[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