I had my last two films on Friday. First up was L'intouchable, Benoit Jacquot's latest film, about identity and belonging as seen through the eyes of Jeanne, a young actress in Paris. It is shot in an energetic verite style, with much of the action expressed in a determinedly verasimilitude fashion. The plot concerns Jeanne's search for her father, whom we discover in the first few scenes was an Indian, living near the Ganges, with whom Jeanne's faded bohemian mom had a one-night stand.
The film is shot, loosely, half in Paris and half in Delhi. For me, and I'm pretty sure this was Jacquot's intention, it really came to life when we hit the streets of Delhi. There was a "Sun Also Rises"-like existenstialism to this; whereby the search for Jeanne's identity drove a more profound and meaningful experience. The filming in India felt intensely real; the arrival at the airport, the subseqent street and public transit scenes, and the Ganges itself (particularly the footage of the burial rituals) were fantastic.
The problem I found was that the plot, which relied on the motivation of Jeanne to understand her life better, didn't feel believable. I never really got why going to the Ganges to meet the man who unknowingly impregnated her mother would make everything fall into place for her. And ultimately, she comes to the same empty realization - the meeting of the father never really occurs, she has spent all of her energy on a confused search (mistaken identity - she meets his brother), and basically no longer needs to understand more. The film ends abruptly and anti-climatically, and while this is no doubt the message that Jacquot wanted to convey - like, life is complex and its journey can change us in different ways than we expect - it makes for an unsatisfying, and what feels like an under-written (certainly underfilmed, as it all resolves in about three minutes) conclusion.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Sunday, September 17, 2006
TIFF Awards
Here's a biased summary from the Torontoist. Glad to see Reprise get some love from the credits but I'm not familiar with the other winners.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
rotten tomatoes
Rotten Tomatoes has a whole scetion dedicated to their reviews from TIFF. Thought I would share.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/features/special/2006/toronto_film_festival/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/features/special/2006/toronto_film_festival/
Friday, September 15, 2006
The volunteer love gets quieter with each screening...
...which tells you that the festival will soon be over. Hoping to post some mini reviews this afternoon of Paris Je T'aime, Beauty in Trouble, 7 ans, Woman on the Beach (a footnote to Brian's excellent review), Il Caimano, and this morning's film L'intouchable, which I liked quite a bit (hint of what's to come).
If you've done your films, perhaps you can rank the ones you've seen, in whatever order you see fit, with any comments about the festival this year in general.
2 more to go tomorrow and then sadly, it's done.
If you've done your films, perhaps you can rank the ones you've seen, in whatever order you see fit, with any comments about the festival this year in general.
2 more to go tomorrow and then sadly, it's done.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Nue Propriete (Private Property)
Let me start off by saying that I am biased - I generally don't like French films - they don't interest me (a French film with John Tuturro??!! - now that interests me). Maybe it has something to do with falling asleep during French class - I don't know. I do like other French things.....wine, cheese, kissing, bread, pencil thin moustaches, Napoleon complexes, mimes...so I'm not a total Francophobe.
The movie follows the divorced mother of twin boys. She wants to sell their house so she can open a B&B with her new lover. The twins, of course, oppose. We are subjected to various scenes of conflict - mainly involving boring conversations around the dinner table. The director later stated that he relied heavily on the dinner table to illustrate the mother feeding the "monsters" she has created. MONSTERS??!!! This guy should come to dinner at my house. If he saw the twins as monsters he'd see my family as the direct descendents of Satan. The movie comes to a predictable violent climax that really is not so violent.
You may be reaching the conclusion that I just can't appreciate subtlety. You might have a point. Unfortunately for you, this is about my opinion. My opinion is that this was a plodding movie that never really went anywhere. The Festival program GROSSLY oversold this movie by describing it as the film "with some of the best acting in the festival" (Noah Cowan - you would have LOVED my performance as Pony Boy in high school). I never felt like I got to know any of the characters in any depth. I felt the twins were horribly miscast and were far too old to be playing the age you were supposed to believe they were (they bathed together, their mother bathed in front of them, they double-rided (rode?) through the fields on their motorbike, they talked about girls while playing ping pong, they played video games). I suppose Isabelle Huppert's turn as the keeper of the monsters was OK - but one performance does not a movie make.
You'd have more fun spending 2 hours French kissing.
The movie follows the divorced mother of twin boys. She wants to sell their house so she can open a B&B with her new lover. The twins, of course, oppose. We are subjected to various scenes of conflict - mainly involving boring conversations around the dinner table. The director later stated that he relied heavily on the dinner table to illustrate the mother feeding the "monsters" she has created. MONSTERS??!!! This guy should come to dinner at my house. If he saw the twins as monsters he'd see my family as the direct descendents of Satan. The movie comes to a predictable violent climax that really is not so violent.
You may be reaching the conclusion that I just can't appreciate subtlety. You might have a point. Unfortunately for you, this is about my opinion. My opinion is that this was a plodding movie that never really went anywhere. The Festival program GROSSLY oversold this movie by describing it as the film "with some of the best acting in the festival" (Noah Cowan - you would have LOVED my performance as Pony Boy in high school). I never felt like I got to know any of the characters in any depth. I felt the twins were horribly miscast and were far too old to be playing the age you were supposed to believe they were (they bathed together, their mother bathed in front of them, they double-rided (rode?) through the fields on their motorbike, they talked about girls while playing ping pong, they played video games). I suppose Isabelle Huppert's turn as the keeper of the monsters was OK - but one performance does not a movie make.
You'd have more fun spending 2 hours French kissing.
The Hottest State
William is a man-boy actor who can't get himself together. He goes through women like water and seems to have flashbacks about his absent father on a daily basis. William meets an aspiring singer named Sarah (excellent choice of name) in a bar. Unlike other girls, Sarah does not quickly fall for William. William persues Sarah and finally wins her over but not for long. The Hottest State is a movie that details one mans journey through longing, love, and rejection. It felt accurate and genuine to me. Mark Webber and Catalina Sandino Moreno were terrific as William and Sarah.
There are two things I would change. I think the movie should be half an hour shorter. At two hours it was a little long and some scenes could be lost without harming the story line or the feel of the movie.
Also, Ethan Hawk seemed too young to play William's dad in the Texas scene of the movie. If the writter/ director felt he absolutley must have a role in his own movie he should have had the makeup people age him a little more than they did. Perhaps he is old enough to be the father of a man in his early 20's but he doesn't look it. Ethan Hawk is a solid actor it was just his apperance that didn't fit.
I would recommend this movie.
There are two things I would change. I think the movie should be half an hour shorter. At two hours it was a little long and some scenes could be lost without harming the story line or the feel of the movie.
Also, Ethan Hawk seemed too young to play William's dad in the Texas scene of the movie. If the writter/ director felt he absolutley must have a role in his own movie he should have had the makeup people age him a little more than they did. Perhaps he is old enough to be the father of a man in his early 20's but he doesn't look it. Ethan Hawk is a solid actor it was just his apperance that didn't fit.
I would recommend this movie.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
adaptations.....
I'm sensing some pent-up interest in my TIFF-week discussion question on favourite adaptations from novels....ahem...OK, more as a thank you to Stuart, I will say that I was thinking of this as from novels you have read (but didn't necessarily like).
A few of my faves are "The Last Tycoon", Elia Kazan's 1975 movie of Fitzgerald's last, unfinished novel, starring DeNiro in a very unusual performance for him (a movie which, incidentally, I am somewhat unique in appreciating). Two more mainstream faves of mine are Apocalypse Now and The French Liuetenant's Woman, in both cases great and seemingly unfilmable books turned upside down and successfully re-invented as movies.
A few of my faves are "The Last Tycoon", Elia Kazan's 1975 movie of Fitzgerald's last, unfinished novel, starring DeNiro in a very unusual performance for him (a movie which, incidentally, I am somewhat unique in appreciating). Two more mainstream faves of mine are Apocalypse Now and The French Liuetenant's Woman, in both cases great and seemingly unfilmable books turned upside down and successfully re-invented as movies.
Reprise
Probably my favourite film of the year, and eloquently covered off by Kyle, so I have little to add. Except to say that, overall, the film was an incredible mix of film-making ideas - and experimentation in conveying thoughts, hopes, and emotions - and a spot-on human drama, losing nothing in translation depite its surfeit of style. Unbelievably good.
And while I didn't recognize the JD song Kyle, never having been as big a fan, the Independence Day scene in question is imprinted on my brain as well.
Yours, not over-selling.....
And while I didn't recognize the JD song Kyle, never having been as big a fan, the Independence Day scene in question is imprinted on my brain as well.
Yours, not over-selling.....
Woman on the Beach
Kyle, first off, thanks for reviewing Reprise - a stunner - and not quite getting around to Woman on the Beach, the other film we saw together on Monday.
This is, I believe, my first Korean feature (though I'm getting old and I sometimes forget things), so as I watched I found myself wondering about the the current evolutionary state of the film industry in Korea. Why? Well, Woman on the Beach is almost impossibly naive in a number of ways (I'm thinking cinematography, acting, dialogue), and so the two options that began to form in my mind were that (1) this was all done very deliberately, and referentially in some really cool way - I don't know, to mimic the renewed simplicity of the 1960's French New Wave directors? - or (2) they just make films that look and feel like this in S. Korea.
Particularly after Director Hong Sang-soo was intro'd at the start as perhaps the pre-eminent director in South Korea, I couldn't (and can't) be sure. Taken at face value, Woman on the Beach, which deals in a mix of comedy and drama with a 40-something film director's (I kid you not, Cesc Gay) obsession with his buddy's girflriend, and in a (Hitchcockian?) twist in his conviction that a quite different-looking woman bears a striking resemblance, qualifies as mild and quirky entertainment. It took me ten minutes to get over the fact that it felt like it was made by high school students, and then I bought into it (due I suppose to a plot thread that worked, and a strong performance by the lead woman - Ko Hyeon-geong), until the third act, which dragged on and on (WOTB clocked in at a mind-numbing 128 minutes) and ended needlessly enigmatically. Needless, because at that point the fate of the central relationship was known (sorry, it didn't work out), and frankly, we all just wanted to go for a beer. Or a coffee. Or a walk.
Interestingly, Giovanni Fulvi, in his review in the TIFF guide, described the script as "air-tight". Giovanni, I'll be watching out for you.
This is, I believe, my first Korean feature (though I'm getting old and I sometimes forget things), so as I watched I found myself wondering about the the current evolutionary state of the film industry in Korea. Why? Well, Woman on the Beach is almost impossibly naive in a number of ways (I'm thinking cinematography, acting, dialogue), and so the two options that began to form in my mind were that (1) this was all done very deliberately, and referentially in some really cool way - I don't know, to mimic the renewed simplicity of the 1960's French New Wave directors? - or (2) they just make films that look and feel like this in S. Korea.
Particularly after Director Hong Sang-soo was intro'd at the start as perhaps the pre-eminent director in South Korea, I couldn't (and can't) be sure. Taken at face value, Woman on the Beach, which deals in a mix of comedy and drama with a 40-something film director's (I kid you not, Cesc Gay) obsession with his buddy's girflriend, and in a (Hitchcockian?) twist in his conviction that a quite different-looking woman bears a striking resemblance, qualifies as mild and quirky entertainment. It took me ten minutes to get over the fact that it felt like it was made by high school students, and then I bought into it (due I suppose to a plot thread that worked, and a strong performance by the lead woman - Ko Hyeon-geong), until the third act, which dragged on and on (WOTB clocked in at a mind-numbing 128 minutes) and ended needlessly enigmatically. Needless, because at that point the fate of the central relationship was known (sorry, it didn't work out), and frankly, we all just wanted to go for a beer. Or a coffee. Or a walk.
Interestingly, Giovanni Fulvi, in his review in the TIFF guide, described the script as "air-tight". Giovanni, I'll be watching out for you.
Fiction
I chose to see Fiction because I had thoroughly enjoyed Spanish director Cesc Gay's previous feature "In the City" in 2003. In the City was a very stylish telling of multiple relationships in Madrid, unremarkable on paper but well executed and hence memorable, and I believe I will ultimately feel similarly about this year's film.
I won't bother with much in the way of plot descriptions, other than to say that principally this film is about falling in love unexpectedly (between a 40-something film director and a violinist) , and later in life, and of understanding the conflict between passion and intellect, and action and consequences. It's very evocatively filmed in the Pyrenees, and stylistically has a mature grasp on the filmic power of silences and spaces, particularly in the portrayal of the unspoken thought, and the internal struggles of characters we relate to and understand.
I won't bother with much in the way of plot descriptions, other than to say that principally this film is about falling in love unexpectedly (between a 40-something film director and a violinist) , and later in life, and of understanding the conflict between passion and intellect, and action and consequences. It's very evocatively filmed in the Pyrenees, and stylistically has a mature grasp on the filmic power of silences and spaces, particularly in the portrayal of the unspoken thought, and the internal struggles of characters we relate to and understand.
Quelques jours en septembre
Before the review, a question and a note:
1) If I sent Unifrance a really nice email, do you think they'd offer to host me in Paris, along with Piers and Noah?
2) This review could be influenced by the fact that the stunningly beautiful Juliette Binoche walked past me within a distance of a mere two feet, thus making my night and possibly my festival.
As for the film, it's quite good. As Sarah indicated, there are similarities to the Third Man, in that the retired spy played by Binoche, a young French woman, and a young American, are all brought together by the father figure (natural to the young woman, step to the young man, thus ensuring that the subsequent romantic dalliance between the two isn't technically incest) who is unseen throughout most of the film. They are pursued through Paris and Venice by a disturbed hitman/agent, played with the usual off-kilter gusto by John Turturro, who appears to want to kill the father. The film marks the days leading up to September 11th, and there are hints that father is calling them all together because he knows what's about to happen in the United States.
To its credit, the film doesn't dwell on conspiracies or try to insert itself too deeply into the tragic events of that day, but instead focuses much of its attention on the relationship between the three characters, their feelings for the absent father, and the way in which they overcome their initial impressions of one another. Geopolitical considerations give way to interpersonal dynamics, amidst the gorgeous backdrop of a sunny Venetian skylines, and the movie finds a nice rhythm as the characters alternately bicker and flirt with one another.
It wasn't surprising to learn that the first time filmmaker is a novelist. The story has the feel and structure of a good paperback thriller. Here I'll disagree with with Sarah's assessment, though. I do think that the writer/director knows how to end it, and ties up all the plot elements quite well. The problem is that in doing so, the story loses some of the authenticity, as characters then have to conform to a standard set of reactions which play themselves out quite conventionally. The plot is resolved to satisfaction, but lacks some of the genuine emotion of earlier scenes.
Still, it's an entertaining film, with some very quirky touches. The Turturro character's frequent calls to his psychoanalyst, and the ringtone on his cellphone, are hilarious, as is his, for some reason, his surprisingly competent French. Binoche's Irene takes all the threats to her life and guns pointed in her face in stride, as if midly amused by the absurdity of it all and yet manages to pull off this unexpected levity with a cool assurance. [Did I mention that she's gorgeous? Even with the bleach blond hair, which I assume is for a role]. And the two young people, played by Sara Forestier and Tom Riley, capture loathing and wide-eyed optimism in with credibility and poise.
My only question: what happens to the turtle?
1) If I sent Unifrance a really nice email, do you think they'd offer to host me in Paris, along with Piers and Noah?
2) This review could be influenced by the fact that the stunningly beautiful Juliette Binoche walked past me within a distance of a mere two feet, thus making my night and possibly my festival.
As for the film, it's quite good. As Sarah indicated, there are similarities to the Third Man, in that the retired spy played by Binoche, a young French woman, and a young American, are all brought together by the father figure (natural to the young woman, step to the young man, thus ensuring that the subsequent romantic dalliance between the two isn't technically incest) who is unseen throughout most of the film. They are pursued through Paris and Venice by a disturbed hitman/agent, played with the usual off-kilter gusto by John Turturro, who appears to want to kill the father. The film marks the days leading up to September 11th, and there are hints that father is calling them all together because he knows what's about to happen in the United States.
To its credit, the film doesn't dwell on conspiracies or try to insert itself too deeply into the tragic events of that day, but instead focuses much of its attention on the relationship between the three characters, their feelings for the absent father, and the way in which they overcome their initial impressions of one another. Geopolitical considerations give way to interpersonal dynamics, amidst the gorgeous backdrop of a sunny Venetian skylines, and the movie finds a nice rhythm as the characters alternately bicker and flirt with one another.
It wasn't surprising to learn that the first time filmmaker is a novelist. The story has the feel and structure of a good paperback thriller. Here I'll disagree with with Sarah's assessment, though. I do think that the writer/director knows how to end it, and ties up all the plot elements quite well. The problem is that in doing so, the story loses some of the authenticity, as characters then have to conform to a standard set of reactions which play themselves out quite conventionally. The plot is resolved to satisfaction, but lacks some of the genuine emotion of earlier scenes.
Still, it's an entertaining film, with some very quirky touches. The Turturro character's frequent calls to his psychoanalyst, and the ringtone on his cellphone, are hilarious, as is his, for some reason, his surprisingly competent French. Binoche's Irene takes all the threats to her life and guns pointed in her face in stride, as if midly amused by the absurdity of it all and yet manages to pull off this unexpected levity with a cool assurance. [Did I mention that she's gorgeous? Even with the bleach blond hair, which I assume is for a role]. And the two young people, played by Sara Forestier and Tom Riley, capture loathing and wide-eyed optimism in with credibility and poise.
My only question: what happens to the turtle?
Radiant City
Part of the "Real to Reel" series, Radiant City is a Canadian documentary that explores the social and cultural repercussions of urban sprawl. Focusing on the lives of a young family this film documents their angst at foolishly choosing a bigger house with a lawn over a smaller urban dwelling in a "real neighbourhood". The family's two children serve as our hilarious tour guides around their little slice of suburbia. The vignettes of family life are peppered with the narrative of a number of experts detailing the utter failure of suburban residential planning in North America.
About 3/4s of the way through, we find out that the family we have been spying on is not really a family but a group of actors. I have to admit, I was a bit disappointed - I KNEW those kids were too funny!! However, that's just a testament to how well written and relevant these family scenes were. As one of the directors put it during the Q&A - "we didn't have the time or the budget to follow a family around for 2 years only to edit all the footage down to the dysfunctional parts we just showed you anyway". I guess this could be considered cheating. It definitely tests the boundaries of how a documentary is typically defined. In the end, I felt that it was an effective tool to illustrate what could have otherwise been a very dry subject matter.
The film's message was sobering - one's journey to own a piece of "paradise" in suburbia is also the road to personal isolation, the repercussion of which is only beginning to be felt in society at large. However, this message was brought to the viewer in an engaging and entertaining way. The 86 minutes this film is listed at flew by. I came away entertained and with much food for thought. I'd have to judge the film a success on that basis alone.
I don't know where you'd be able to watch Radiant City. The movie was co-produced by the National Film Board and the CBC. So, it might turn up on the Passionate Eye at some point. Or, more likely, it'll be made available through the NFB library. If the topic interests you at all I would recommend the movie (actually *we* recommend it - Linda enjoyed it as well).
ADDED BONUS: A kick-ass original soundtrack by Joey Santiago of Pixies fame.
NB: In an ironic twist, of the two directors (Gary Burns, Jim Brown) only Burns was present at the screening. Jim Brown was absent because his employer wouldn't give him time off work. His employer? The CBC. What a world.
About 3/4s of the way through, we find out that the family we have been spying on is not really a family but a group of actors. I have to admit, I was a bit disappointed - I KNEW those kids were too funny!! However, that's just a testament to how well written and relevant these family scenes were. As one of the directors put it during the Q&A - "we didn't have the time or the budget to follow a family around for 2 years only to edit all the footage down to the dysfunctional parts we just showed you anyway". I guess this could be considered cheating. It definitely tests the boundaries of how a documentary is typically defined. In the end, I felt that it was an effective tool to illustrate what could have otherwise been a very dry subject matter.
The film's message was sobering - one's journey to own a piece of "paradise" in suburbia is also the road to personal isolation, the repercussion of which is only beginning to be felt in society at large. However, this message was brought to the viewer in an engaging and entertaining way. The 86 minutes this film is listed at flew by. I came away entertained and with much food for thought. I'd have to judge the film a success on that basis alone.
I don't know where you'd be able to watch Radiant City. The movie was co-produced by the National Film Board and the CBC. So, it might turn up on the Passionate Eye at some point. Or, more likely, it'll be made available through the NFB library. If the topic interests you at all I would recommend the movie (actually *we* recommend it - Linda enjoyed it as well).
ADDED BONUS: A kick-ass original soundtrack by Joey Santiago of Pixies fame.
NB: In an ironic twist, of the two directors (Gary Burns, Jim Brown) only Burns was present at the screening. Jim Brown was absent because his employer wouldn't give him time off work. His employer? The CBC. What a world.
Quelques Jours en Septembre
A 3rd man-like story of 3 people waiting for a visit from a spy they are all connected to. The 3 know that this spy is up to something dangerous but they do not know what. The movie is set a few days before September 11, 2001.
The cast had good chemistry and the dialogue was often clever. John Turturro was a very enjoyable bad guy with a need to consult his therapist after each mistake or murder. My criticism would be that the writter got to a certain point in the script and didn't know how to end it. By a certain point the audience pretty much knows how it is going to play out and sadly no surprises were delivered. Not a perfect movie but I really enjoyed it and would recommend it.
One lingering question is - What happened to the turtle?
Kyle was thrilled that a very blonde Juliette Binoche was at the screening before and after the movie.
The cast had good chemistry and the dialogue was often clever. John Turturro was a very enjoyable bad guy with a need to consult his therapist after each mistake or murder. My criticism would be that the writter got to a certain point in the script and didn't know how to end it. By a certain point the audience pretty much knows how it is going to play out and sadly no surprises were delivered. Not a perfect movie but I really enjoyed it and would recommend it.
One lingering question is - What happened to the turtle?
Kyle was thrilled that a very blonde Juliette Binoche was at the screening before and after the movie.
Reprise
I’d advise you to run out and see this film but alas, both screenings at TIFF have already taken place. So you’re gonna have to create a spreadsheet or word document or write down the title of this film somewhere on a piece of paper and then periodically check to see if it’s been released or is available on dvd. My point: see this film.
From the opening montage of quick edits which imagine the future of the two central characters (described in at least one review as an homage to Truffaut’s Jules et Jim but a more recent cultural reference might be those flash, still photo sequences which sketched out the future for some of the characters that the title character would pass while in motion, could almost stand alone as a great short film Tykwer’s Run Lola Run) to a similarly structured, somewhat ambiguous conclusion, this is a film with a lot of passion, energy, humour, and dead-on observations on human relationships.
I hate to ‘over recommend’ a film because it inevitably inflates expectations and leads to disappointment but this is the best one I’ve seen in some time. Sometimes a film just hits every note with precision, capturing what it's like to grow old, struggle with your place in the world and your aspirations to be something interesting to yourself and to the world. If you're guy, that is. If there were any criticisms to make or biases to acknowledge is that this is mostly a guy's film, told from a guy's perspective with keen insight into how guy's tease one another, resist growing old and accepting responsibility, and try to find their place in the world. But I don't think it's a film just for guys; if anything, it provides a glimpse into just how ridiculous and self-important men can be, as well as how difficult it can be to try age with purpose and make real connections with the women in their lives.
Another admission of bias: I'm a huge Joy Division fan and keep thinking back to the opening credit sequence, which shows the characters in the film marching in, and sometimes drunkenly staggering through, an Independence Day parade in Norway (independence from…any Norwegians care to lend a hand with a brief history lesson) while ‘New Dawn Fades’ blares through the soundtrack.
From the opening montage of quick edits which imagine the future of the two central characters (described in at least one review as an homage to Truffaut’s Jules et Jim but a more recent cultural reference might be those flash, still photo sequences which sketched out the future for some of the characters that the title character would pass while in motion, could almost stand alone as a great short film Tykwer’s Run Lola Run) to a similarly structured, somewhat ambiguous conclusion, this is a film with a lot of passion, energy, humour, and dead-on observations on human relationships.
I hate to ‘over recommend’ a film because it inevitably inflates expectations and leads to disappointment but this is the best one I’ve seen in some time. Sometimes a film just hits every note with precision, capturing what it's like to grow old, struggle with your place in the world and your aspirations to be something interesting to yourself and to the world. If you're guy, that is. If there were any criticisms to make or biases to acknowledge is that this is mostly a guy's film, told from a guy's perspective with keen insight into how guy's tease one another, resist growing old and accepting responsibility, and try to find their place in the world. But I don't think it's a film just for guys; if anything, it provides a glimpse into just how ridiculous and self-important men can be, as well as how difficult it can be to try age with purpose and make real connections with the women in their lives.
Another admission of bias: I'm a huge Joy Division fan and keep thinking back to the opening credit sequence, which shows the characters in the film marching in, and sometimes drunkenly staggering through, an Independence Day parade in Norway (independence from…any Norwegians care to lend a hand with a brief history lesson) while ‘New Dawn Fades’ blares through the soundtrack.
Un Crime
Note: I haven't read Kyle's post yet ( I didn't want to be influenced by his comments) so it will be interesting to see if any of our words are the same.
A question.....why oh why do directors feel that I want to see naked Harvey Keitel? Many, many people saw "The Piano." Perhaps prior to "The Piano" directors assumed that we all wondered what exactly Harvey looked like naked. But after we all saw it once did we need to keep seeing it? Harvey is a really good actor. I usually enjoy his performances. I just wish directors would keep him clothed.
So beyond the nakedness, how was the movie? IT SUCKED! The storyline was ridiculous. The acting was not engaging. I should have taken a nap. I was tired and would have benefitted more from the rest than from watching the rest of the film.
The Q and A afterwards was entertaining though. The audience asked the most ridiculous questions I have heard about a movie to date. As an example - One audience member commented on a scene where one a character compares being in love to being in hell. Then the audience member asked if this philosophy was typical the the French.
A question.....why oh why do directors feel that I want to see naked Harvey Keitel? Many, many people saw "The Piano." Perhaps prior to "The Piano" directors assumed that we all wondered what exactly Harvey looked like naked. But after we all saw it once did we need to keep seeing it? Harvey is a really good actor. I usually enjoy his performances. I just wish directors would keep him clothed.
So beyond the nakedness, how was the movie? IT SUCKED! The storyline was ridiculous. The acting was not engaging. I should have taken a nap. I was tired and would have benefitted more from the rest than from watching the rest of the film.
The Q and A afterwards was entertaining though. The audience asked the most ridiculous questions I have heard about a movie to date. As an example - One audience member commented on a scene where one a character compares being in love to being in hell. Then the audience member asked if this philosophy was typical the the French.
2:37
I don't think it would be right to say that I enjoyed a movie about teenage suicide but I can say that I recommend it. The film festival book actually accurately (I say actually because the film descriptions can often be so the opposite of what the movie is like) accurately compared this movie to "Elephant." It has the same mood.
I would not have guessed that it was a 1st time director and a cast of 1st time actors. 2:37 was very well done. I feel badly for the director and cast member that attended the screening. There was an incident in the theatre during the last scene of the screening that really took the attention of the audience away from the movie. Someone near the back of the theatre had some sort of medical emergency. The movie credits were abruptly turned off, the lights came up and people were uncomfortable giving the film the applause it deserved. Obviously I don't blame the ill individual and ending the screening was the right thing to do. It just seemed a shame that a screening of a fine film ended on such a bad note.
I would not have guessed that it was a 1st time director and a cast of 1st time actors. 2:37 was very well done. I feel badly for the director and cast member that attended the screening. There was an incident in the theatre during the last scene of the screening that really took the attention of the audience away from the movie. Someone near the back of the theatre had some sort of medical emergency. The movie credits were abruptly turned off, the lights came up and people were uncomfortable giving the film the applause it deserved. Obviously I don't blame the ill individual and ending the screening was the right thing to do. It just seemed a shame that a screening of a fine film ended on such a bad note.
Paris Je T'aime
Out of 2 hours worth of short films about Paris there was only one that I didn't like. It made me long to go back....
Babel
The movie is in the same style as 21 Grams (and Amores Perros - I confirmed with Kyle....I couldn't watch the whole thing - the dog fights really got to me). It is also heavy like 21 Grams. Luckily it was also well acted and gripping like 21 Grams.
The movie has been getting a lot of press as the next big Brad Pitt movie but it is more accurately an assemble piece. Each of the three storylines were equally absorbing. At 2.5 hours it is quite a long movie but you know I enjoyed it because I have never had to go pee so badly in my life (I swear) but I stayed in my seat until the credits came up.
The movie has been getting a lot of press as the next big Brad Pitt movie but it is more accurately an assemble piece. Each of the three storylines were equally absorbing. At 2.5 hours it is quite a long movie but you know I enjoyed it because I have never had to go pee so badly in my life (I swear) but I stayed in my seat until the credits came up.
Kinshasa Palace
One day a man walks away from his life, leaving his family to wonder where he has gone and if they will ever see him again. Kinshasa Palace is filmed on video and sometimes the camera shots are a shaky handheld fashion that makes me feel motion sick. That being said, it was a well done film. I was pleased that the director chose not to reveal the whole truth to us. It is far more fun to walk away from a film able to make up your own ending.
Hana
My first movie of the 2006 festival was much better than my first movie last year. It was a cute Japanese movie about a samari duty bound to seek revenge for the death of his father but not much interested, or good at, being a samari. It was not a grwta movie but I found it enjoyable. A mystery for me is why the movie is called Hana. I believe Hana was the name of the samari's bird but the bird was only in one short scene and had no real tie in the the rest of the movie.....
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
The Fountain
Wow!?*
I could pull a Stuart here and leave everyone wondering how I really felt about the film but let me plow on despite barely being able to muster the words to bring this sucker to it's knees.
First the good: 1) Clint Mansell's soundtrack with assistance from the Kronos Quartet and Mogwai. 2) Quite beautiful cinematography (but you can get that from the 2 minute trailer that had me all aflutter about this film several months back) 3) At 90 minutes, even though it feels quite often like it's doing your head in, it's mercifully short. May I suggest to Darren Aronofsky that he return to the 2007 film festival to screen a 5 minute version of this hippy dippy piece of tripe.
For those of you that don't know the premise of this film, and I'm not sure I do after having watched it, it revolves around a modern couple Izzy and Tommy, with Izzy (played by Rachel Weisz) slowly dying of a brain tumor and Tommy (played by Hugh Jackman) as a cutting edge research physician working furiously to find a cure for what ails his wife. We also see the same two characters in what appears to be late 15th century Spain replete with a Torquemada like religious fanatic and in a third storyline which one has to assume is set in the future we see only Jackman's character, unamed and floating in space, replete with his own bubble.
This is far removed from the frenetic pace off Aronofsky's first two works, "Pi" and "Requiem for a Dream", the latter's screening of which at the TIFF actually saw an audience member suffer a heart attack. If the first two were seizure inducing quick cut wonders of late 20th century filmmaking then "The Fountain" for me can only be regarded as a throwback to the yoga loving, granola munching, psychadelic tripping days that I never experienced in the 60s. At one point in the last 10 minutes I thought for sure we'd be crossing over from the plangent strings of the Kronos Quartet to the prog-rock noodlings of Edgar Broughton or Hawkwind.
Sadly that never came to pass and as a result the whole po-faced seriousness of the film combined with the ridiculous closing scenes made me want to laugh. Of course being the polite Toronto audience that we are people actually applauded at the end.
In terms of mood the film reminded me very much of 2002's "Solaris" a film I enjoyed immensely and have watched many times over. Unlike "Solaris", "The Fountain" leaves you on the outside looking in. I honestly never cared what end was met by either of the two protagonists in any of their incarnations and even poor old Ellen Burstyn, who was terrific in Requiem, is wasted in her capacity as the hospital's chief.
I'm really not sure what audience this film is intended for. It appears to be big budget, what with the monolithic poster already up at Yonge and Dundas staring down at us in all its false solemnity, but your average Cineplex goer is not going to be interested beyond the good guys vs the Mayan Orcs opening sequence. As for his core audience I imagine they'll be mostly left scratching their heads.
Perhaps Hugh Jackman knew best, as Aronofsky pointed out the man is 15000km away dancing his heart out in something called "The Boy from Oz". Good on yer Hugh, I wish I could've tied me kangaroo down with you sport.
I could pull a Stuart here and leave everyone wondering how I really felt about the film but let me plow on despite barely being able to muster the words to bring this sucker to it's knees.
First the good: 1) Clint Mansell's soundtrack with assistance from the Kronos Quartet and Mogwai. 2) Quite beautiful cinematography (but you can get that from the 2 minute trailer that had me all aflutter about this film several months back) 3) At 90 minutes, even though it feels quite often like it's doing your head in, it's mercifully short. May I suggest to Darren Aronofsky that he return to the 2007 film festival to screen a 5 minute version of this hippy dippy piece of tripe.
For those of you that don't know the premise of this film, and I'm not sure I do after having watched it, it revolves around a modern couple Izzy and Tommy, with Izzy (played by Rachel Weisz) slowly dying of a brain tumor and Tommy (played by Hugh Jackman) as a cutting edge research physician working furiously to find a cure for what ails his wife. We also see the same two characters in what appears to be late 15th century Spain replete with a Torquemada like religious fanatic and in a third storyline which one has to assume is set in the future we see only Jackman's character, unamed and floating in space, replete with his own bubble.
This is far removed from the frenetic pace off Aronofsky's first two works, "Pi" and "Requiem for a Dream", the latter's screening of which at the TIFF actually saw an audience member suffer a heart attack. If the first two were seizure inducing quick cut wonders of late 20th century filmmaking then "The Fountain" for me can only be regarded as a throwback to the yoga loving, granola munching, psychadelic tripping days that I never experienced in the 60s. At one point in the last 10 minutes I thought for sure we'd be crossing over from the plangent strings of the Kronos Quartet to the prog-rock noodlings of Edgar Broughton or Hawkwind.
Sadly that never came to pass and as a result the whole po-faced seriousness of the film combined with the ridiculous closing scenes made me want to laugh. Of course being the polite Toronto audience that we are people actually applauded at the end.
In terms of mood the film reminded me very much of 2002's "Solaris" a film I enjoyed immensely and have watched many times over. Unlike "Solaris", "The Fountain" leaves you on the outside looking in. I honestly never cared what end was met by either of the two protagonists in any of their incarnations and even poor old Ellen Burstyn, who was terrific in Requiem, is wasted in her capacity as the hospital's chief.
I'm really not sure what audience this film is intended for. It appears to be big budget, what with the monolithic poster already up at Yonge and Dundas staring down at us in all its false solemnity, but your average Cineplex goer is not going to be interested beyond the good guys vs the Mayan Orcs opening sequence. As for his core audience I imagine they'll be mostly left scratching their heads.
Perhaps Hugh Jackman knew best, as Aronofsky pointed out the man is 15000km away dancing his heart out in something called "The Boy from Oz". Good on yer Hugh, I wish I could've tied me kangaroo down with you sport.
question?
I just googled a list of the question you posed ( dont tell Brian) and read through 100 movies made from books ( I dont consider that cheating since it is our choices and the reasons we like them that matters not the strength of our memmory) and I was surprised that a) so many films I loved were made from movies (and I was unaware) and b) so rarely did the movie surpass the book....Further, I seem to usually have read or seen the movie, much less so have I done both.....im such a loser baby..so why dont you...
So...Do you need to have read the book and seen the movie to include it on the list?
(If so Im fu....ed)
So...Do you need to have read the book and seen the movie to include it on the list?
(If so Im fu....ed)
Tiff Blog List-Making Exercise
Greetings. While I'm spending time catching up on my movie reviews (three in the hole currently, but that will take less than five minutes if I use the Stuart Watson "Fay Grim" tactic) I thought I'd throw out a discussion topic. And here it is.
Those of us who participate in Kyle's "other" blog like to spend some, arguably way too much, time expressing ourselves and our oh-so-passionate views on art in the form of lists. Like, you know, I believe the fourth greatest punk band of all time is The Damned. You think it's The Gang of Four? Jesus. They are so number six! (yes, we are that High Fidelity-esque).
So, admittedly over a coupla beers, Derek, Kyle and I (OK, I exclusively) decided we should engage in a simple, yet gratifying, film-based list-making undertaking. My question to each of you who have read this far (and from what I can gather the only newcomer may be Daniel) is this "what are the greatest ever films adapted from novels?" And the follow up question (should you choose...) is the not-entirely-unexpected "why?"
I will start with one - Howard Hawks "To Have and Have Not". Why? Based on one of Hemingway's worst books, and very very loosely adapted by the underheralded William Faulkner to echo the spirit and basic plot of Casablanca, it's nearly as good, with fantastic chemistry between Humph....OK I'll, stop there, since this was only meant to be an example (To Have and Have Not is grossly over rated and wouldn't make my list.)
Enjoy your movies!
Those of us who participate in Kyle's "other" blog like to spend some, arguably way too much, time expressing ourselves and our oh-so-passionate views on art in the form of lists. Like, you know, I believe the fourth greatest punk band of all time is The Damned. You think it's The Gang of Four? Jesus. They are so number six! (yes, we are that High Fidelity-esque).
So, admittedly over a coupla beers, Derek, Kyle and I (OK, I exclusively) decided we should engage in a simple, yet gratifying, film-based list-making undertaking. My question to each of you who have read this far (and from what I can gather the only newcomer may be Daniel) is this "what are the greatest ever films adapted from novels?" And the follow up question (should you choose...) is the not-entirely-unexpected "why?"
I will start with one - Howard Hawks "To Have and Have Not". Why? Based on one of Hemingway's worst books, and very very loosely adapted by the underheralded William Faulkner to echo the spirit and basic plot of Casablanca, it's nearly as good, with fantastic chemistry between Humph....OK I'll, stop there, since this was only meant to be an example (To Have and Have Not is grossly over rated and wouldn't make my list.)
Enjoy your movies!
Little Children
I suppose this is one of those movies you're not supposed to waste your precious film festival tickets on. Y'know - good director (Todd Field) with a star-powered cast (Kate Winslet, Jennifer Connelly) - the kind of movie destined for wide release about a week after the festival closes. Well hey, I'm the guy who used one of his tickets to see Home Fries just to stalk Drew Barrymore - so this film choice actually represents an improvement in my selection process.
This film follows a number of seemingly disparate characters whose lives intersect in one way or another due to children. There is the wife who feels isolated from both her daughter and her husband, the "cool dad" who takes care of the kids while studying for a bar exam he never wants to pass, the ex-cop who has taken it upon himself to become the unofficial protector of all the children in the neighbourhood, and the recently released sex offender who spent 10 years in jail for exposing himself to a minor. All of their lives become inextricably linked through a series of well acted and completely believable plot twists.
Little Children is first and foremost a character study. Though "character study" is often a euphemism for a slow-moving and boring movie - this film is anything but. I could see pieces of my friends in many of the characters (NO - not the pedophile) and was totally engrossed in the minutiae of their lives. You even manage to empathize with the plight of the sex offender. Couple these excellent character sketches with a complex and thought-provoking plot and you are left with quite a stellar film. I would be surprised if this film didn't generate significant buzz (if it hasn't already).
Though the director called this piece a "satirical drama", it was a very difficult film to watch as he deftly crafted a film with an underlying tension that claws at your belly and leaves you feeling unsettled long after the movie is over. In other words, it was much heavier on the drama than the satire.
My one complaint was the voice-over narrative. If Derek hadn't told me that this film was based on a book, that fact would have become quite clear within the movie's first few narrative-heavy minutes. I found that the voice-over rarely added to the film and instead seemed (at times) to actually cheapen the work and give the film a "Desperate Housewives" feel. However, read this as a very minor complaint in the overall scheme of things.
Loved the movie, glad we picked it - and I didn't even stalk Kate Winslet. Maybe I am growing up.
This film follows a number of seemingly disparate characters whose lives intersect in one way or another due to children. There is the wife who feels isolated from both her daughter and her husband, the "cool dad" who takes care of the kids while studying for a bar exam he never wants to pass, the ex-cop who has taken it upon himself to become the unofficial protector of all the children in the neighbourhood, and the recently released sex offender who spent 10 years in jail for exposing himself to a minor. All of their lives become inextricably linked through a series of well acted and completely believable plot twists.
Little Children is first and foremost a character study. Though "character study" is often a euphemism for a slow-moving and boring movie - this film is anything but. I could see pieces of my friends in many of the characters (NO - not the pedophile) and was totally engrossed in the minutiae of their lives. You even manage to empathize with the plight of the sex offender. Couple these excellent character sketches with a complex and thought-provoking plot and you are left with quite a stellar film. I would be surprised if this film didn't generate significant buzz (if it hasn't already).
Though the director called this piece a "satirical drama", it was a very difficult film to watch as he deftly crafted a film with an underlying tension that claws at your belly and leaves you feeling unsettled long after the movie is over. In other words, it was much heavier on the drama than the satire.
My one complaint was the voice-over narrative. If Derek hadn't told me that this film was based on a book, that fact would have become quite clear within the movie's first few narrative-heavy minutes. I found that the voice-over rarely added to the film and instead seemed (at times) to actually cheapen the work and give the film a "Desperate Housewives" feel. However, read this as a very minor complaint in the overall scheme of things.
Loved the movie, glad we picked it - and I didn't even stalk Kate Winslet. Maybe I am growing up.
Un Crime
Though the title references an act that occurs within the film itself, I think it more accurately describes two more astonishing events:
1) The act of making such a wretched film in the first place
2) The selection of this film for inclusion into the festival where an unsuspecting festival crowd would actually have to watch it
For a litany of more specific crimes, let’s start with the premise. In order to win the affections of her young, widowed neighbour whose wife was murdered by a taxi driver 3 years prior to the events in the film, a beautiful but troubled young woman (Emmanuelle Beart) embarks on a plan to frame a random taxi driver for the neighbour’s wife’s murder, so that the neighbour can have his closure and their romance can commence. Sound a little wonky? Well, to be fair, the neighbour has been obsessed with finding his wife’s killer and has pointedly told the young woman that it can’t happen between them until this happens. Okay, makes sense from his perspective. But why is an attractive young woman willing to go to such lengths, which include seducing the disheveled taxi driver played by Harvey Keitel, for the affections of a gloomy guy, ever clad in a ragged hoody, who lives in a dull, grimy apartment, races and gambles on dogs on the beach, and hasn’t gotten over his wife’s death? I'm saying she could do better.
But we never really get an answer so nothing that follows from this dubious starting point makes much sense. The plot holes are wide enough to drive transport truck through and are too depressingly numerous to catalogue here. I will, however, give some advice to the filmmakers on the subtle use of foreshadowing: having a character demonstrate his prowess with a boomerang prior to his apparent death by drowning is less of a whispered hint as to what comes next as it is a shouted, foregone conclusion.
And for the love of God, would somebody please tell Harvey Keitel to keep his damn clothes on? Whether it’s a decent film like The Piano or the egregiously bad Holy Smoke, Harvey’s unsettling zeal for disrobing on film is not a good thing. I guess he gets some props for continuing to um, put himself out there in every sense of the word but I think at this point, I’d really like him to keep his shirt and his pants on.
Okay, I haven't had a lot of nice things to say about this film so on a positive note, let me end with the blurry photo that I took of Emmanuelle Béart, who was gracious and spirited at the Q&A, even when it was evident that the audience hadn't really dug the flick.
1) The act of making such a wretched film in the first place
2) The selection of this film for inclusion into the festival where an unsuspecting festival crowd would actually have to watch it
For a litany of more specific crimes, let’s start with the premise. In order to win the affections of her young, widowed neighbour whose wife was murdered by a taxi driver 3 years prior to the events in the film, a beautiful but troubled young woman (Emmanuelle Beart) embarks on a plan to frame a random taxi driver for the neighbour’s wife’s murder, so that the neighbour can have his closure and their romance can commence. Sound a little wonky? Well, to be fair, the neighbour has been obsessed with finding his wife’s killer and has pointedly told the young woman that it can’t happen between them until this happens. Okay, makes sense from his perspective. But why is an attractive young woman willing to go to such lengths, which include seducing the disheveled taxi driver played by Harvey Keitel, for the affections of a gloomy guy, ever clad in a ragged hoody, who lives in a dull, grimy apartment, races and gambles on dogs on the beach, and hasn’t gotten over his wife’s death? I'm saying she could do better.
But we never really get an answer so nothing that follows from this dubious starting point makes much sense. The plot holes are wide enough to drive transport truck through and are too depressingly numerous to catalogue here. I will, however, give some advice to the filmmakers on the subtle use of foreshadowing: having a character demonstrate his prowess with a boomerang prior to his apparent death by drowning is less of a whispered hint as to what comes next as it is a shouted, foregone conclusion.
And for the love of God, would somebody please tell Harvey Keitel to keep his damn clothes on? Whether it’s a decent film like The Piano or the egregiously bad Holy Smoke, Harvey’s unsettling zeal for disrobing on film is not a good thing. I guess he gets some props for continuing to um, put himself out there in every sense of the word but I think at this point, I’d really like him to keep his shirt and his pants on.
Okay, I haven't had a lot of nice things to say about this film so on a positive note, let me end with the blurry photo that I took of Emmanuelle Béart, who was gracious and spirited at the Q&A, even when it was evident that the audience hadn't really dug the flick.
shortbus
A film that takes the piss out of you yet seems to have an awful lot of insite into the fucked up nature of the lot of us....Using sex as the primary but not sole means this film looks at the interelationships of a group of young people, and while that sounds like the plot of every film Ive ever seen, this one is good at it and at times hysterically funny... Its not too often that the gay /straight relationships are explored together, usually its a gay film or a straight film, unlike this one, and the acting was very believable all around... The cbc was definitly off base criticising this film, if anything it was mocking porn films and its unlikely anyone is going to be able to accidentily watch this, it will be x rated no doubt....
3 cheers for yoko ono and others for pitching in with there support..
all in all a very good but not essential film.
3 cheers for yoko ono and others for pitching in with there support..
all in all a very good but not essential film.
the wind that shakes the barley
Ive finished my movie going now and looking back this film clearly is my outstanding favorite. As Derek has given you the plot , I will have to say I generally agree with his post , but I think it does qualify as a great film. I was not sure immediately after seeing it, when I thought they could have cut the last few scenes and maybe a 1/2 hours worth from it altogethe. (It seems to me all the films Ive seen have been over 2 hours so i think we maybe are getting uncut demos almost... )
I too struggled keeping the tearducts unclogged , and while it could be construed that the plot had some manipulative moments ( ala sophies choice) that are guaranteed to bring you down, all in all, I was rivited throughout and few films can do that. The cinematography, acting, direction were all damn near perfect , and finally this film is the oply one to stay with me in a big way....always a telling criteria...essential viewing...
I too struggled keeping the tearducts unclogged , and while it could be construed that the plot had some manipulative moments ( ala sophies choice) that are guaranteed to bring you down, all in all, I was rivited throughout and few films can do that. The cinematography, acting, direction were all damn near perfect , and finally this film is the oply one to stay with me in a big way....always a telling criteria...essential viewing...
Monday, September 11, 2006
Citizen Duane
My festival started out Friday night with Michael Mabbot's Citizen Duane, an erratic Canadian comedy about an obsessive, nerdy, indefatigably rebellious high school kid who runs for mayor of his small town.
While on the surface this film may sound perilously (and needlessly) similar to Alexander Payne's brilliant Election, in most ways it is a much different film. The writing is rarely as sharp, for one thing, though at times Stuart and I were belly laughing - particularly at some of the inspired physical comedy. The tone is also wildly inconsistent, ranging from pure (and too often embarrassingly unfunny) farce, through a more mellow and familiar satire, to something approaching edgy melodrama within the family scenes.
The actors were good, esp. Douglas Smith as Duane, and Alberta Wtason as his mother...but some parts felt under written (Duane's on-again-off-again girlfriend) and some you wished you'd never met (the ridiculous ex-boyfriend gossip columnist of Duane's mom comes to mind, but he's not the only one).
I could claim to be disappointed, but I expected relatively little from this film (despite Mabbot's TIFF success last year), and for its just-frequent-enough genuinely inspired moments, and a solid central performance, I would give Citizen Duane a very mild recommendation.
While on the surface this film may sound perilously (and needlessly) similar to Alexander Payne's brilliant Election, in most ways it is a much different film. The writing is rarely as sharp, for one thing, though at times Stuart and I were belly laughing - particularly at some of the inspired physical comedy. The tone is also wildly inconsistent, ranging from pure (and too often embarrassingly unfunny) farce, through a more mellow and familiar satire, to something approaching edgy melodrama within the family scenes.
The actors were good, esp. Douglas Smith as Duane, and Alberta Wtason as his mother...but some parts felt under written (Duane's on-again-off-again girlfriend) and some you wished you'd never met (the ridiculous ex-boyfriend gossip columnist of Duane's mom comes to mind, but he's not the only one).
I could claim to be disappointed, but I expected relatively little from this film (despite Mabbot's TIFF success last year), and for its just-frequent-enough genuinely inspired moments, and a solid central performance, I would give Citizen Duane a very mild recommendation.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Pan's Labyrinth
Hey where's everbody else on this blog?
Just saw my favourite film of the festival so far. Once again back at the Elgin for the screening of Guillermo del Torro's latest film. I saw his film "The Devil's Backbone" at the festival five years ago and also enjoyed 2004's "Hellboy" Del Toro also directed Cronos, Mimic and Blade II so this needless to say is a man who knows how to make you squirm in your comfy Elgin seat and he even warned us of such prior to the screening of the film. He also mentioned that when last at the festival with "The Devil's Backbone" it screened on September 9, 2001 and a day later he was in Los Angeles and we all know what happened the day after that. He mentioned this as a backdrop to some of the themes in his latest film given the rather chaotic state certain parts of the world currently find themselves in.
This film billed in some parts as a fairytale for adults is set in 1944 Spain as the Facists under Franco fight to hold off disparate groups of resistance fighters mounting a losing battle against superior numbers. Sergi Lopez, as Captain Vidal head off the facist stronghold in a countryside setting never identified, plays one of the most cruelly vicious characters I've seen in a film and not in a comic book style manner a la the Nazi pursuer in "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Anyone who has seen Lopez's turns as Harry in 2000's "With a Friend Like Harry" or as the creep of a hotel boss in 2002's "Dirty Pretty Things" already knows how sinister this guy can be in a film.
The two other main leads in the film are Ivana Baquero as 10 year old? Ofelia, the vicious captain's newly adopted daughter, and Maribel Verdu (from Y Tu Mama Tambien) as Mercedes who works in the household employ of the captain but is also the sister of the leader of the local resistance fighters.
There are two storylines here one concerning the Captain's pursuit, and in his words, complete elimination of all those who would resist the new "clean" Spain and the other concerns Ofelia's perhaps imagined journey into the nearby labryinth and the 3 tasks assigned to her by the titular Faun that will see her reclaim her rightful position as princess in her father's long since vanished kingdom.
As hard as it may be to imagine these two intertwined tales work magically together. The terror of the war going on around her is reflected in the equally frightening world that Ofelia finds herself locked in as she attempts to carry out the faun's instructions. Del Toro does horror with a storyline as well as anyone right now and your attention is fixed right to the finish.
I'm not sure I learned much about the Facist reign in Spain (unlike Loach's film already blogged upon here) but it is hardly necessary in understanding Del Toro's themes of lost innocence, the cruelty of battle on all sides and the ultimate foolishness of pride.
Would have loved to write more but have a 9pm screening of "The Last King of Scotland" that I must dash off to.
Just saw my favourite film of the festival so far. Once again back at the Elgin for the screening of Guillermo del Torro's latest film. I saw his film "The Devil's Backbone" at the festival five years ago and also enjoyed 2004's "Hellboy" Del Toro also directed Cronos, Mimic and Blade II so this needless to say is a man who knows how to make you squirm in your comfy Elgin seat and he even warned us of such prior to the screening of the film. He also mentioned that when last at the festival with "The Devil's Backbone" it screened on September 9, 2001 and a day later he was in Los Angeles and we all know what happened the day after that. He mentioned this as a backdrop to some of the themes in his latest film given the rather chaotic state certain parts of the world currently find themselves in.
This film billed in some parts as a fairytale for adults is set in 1944 Spain as the Facists under Franco fight to hold off disparate groups of resistance fighters mounting a losing battle against superior numbers. Sergi Lopez, as Captain Vidal head off the facist stronghold in a countryside setting never identified, plays one of the most cruelly vicious characters I've seen in a film and not in a comic book style manner a la the Nazi pursuer in "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Anyone who has seen Lopez's turns as Harry in 2000's "With a Friend Like Harry" or as the creep of a hotel boss in 2002's "Dirty Pretty Things" already knows how sinister this guy can be in a film.
The two other main leads in the film are Ivana Baquero as 10 year old? Ofelia, the vicious captain's newly adopted daughter, and Maribel Verdu (from Y Tu Mama Tambien) as Mercedes who works in the household employ of the captain but is also the sister of the leader of the local resistance fighters.
There are two storylines here one concerning the Captain's pursuit, and in his words, complete elimination of all those who would resist the new "clean" Spain and the other concerns Ofelia's perhaps imagined journey into the nearby labryinth and the 3 tasks assigned to her by the titular Faun that will see her reclaim her rightful position as princess in her father's long since vanished kingdom.
As hard as it may be to imagine these two intertwined tales work magically together. The terror of the war going on around her is reflected in the equally frightening world that Ofelia finds herself locked in as she attempts to carry out the faun's instructions. Del Toro does horror with a storyline as well as anyone right now and your attention is fixed right to the finish.
I'm not sure I learned much about the Facist reign in Spain (unlike Loach's film already blogged upon here) but it is hardly necessary in understanding Del Toro's themes of lost innocence, the cruelty of battle on all sides and the ultimate foolishness of pride.
Would have loved to write more but have a 9pm screening of "The Last King of Scotland" that I must dash off to.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
The Wind That Shakes the Barley
My first two films of the festival dealt to a large extent with issues of mothers and their children. This film dealt with the motherland and those that would die to defend the right to ensure that it's governed solely by those to whom the land belongs. I suppose one could say that I picked this film on the backs of the likes of "Braveheart", "The Battle of Algiers" and even last year's "River Queen". Living in the likes of Canada, Scotland and New Zealand one comes early to the realization that the world is not run by the likes of you and that there are always powerful forces at play to make damn sure that it stays that way. But as Jimmy Cliff sings "the harder they come, the harder they fall, one and all".
Knowing director Ken Loach's socialist heart and my celtic brethren's tyrannized existence in Ireland at the hands of the English I came to this film knowing what was coming my way. And I wasn't disappointed. This isn't a great film but it's got a quiet power. It's no "Braveheart" and thus may not appear at your local multiplex anytime soon but as with "The Battle of Algiers" it has a very timely message. There will always be young men (and occasionally women) willing to fight to keep imperial powers off their lands. And it really doesn't matter how these powers spin the justification for their presence in foreign lands at the end of the day the only rule that matters is home rule.
Loach's film focuses on a small contingent of men and a few women, living outside of the major centre of Dublin, struggling with British rule of their country. Only a few years removed from the end of the Great War the Brits still have a well trained fighting fit contingent of soldiers. As we've seen elsewhere in more recent times the option of taking on such an overwhelming military force head-on is no option at all. As such we see the dawning of the Irish Republican Army and the nacsent days of some its more infamous fighting tactics.
As with many of these decades and century long conflicts my knowledge is sadly lacking and this film was certainly educational in that respect although not as engrossing as it could have been, although a scene midway through the film had me in tears. My two major quibbles with this film is that at 2 hours long it's 20-30 minutes longer than it needs to be and could somebody screen this film with subtitles. I've seen some Scottish films (Ken Loach's "Sweet Sixteen" immediately pops to mind) with subtitles and they were a hell of a lot easier to understand than this.
Still an interesting and essential film, especially given the relatively peaceful state Ireland has found over the last 5 years or so. We can only hope that in the near future an Iraqi filmmaker will be able to produce a testament to his country's "independence" under similar circumstances.
Knowing director Ken Loach's socialist heart and my celtic brethren's tyrannized existence in Ireland at the hands of the English I came to this film knowing what was coming my way. And I wasn't disappointed. This isn't a great film but it's got a quiet power. It's no "Braveheart" and thus may not appear at your local multiplex anytime soon but as with "The Battle of Algiers" it has a very timely message. There will always be young men (and occasionally women) willing to fight to keep imperial powers off their lands. And it really doesn't matter how these powers spin the justification for their presence in foreign lands at the end of the day the only rule that matters is home rule.
Loach's film focuses on a small contingent of men and a few women, living outside of the major centre of Dublin, struggling with British rule of their country. Only a few years removed from the end of the Great War the Brits still have a well trained fighting fit contingent of soldiers. As we've seen elsewhere in more recent times the option of taking on such an overwhelming military force head-on is no option at all. As such we see the dawning of the Irish Republican Army and the nacsent days of some its more infamous fighting tactics.
As with many of these decades and century long conflicts my knowledge is sadly lacking and this film was certainly educational in that respect although not as engrossing as it could have been, although a scene midway through the film had me in tears. My two major quibbles with this film is that at 2 hours long it's 20-30 minutes longer than it needs to be and could somebody screen this film with subtitles. I've seen some Scottish films (Ken Loach's "Sweet Sixteen" immediately pops to mind) with subtitles and they were a hell of a lot easier to understand than this.
Still an interesting and essential film, especially given the relatively peaceful state Ireland has found over the last 5 years or so. We can only hope that in the near future an Iraqi filmmaker will be able to produce a testament to his country's "independence" under similar circumstances.
Volver
Gracias al dios por Almodovar. What would the film festival be without the man who apparently no longer sees the need for a first name. I can't say that his last film "Bad Education" moved me tremendously but this film is a return to form in the vein of "All About My Mother" and "Talk to Her" and I have a theory where that's concerned.
This film opens with a wonderful shot in an ornate cemetery in a small Spanish village that sees only women dusting off the graves of their men who have long since passed because as we are told that is the way life goes in this town. Almodovar then within the first 10 minutes of the film makes short work of the only male character we are introduced to by name, "Paco". It is then down to the ensemble female cast of 6 primary characters to take us through the rest of the rather sketchy but charming story.
One can see why the entire female cast was awarded best actress at Cannes this past spring and also why Alomodovar is back on his game. The man simply knows how to direct women. Penelope Cruz has never looked so stunning or performed so believably with a sly sense of humour and a pervasive humanity that American audiences will never see in the likes of "All the Pretty Horses" or "Sahara". Watching Cruz on the big screen this morning had me thinking that this must have been the way audiences would have been captivated by Sophia Loren in the 60's.
The remainder of the female cast is equally stellar if not quite as stunning to watch and this takes me back to my theory. Gael Garcia Bernal and Javier Bardem are fine actors but they have to my mind given much better performances under the guidance of other directors than they did with Almodovar. Pedro captures women in all their colour, vibrancy and sweet music that they bring to the lives of us rather more pedestrian male creatures and for that I'd like to offer him a great big thanks.
This film opens with a wonderful shot in an ornate cemetery in a small Spanish village that sees only women dusting off the graves of their men who have long since passed because as we are told that is the way life goes in this town. Almodovar then within the first 10 minutes of the film makes short work of the only male character we are introduced to by name, "Paco". It is then down to the ensemble female cast of 6 primary characters to take us through the rest of the rather sketchy but charming story.
One can see why the entire female cast was awarded best actress at Cannes this past spring and also why Alomodovar is back on his game. The man simply knows how to direct women. Penelope Cruz has never looked so stunning or performed so believably with a sly sense of humour and a pervasive humanity that American audiences will never see in the likes of "All the Pretty Horses" or "Sahara". Watching Cruz on the big screen this morning had me thinking that this must have been the way audiences would have been captivated by Sophia Loren in the 60's.
The remainder of the female cast is equally stellar if not quite as stunning to watch and this takes me back to my theory. Gael Garcia Bernal and Javier Bardem are fine actors but they have to my mind given much better performances under the guidance of other directors than they did with Almodovar. Pedro captures women in all their colour, vibrancy and sweet music that they bring to the lives of us rather more pedestrian male creatures and for that I'd like to offer him a great big thanks.
Brand Upon the Brain!
As someone said in front of me as the credits rolled, rather unfairly I thought, "let's go see a film now". Understandable I suppose but still unfair. Unless of course the individual meant it as a compliment because what Guy Maddin throws your way, at least on Friday night at the Elgin, was so much more than your average cineplex flick.
The Elgin was a sublime backdrop for a silent black and white film complete with a 10 piece chamber orchestra comprised of TSO members, 3 sound effects wizards hanging out under the balcony on the right and a rather gargantuan man with an extremely high voice singing several times from up high on the left balcony. As this was all being introduced to us by Guy himself the electricity in the air was more than I can remember for any other Canadian film. Unfortunately the film didn't deliver the goods to match the pre-screening anticipation.
The story itself centred around a guy named Guy and his sister "Sis" who live on this strange remote island with their domineering, omnipresent mother and their workaholic mad scientist like father who spends much of his time extracting youth inducing "nectar" from the motely crew of orphans who have somehow found themselves dropped into this Dickensian scenario. Into this picture drops the renowned children's literary detective brother and sister team of Wendy and Chance Hale which immediately took me back to the good old days of the Famous Five and the Secret Seven.
I wont go any further with the rather zany plot which really works well in a silent setting and given Maddin's previous escapades on screen. Suffice to say there are many laughs, some uncomfortable moments, great performances by the two young female leads Maya Lawson as Sis and Katherine Scharhon as Wendy (and Chance), but at the end of the day not much of a story to tie the whole thing together. At least not one that I was prepared to buy into. And I so bought into the premise of his last feature "The Saddest Music in the World" despite its otherworldy air.
Given that Maddin has stated previously that he based this work on his childhood experiences in Gimli, Manitoba where his parents ran a small summer camp for orphans the man certainly has issues where his mother is concerned. Hopefully he has worked some of them out and if nothing else he provided for all those who attended an experience that was a throwback to the early days of film.
The Elgin was a sublime backdrop for a silent black and white film complete with a 10 piece chamber orchestra comprised of TSO members, 3 sound effects wizards hanging out under the balcony on the right and a rather gargantuan man with an extremely high voice singing several times from up high on the left balcony. As this was all being introduced to us by Guy himself the electricity in the air was more than I can remember for any other Canadian film. Unfortunately the film didn't deliver the goods to match the pre-screening anticipation.
The story itself centred around a guy named Guy and his sister "Sis" who live on this strange remote island with their domineering, omnipresent mother and their workaholic mad scientist like father who spends much of his time extracting youth inducing "nectar" from the motely crew of orphans who have somehow found themselves dropped into this Dickensian scenario. Into this picture drops the renowned children's literary detective brother and sister team of Wendy and Chance Hale which immediately took me back to the good old days of the Famous Five and the Secret Seven.
I wont go any further with the rather zany plot which really works well in a silent setting and given Maddin's previous escapades on screen. Suffice to say there are many laughs, some uncomfortable moments, great performances by the two young female leads Maya Lawson as Sis and Katherine Scharhon as Wendy (and Chance), but at the end of the day not much of a story to tie the whole thing together. At least not one that I was prepared to buy into. And I so bought into the premise of his last feature "The Saddest Music in the World" despite its otherworldy air.
Given that Maddin has stated previously that he based this work on his childhood experiences in Gimli, Manitoba where his parents ran a small summer camp for orphans the man certainly has issues where his mother is concerned. Hopefully he has worked some of them out and if nothing else he provided for all those who attended an experience that was a throwback to the early days of film.
Friday, September 08, 2006
HANA
An entertaining film which meanders pleasantly through its parabolic narrative, stopping occasionally for a moment of regret or sadness, frequently for a laugh, but is mostly content to sit back while a host of human desires and shortcomings are played out by a group of competent, likable performers.
The story ostensibly centres on Aoki, who hails from a line of samurai and is tasked by his family to avenge his father’s death. In most revenge flicks, it’s only after the hero slaughters his or her way through dozens of bad guys that s/he come to the realization that violence is not the path to redemption. Here the director has chosen to go another direction and pursue an entirely different premise: what if the hero doesn’t think revenge is all that great an idea from the outset?
It’s an intriguing question and the result is that most of the action is dominated not by the hero but by his large cast of supporting characters, who gleefully offer advice and hatch elaborate schemes while enduring their own amusing set of trials and tribulations. The cast is excellent, pitch perfect in that they stop shy of slapstick in scenes that could easily go that route and that they never seem to deviate from the character’s central, humanity. Even the village idiot, who celebrates wildly at the suggestion that a fellow villager’s trip to the outhouse could aid his compost business, comes across as sympathetic instead of simply buffoonish.
If the actions of these characters do start to wear thin at about the 3/4 mark, it’s because there’s very little left for them to do. Once Aoki abandons his revenge, and this happens pretty early on, the narrative itself loses momentum. There's a few scenes that tie up some loose threads and pantomimed sequences that offer a few chuckles but very little to keep audiences engaged emotionally. Beyond a somewhat truculant landlord (who really just wants to collect some back rent from the villagers) and a few child bullies who occupy approximately 15 seconds of screen time and are quickly put off by the pacifistic actions of another child, there’s little tension between any of the characters. Even the father's killer, a man initially marked for death (literally, he's got a red mark on his face), isn't all that menacing, with a wife and two small children and little indication that he's spoiling for a fight.
Though the film is set in the early 18th century, clearly we are meant to see some parallels with the present. The notion of a more respectful, measured response to our perceived enemies of the both in the world at large ("Maybe the President of Iran hugs his kids too...") and our local communities (I'm sure the guy who cut me off is just having a bad day...") is somewhat refreshing given all the usual bluster in movies and the media. The film is pretty upfront in its moralizing: if you let hate consume you, all you are left with is hate. Point taken.
But...can a story really work without at least some real adversity? Without a villain or an act of God?
In some sense, yes. In the case of HANA, the answer lies somewhere between satisfactory and subdued. It’s one of those films that I’d sum up for friend with an “I liked it, but…” or “It was good…” without sounding convincing. Recommended for some, particularly those who have just completed a long yoga session.
Btw…the film’s title….HANA… If I’m not mistaken, this is the name of the caged bird which has the misfortune of being killed by a stray cat midway through the film, but which is at least given a proper and respectful burial by a small child. Not sure what this means or why the film is thus titled but it seems somehow fitting. Perhaps others who have seen this can clarify via comments...
The story ostensibly centres on Aoki, who hails from a line of samurai and is tasked by his family to avenge his father’s death. In most revenge flicks, it’s only after the hero slaughters his or her way through dozens of bad guys that s/he come to the realization that violence is not the path to redemption. Here the director has chosen to go another direction and pursue an entirely different premise: what if the hero doesn’t think revenge is all that great an idea from the outset?
It’s an intriguing question and the result is that most of the action is dominated not by the hero but by his large cast of supporting characters, who gleefully offer advice and hatch elaborate schemes while enduring their own amusing set of trials and tribulations. The cast is excellent, pitch perfect in that they stop shy of slapstick in scenes that could easily go that route and that they never seem to deviate from the character’s central, humanity. Even the village idiot, who celebrates wildly at the suggestion that a fellow villager’s trip to the outhouse could aid his compost business, comes across as sympathetic instead of simply buffoonish.
If the actions of these characters do start to wear thin at about the 3/4 mark, it’s because there’s very little left for them to do. Once Aoki abandons his revenge, and this happens pretty early on, the narrative itself loses momentum. There's a few scenes that tie up some loose threads and pantomimed sequences that offer a few chuckles but very little to keep audiences engaged emotionally. Beyond a somewhat truculant landlord (who really just wants to collect some back rent from the villagers) and a few child bullies who occupy approximately 15 seconds of screen time and are quickly put off by the pacifistic actions of another child, there’s little tension between any of the characters. Even the father's killer, a man initially marked for death (literally, he's got a red mark on his face), isn't all that menacing, with a wife and two small children and little indication that he's spoiling for a fight.
Though the film is set in the early 18th century, clearly we are meant to see some parallels with the present. The notion of a more respectful, measured response to our perceived enemies of the both in the world at large ("Maybe the President of Iran hugs his kids too...") and our local communities (I'm sure the guy who cut me off is just having a bad day...") is somewhat refreshing given all the usual bluster in movies and the media. The film is pretty upfront in its moralizing: if you let hate consume you, all you are left with is hate. Point taken.
But...can a story really work without at least some real adversity? Without a villain or an act of God?
In some sense, yes. In the case of HANA, the answer lies somewhere between satisfactory and subdued. It’s one of those films that I’d sum up for friend with an “I liked it, but…” or “It was good…” without sounding convincing. Recommended for some, particularly those who have just completed a long yoga session.
Btw…the film’s title….HANA… If I’m not mistaken, this is the name of the caged bird which has the misfortune of being killed by a stray cat midway through the film, but which is at least given a proper and respectful burial by a small child. Not sure what this means or why the film is thus titled but it seems somehow fitting. Perhaps others who have seen this can clarify via comments...
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Are you ready for some f.....ilms?
Actually, I guess there is some NFL football on tonight as well. It's not going to be Pittsburgh taking on Miami but a samurai avenging the death of his father that will be occupying my time tonight in Kore-eda's Hana.
Here's a clip of the making of the film, courtesy of YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9polHduyORg
Okay, clearly I'm reaching but there's not much more to write about until the films start.
Guess I could say that I'm glad tonight's film is at the Varsity, which has much more of a festival vibe to it than the Paramount. Deep in the heart of clubland, with its flashing lights sights, cacophony of sounds, and deep-fried donut smells emanating from thefood court concession, the Paramount has always seemed less of a cinema than an adult version of Chuck-e-cheese. While the ample leg room and stadium seating admittedly make for greater viewing pleasure than the constant shifting and weaving of heads necessary to take in a subtitled film at the downstairs cinema at the Cumberland, there's still something to be said for being at the latter venue.
Anyhow, I hope you enjoy your films and that you read and post regularly. Those who haven't been invited to post can either email me for login instructions or make use of the comments section.
Here's a clip of the making of the film, courtesy of YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9polHduyORg
Okay, clearly I'm reaching but there's not much more to write about until the films start.
Guess I could say that I'm glad tonight's film is at the Varsity, which has much more of a festival vibe to it than the Paramount. Deep in the heart of clubland, with its flashing lights sights, cacophony of sounds, and deep-fried donut smells emanating from thefood court concession, the Paramount has always seemed less of a cinema than an adult version of Chuck-e-cheese. While the ample leg room and stadium seating admittedly make for greater viewing pleasure than the constant shifting and weaving of heads necessary to take in a subtitled film at the downstairs cinema at the Cumberland, there's still something to be said for being at the latter venue.
Anyhow, I hope you enjoy your films and that you read and post regularly. Those who haven't been invited to post can either email me for login instructions or make use of the comments section.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
It's the most wonderful time of the year....
Only two days till the films start...are you excited yet?
Yesterday was probably the most relaxing Labour Day I've spent in years. Why? Because I got an email from the festival on Saturday letting me know that I got all my film picks; okay one got screwed up but why quibble? With this foreknowledge, I was able to sleep in yesterday, casually make my way over to the box office around noon, and avoid the resubmit line that I spent 4 hours in last year.
Once again, I've reactivated the Film Fest blog, so you have a chance to read about what your friends have seen, and contribute your own opinions on some of the films you've seen.
To get the ball rolling, here are the films I'm seeing this year:
Hana
7 ans
Paris, je t'aime
Beauty in Trouble
Woman on the Beach
Reprise
Un Crime
Quelques jours en Septembre
Il Caimano
L'intouchable
The Banquet
Fay Grim
Looking at my list, which is the usual French and Asian melange, I think the one that has the biggest question mark is Hal Hartley's Fay Grim. His last few films have been, um, terrible, so it will be interesting to see if this one represents a return to form (I stick with him) or a continuation of the downward spiral (I jump off the bandwagon). Parker Posey is consistently great so it's got that going for it, at the very least.
Derek, I know you mentioned that 'The Fountain' was one of the films you were most looking forward to this year. Hopefully, you won't have the same reaction as audiences in Venice. On a brighter note, one of your other picks, 'Volver' was given big love in San Sebastien (a few stories down the page).
At any rate, I do hope you'll have some time to contribute to the blog this year, even if it's only a few bullet-point observations, random nonsequiters with bad grammar (cough, stuart), or a list of what you're planning to see.
Post early, post often, post your list (don't worry about providing links) of films. See you in line.
Yesterday was probably the most relaxing Labour Day I've spent in years. Why? Because I got an email from the festival on Saturday letting me know that I got all my film picks; okay one got screwed up but why quibble? With this foreknowledge, I was able to sleep in yesterday, casually make my way over to the box office around noon, and avoid the resubmit line that I spent 4 hours in last year.
Once again, I've reactivated the Film Fest blog, so you have a chance to read about what your friends have seen, and contribute your own opinions on some of the films you've seen.
To get the ball rolling, here are the films I'm seeing this year:
Hana
7 ans
Paris, je t'aime
Beauty in Trouble
Woman on the Beach
Reprise
Un Crime
Quelques jours en Septembre
Il Caimano
L'intouchable
The Banquet
Fay Grim
Looking at my list, which is the usual French and Asian melange, I think the one that has the biggest question mark is Hal Hartley's Fay Grim. His last few films have been, um, terrible, so it will be interesting to see if this one represents a return to form (I stick with him) or a continuation of the downward spiral (I jump off the bandwagon). Parker Posey is consistently great so it's got that going for it, at the very least.
Derek, I know you mentioned that 'The Fountain' was one of the films you were most looking forward to this year. Hopefully, you won't have the same reaction as audiences in Venice. On a brighter note, one of your other picks, 'Volver' was given big love in San Sebastien (a few stories down the page).
At any rate, I do hope you'll have some time to contribute to the blog this year, even if it's only a few bullet-point observations, random nonsequiters with bad grammar (cough, stuart), or a list of what you're planning to see.
Post early, post often, post your list (don't worry about providing links) of films. See you in line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)