"I think I sat on an anthill..."

[rating=3]

Tim Burton Lite…

The Plot: Ed Bloom (Albert Finney) is on his deathbed. Throughout his life Ed has had a tendency to neglect the world’s harsh reality and immerse himself into an imaginary world, full of idealized fantasies. His son Will (Billy Crudup) wants to hear the real story of his father’s life, without the lies. The film transports us to Ed’s past, when he was on a quest to conquer the world. On the way young Ed fights off jumping spiders, encounters the girl of his dreams, works in a circus, fights in the war….

It’s no secret that Tim Burton is not a great dramatic storyteller; he’s much more of a great visual artist. His plots – “Beetlejuice”, “Mars Attacks”, “Planet of the Apes” – are semi-intelligent at best, while the script and acting also come second to the one characteristic Tim Burton does not lack: visual creativity. Each one of the contemporary auteur’s films has a distinctive visual style. In “PeeWee’s Great Adventure” huge bicycles roam a wondrously colorful city. The original “Batman”‘s Gotham City never looked better – The Joker, and the sequel’s Catwoman and Mr. Penguin remain much more efficiently realized than the following character duds (Robin, Mr. Freeze, Two-Face, so on…[review written before the ingenuous "Batman Begins" and "Dark Knight"]). Johnny Depp’s hands in “Edward Scissorhands”, the B-movie stylization of “Ed Wood”, the headless horseman in “Sleepy Hollow”, hell, even the apes in, ahem, “The Planet of the Apes” – all of Tim Burton’s films have an underlying visual creepiness to them, a little something that is both fascinating and disturbing.

Read more

[rating=3]

The game of 'tag' got quite rowdy by the end...

A Group of Copenhagen Outcasts Act Like Idiots to Make a Point…

The Plot: Karen (Bodil Jorgensen) witnesses a mentally challenged man (Jens Albinus) attempt to eat in a restaurant, causing havoc. She feels sorry for him, helps him out, only to find out that he’s totally sane, his name is Stoffer, and he is part of a clan who act like they’re mentally challenged to embrace their ‘inner idiots’, and to oppose society. Their goal is to cause anarchy wherever they go, and to provoke people to react to them.

It’s funny that one of the rules of the Dogme vow of chastity is that the director’s name has to remain uncredited, considering Lars Von Trier, the Danish director who came up with the manifesto (along with Thomas Vinterberg) had his second project vainly titled “Lars Von Trier’s Epidemic”. Yet that was back in ’87, times have changed, and now the man came out with a set of very specific rules. Some projects ended up more successful than others; “The Idiots” is in the above-average category. It has a lot of potential, but sadly Von Trier wastes the opportunity to tie it all together into a coherent whole. That’s not to say that the film is bad -it’s so good, in fact, that it’s more of a shame it doesn’t live up to its five-star potential.

Read more

[rating=2]

"Dad, I really gotta go now..."

Schizophrenia Through the Eyes of Harmony…

The Plot: Welcome to the world of schizophrenic Julien. His abusive father listens to blues in a gas mask, harassing him from time to time. His sister is pregnant with his child. Julien babbles, roams about, murders children…

Harmony Korine’s best work was his debut, screenwriting “Kids” for Larry Clark. Subtle and effective, it blows Korine’s amateurish directorial follow-up “Gummo” (in which actors blatantly look into the camera in some scenes) out of the water. With “julien donkey-boy” Korine has achieved a certain visual and stylistic confidence that he lacked in “Gummo”, yet still substitutes good storytelling with gritty ultra-realism.

This is portrayed most effectively (and somewhat gratuitously) in the opening scene, told from the perspective of a child, whom Julien unintentionally murders. From then on the audience gets to witness Julien babbling to himself in his basement bedroom, interacting with his vicious father and his sister who, by the way, is carrying his baby.  The film’s only plot highlight comes in its dramatic conclusion, when Julien’s sister goes through pregnancy complications.

Read more

[rating=3]

"You know I'm married to Brad Pitt, right?"

Switch Your Brains Off and Enjoy…

Ask me why critics hated the Tomb Raider sequel, and I’ll honestly have no idea what to say. Although “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider II The Cradle of Life” isn’t a masterpiece by any standards (you’d be better off re-watching Indiana Jones’ adventures), it still is significantly better than its predecessor. The film boasts an ambitious female hero (Jolie rocks!), awe-inspiring stunts (she flies!), hot settings (England! China! Africa!), an involving plot which includes frightening creatures that leap at everything that moves, and a wonderful underwater shark-fighting sequence. Despite simple dialogue, a predictable structure and uneven editing, `Cradle…’ offers a harmlessly adventurous yarn, and by ‘harmless’ I mean it is not racist, feminist, or discriminatory in any other ways, which is a blessing, with the likes of “Rush Hour 2″, “Bulletproof Monk” and “2 Fast 2 Furious” stretching their forced PG-13 rating with dim-witted offensive material. Those movies’ inanity is an insult by itself – the only insult Jan De Bont’s audacious, enthused sequel presents to the viewer is the prospect of recollecting its ridiculously lengthy title.

Read more

[rating=5]

The roofies worked instantly; Frodo did not remember a thing next morning

Grand Finale to an Epic Trilogy…

The Plot: Frodo and Sam continue their quest to Mount Doom; the film opens with a little prehistory of Gollum, revealing his origins. Back in the present the little bastard cunningly attempts to grasp hold of “the prec-c-cious”. In the meantime, as the former Fellowship of the Ring prepares for final battle, the power of the ring is taking hold of Frodo, who struggles to resist its evil, abandoning loyal Sam in the process.

Admittedly, I wasn’t really into that whole “Lord of the Rings” hype at first. J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Hobbit” was one of my favorite childhood books, and though I haven’t read the “LOTR” trilogy, after watching Peter Jackson’s (“Bad Taste”, “The Frighteners”) first installment, “The Fellowship of the Ring”, I was mildly disappointed. I felt that the film, despite boasting some great performances, and spectacular special effects and cinematography, was a tad too self-indulgent and grim. In addition, the pace was lethargic – the film had too many ‘helicopter shots’ of the main characters striding towards their destination. Since two more chapters were yet to come, I felt that the film should have had more than just numerous close-ups of weepy Frodo’s (Elijah Wood) mug to compensate for the awareness that the ultimate goal, the apotheosis, would not be reached until the third part of the trilogy. After all, this was supposed to be a grand fantasy for both kids and adults to enjoy, and Peter Jackson failed to supplement the intermittent grandeur of impressive visual effects and mildly riveting suspense with the spine-tingling awe of, say, Wolfgang Petersen’s “NeverEnding Story”, or Bob Zemeckis’ “Back to the Future” trilogy. “Fellowship of the Ring” was all impressive production value and epic scale, but no zest.The kid in me was not impressed.

Read more

[rating=1]

Shampoo + spaghetti + dissected Barbie dolls = bliss

Teenagers Run Amok in This Artsy-Schmartsy “Art” Flick…

All art is pretentious, but true art transcends its pomposity, it justifies it by employing unique techniques to portray something or to make some sort of a statement. In a painting, for example, one wants to study the texture, the colors: the ‘how’ may be even more important than the ‘what’. Yet film’s primary goal first and foremost is to entertain the viewer for an allocated period of time; whether it’s a pretentious independent feature such as “Gummo”, or a big-budget picture, a film should keep the viewer’s attention with its imagery and/or plot. “Gummo”, with its pseudo-dogme approach, subjects its audience to an hour and a half of torturous images, and at the end, there’s nothing to interpret, no plot, no moral – nothing. It’s a clear-cut case of horrid pretentiousness.

Take the two skinheads beating the crap out of each other at a random point in the film for a continuous several minutes. Both of them blatantly look into the camera. The scene is amateurish, overlong, mean-spirited. It is in the film for no other reason but for its audience to think, “Wow, that Harmony Korine guy is real cuttin’ edge!” Consider also the scene where Korine himself (making a statement?) seduces a black dwarf – the scene is obnoxious, and seems to define the putrid sense of the whole film.

Read more

[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