard Curtis/ Hugh Grant, anyone?) and sentimental. Spoofs like “Scary Movie” refer heavily to the more-successful slapstick of the Abraham/Zuckers’ “Airplane!”, or other earlier and funnier stabs at eccentric wit (e.g. Mel Brooks). What we have in our present times of a Hollywood creative zenith, ladies and gents, are the likes of Robert De Niro hamming it WELL up in the gruesomely exploitative “Analyze That”, and Eddie Murphy counting his paycheck in “Daddy Day Care”. It is a delight for us film-lovers to witness a comedy that is not desperate and/or indifferent in its attempts to make its audiences laugh, a comedy that is honest and certain of its genuinely witty concept, a comedy that is inspired rather than expired. You may have to dig back to 1995, but “Living in Oblivion” is one of those comedies.

Read more

[rating=4]

The staring contest went on for hours...

Typical Susanne Bier…

The infamous Danish director Susanne Bier has established herself as the queen of piercing relationship melodramas (bordering on soap-operas), filmed in a style reminiscent of Dogme (natural lights, handheld DV cameras), with the added bonus of a script and a soundtrack. Her “Open Hearts” dealt with the consequences of physical paralysis, and what that does to a blossoming relationship. “Brothers” told a story of two, um, brothers, one of them back from torn Afghanistan, competing for the affection of a beautiful woman (Connie Nielsen).

Bier’s poignancy, the immediacy that carry her films and the truthful, resonating dialogue have, so far, overshadowed her over-reliance on close-ups of the protagonists’ eyes, insistent sentimentality, and a pessimistic tone that can frankly be a major downer. Bier’s US feature debut, “Things We Lost in the Fire”, got criticized for an overexuberance of those latter qualities. Though “After the Wedding” is a stark and powerful drama, it also suffers from an unremittingly dismal tone. It seems as if Bier, instead of infusing her films with a much-needed sense of humor and love of life, has delved even deeper into the sadness and wretchedness that people can inflict upon each other.

Read more

[rating=3]

They lay there for days, waiting for someone to untangle their hair...

Trippy but Hollow…

Now this isn’t a conventional film by any standards. The always-inventive director Julie Taymor (“Titus”, the underrated “Frida”) gives the finger to straightforward narrative and character development, and focuses instead on magnifying her hallucinatory visions, in tune to the Beatles soundtrack. The result is a series of beautiful sketches, pretty to look at… but impossible to relate to.

This is not a biography of the Beatles, for those naive enough to expect that. Nor is it a musical exploration of the changing 1960s. “Across the Universe” does take place in that decade, but never approaches anything close to making any sort of a statement. The best way to define the film would be: it’s Julie Taymor’s allegorical glance at the 1960s, through Beatles glasses.

Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood) and Jude (Jim Sturgess) fall in love. Then Lucy’s brother Max (Joe Anderson) gets shipped off to Vietnam. That’s basically the rough premise of the film.

The Beatles always had one foot planted firmly on the druggy side, what with all the Yellow Submarine trippiness and their otherworldly (for the time) vibes. Taymor exploits that side of the Beatles, not in a grungy Oliver Stone’s “Doors” sort of way, but in a lyrical, personal one.

Read more

[rating=4]

"Eat THAT, Paris Hilton!"

A Bad-Ass Monster on the Loose…

This film is a true spectacle.

Boosted by a remarkable internet marketing campaign (which involved: the five-minute snippet of Lady Liberty’s head rolling down a New York street; misleading, trippy-as-hell Japanese ads; international news reports of oil rigs being mysteriously sucked down in the middle of the ocean), “Cloverfield” had fans lined up, eager to finally see the source of all destruction, the infamous Cloverfield monster. Producer J.J. Abrams (of MI:III and Lost fame) and first-time director Matt Reeves had a lot of expectations to live up to. And boy, do they deliver.

“Blair Witch” meets “Godzilla”? More or less, but it’s more than that. While the makers of “The Blair Witch Project” understood that what you don’t see is a lot more frightening than actually showing something scary, their film was all anticipation, with no resolution, and we as the audience felt a little cheated at the end.

It’s a tricky concept, one that Shyamalan’s “Signs” also tried to sustain, and almost did, but the alien revealed at the end was a lot more plain than the ones our imaginations envisioned. In terms of keeping us on the edge of our seats “Cloverfield” works perfectly, wisely panning away at the most interesting moments (Holy shit… did we see it? Was that a…? Damn it, we want to see more!) up till the end, when we get a glorious long shot of the thing… and it’s pretty damn frightening.

Read more

[rating=4]

The Oscar statuette looked different this year...

I… am… Beowulf…

It’s not surprising that “Beowulf” is infused with a healthy dose of sarcasm. After all, the screenplay is written by Neil Gaiman (the sly English fantasy writer of the cult fave “Sandman” graphic novels) and Roger Avary (co-writer of “Pulp Fiction”). To expect a straightforward narrative from them is like adding E to your girlfriend’s drink and then expecting her to act normal in front of your parents.  Throw in director Robert Zemeckis to the combination (he of “Roger Rabbit” and “Back to the Future” fame), and there’s no way things can go wrong, right?

Almost. Apart from the subtle mockery of the fantasy genre and the ‘heroic quest’ staple that runs through “Beowulf”‘s plot (the hero proclaims numerous times, in a gruff voice, flexing his biceps, that he is Beowulf, “here to kill your mon-stah” – the irony is evident), there’s unfortunately not that much originality in the film. Once I realized, half-way through, that the story wasn’t going to expand beyond its 700 A.D. source’s – the poem’s – limitations, I got a bit depressed.  The self-aware winks certainly enliven the material, but there’s no escaping the fact that it’s a straightforward, simple tale, no matter how hard one tries to spice it up visually.

That’s not to say “Beowulf” isn’t worth a look. It’s got spectacular eye-candy. The people look much more realistic than they did in the uncanny “Polar Express”. Several sequences particularly stun with the wild imagination on display: the heroic Geatsman defending King Hrothgar’s (Anthony Hopkins) Danish court from the horrific mon-stah Grendel (Crispin Glover); fighting off mon-stahs of the sea; encountering the sexy mon-stah that looks just like Angelina Jolie… with a tail, and heels instead of feet; or fighting off a mon-stah dragon at the end.

Read more

[rating=4]

She didn't realize someone stuck a "kick me, I'm a dork" note to her back

A Sweet Slice of “Yet Another Quirky Little Drama” Pie…

When I read about this film, I thought, “Here’s another small-town American indie, focusing on peculiar characters that turn out to be real, just like us.” How was this going to be different from numerous other similar films, such as “Dan in Real Life” (total dreck), or “Friends With Money” (better dreck) – all  lacking in the originality department? I didn’t expect much going to see “Waitress”, but, flaws and all, the film won me over with its sincerity, and more so with the lead performance by the fantastic Keri Russell.

Jenna (Keri Russell) seems numbed by life. She works at a diner with a semi-abusive boss (Lew Temple), her gal friends (Cheryl Hines and Adrienne Shelly), and the diner’s owner Ol’ Joe (the great Andy Griffith), who hates everyone but has a special affection for Jenna. Jenna lives with a somewhat demented, overly protective husband Earl (Jeremy Sisto) who constantly harasses her, and threatens to beat the living hell out of her if she dares leave. One day she discovers that she’s pregnant, which leads to meeting the young doctor Pomatter (Nathan Fillion).

The film is a weird combination of dramatic realism and borderline-slapstick, emphasized by some caricature characters – particularly the boss, and a young guy (Eddie Jameson) who proposes to Jenna’s friend (he seems like he belongs in a mental institution). Shelly didn’t seem to always have a proper grasp of the tone she wanted to sustain.

Read more

[rating=5]

Damn, that is one GIANT rat!

The Coen Bros in Peak Form…

The brothers have done it again. Even a mediocre Coen film, such as “The Ladykillers” or “Intolerable Cruelty” is above-average, always impeccably shot, directed and acted. When they fire on all cylinders, they are unbeatable. Such were the cases with “Miller’s Crossing”, the best film of 1990; “Fargo”, the best film of 1997; and now “No Country for Old Men”, the best film of 2007.

Based on prolific writer Cormac McCarthy’s transcendent novel, the film, like its source, is a meditation on good vs. evil, masqueraded as a thriller. It is told in a brutal, laconic style that is uncompromising in its intensity.

A man (Josh Brolin) stumbles upon a couple of dead bodies while hunting out in the Texan desert. They all have bullet-holes, guns; he finds drugs; the discovery leads him to finding the money as well. A lot of money: more than enough to make sure he and his wife (Kelly McDonald) can get the hell out of their trailer. The only problem is, Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), the personification of all senseless evil, is on his trail. And on Chigurh’s trail is an honest sheriff (Tommy Lee Jones), as well as a sleazy bounty hunter (Woody Harrelson).

Read more