Like Sarah, my festival experience was merely OK this year. Nothing really awful, but nothing awe inspiring either. Here is how I would rank the films I saw in order of preference:
1. Lars and The Real Girl (really, there was nothing even close)
2. Boy A
3. Son of Rambow (if I was about 23 years younger this would have shot straight to #1)
4. XXY
5. Barcelona (A Map)
Monday, September 17, 2007
My nomination for most ridiculous over-heard quote
"I like HATE these Q&A sessions. People ask the stoooopidest questions. Just yesterday we were at this Brazilian film and some idiot puts up her hand and asks what language the characters were speaking. I was like so embarassed. I mean obviously they were speaking Brazilian"
- Overheard at the Ryerson Theatre, one row behind me at Son of Rambow
- Overheard at the Ryerson Theatre, one row behind me at Son of Rambow
SON OF RAMBOW
Y'know, Ryerson Theatre isn't so bad when there isn't a 2km line-up to get in. I guess the intense rain made the festival organizers take pity on us pee-ons and the line was quickly moved indoors.
I'm not sure what I expected from this film. The promise of an incredible child cast and a heartwarming story did not have my hopes up.
But I have to admit, this movie won me over. Sure, its a little fluffier than I usually like my films (OK, a LOT fluffier) but short of a few minor expletives this was good clean fun (now THIS is a movie to take your parents to).
Inspired by a bootleg tape of Stallone's First Blood, two kids set-out to make their own movie - Son of Rambow. At first they are a two-man filmmaking juggernaut - writing, directing, acting, stunts. Then as word of the film spreads, everybody wants to be in on it. Eventually their pet project gets usurped by an artistically tortured, flamboyantly 80s French exchange student named Didier (this kid was hilarious). This leads to tension between our two heroes and all kinds of innocent hijinx.
The cast really was excellent - especially considering that most of them had absolutely zero previous acting experience. The script held some genuine laughs and didn't require too much of a suspension of disbelief. The soundtrack was killer - Siouxie and the Banshees? C'mon, you gotta love it.
Recommended. Especially if you're in the mood for some light-hearted fare. Or, if you have your parents over for dinner and a movie.
PIRACY UPDATE: I SAW THE NIGHT VISION GOGGLES!!!!!! TWICE!!! About half way through the movie a security guard on the outside aisle was intently scanning the crowd with what looked like a telescope. He then returned with about 5 minutes left in the movie. I found this quite amusing on a few levels: One - this really doesn't seem like the type of movie that would be hot in bootlegging circles...no-name cast, it doesn't get released until April 2008 and it has pretty much zero buzz around it. Two - if you haven't found the evil criminals by now I don't think you're going to catch them with a few minutes left in the film. Three - that an antipiracy device would look like something used by a pirate
I'm not sure what I expected from this film. The promise of an incredible child cast and a heartwarming story did not have my hopes up.
But I have to admit, this movie won me over. Sure, its a little fluffier than I usually like my films (OK, a LOT fluffier) but short of a few minor expletives this was good clean fun (now THIS is a movie to take your parents to).
Inspired by a bootleg tape of Stallone's First Blood, two kids set-out to make their own movie - Son of Rambow. At first they are a two-man filmmaking juggernaut - writing, directing, acting, stunts. Then as word of the film spreads, everybody wants to be in on it. Eventually their pet project gets usurped by an artistically tortured, flamboyantly 80s French exchange student named Didier (this kid was hilarious). This leads to tension between our two heroes and all kinds of innocent hijinx.
The cast really was excellent - especially considering that most of them had absolutely zero previous acting experience. The script held some genuine laughs and didn't require too much of a suspension of disbelief. The soundtrack was killer - Siouxie and the Banshees? C'mon, you gotta love it.
Recommended. Especially if you're in the mood for some light-hearted fare. Or, if you have your parents over for dinner and a movie.
PIRACY UPDATE: I SAW THE NIGHT VISION GOGGLES!!!!!! TWICE!!! About half way through the movie a security guard on the outside aisle was intently scanning the crowd with what looked like a telescope. He then returned with about 5 minutes left in the movie. I found this quite amusing on a few levels: One - this really doesn't seem like the type of movie that would be hot in bootlegging circles...no-name cast, it doesn't get released until April 2008 and it has pretty much zero buzz around it. Two - if you haven't found the evil criminals by now I don't think you're going to catch them with a few minutes left in the film. Three - that an antipiracy device would look like something used by a pirate
XXY
Kyle predicted that this movie would leave me confused about my sexuality.
While it didn't do that, it did make me wonder what I would do if I happened to be the father of a hermaphrodite child. Would I opt for early surgery and force the child into one of the two acceptable gender roles? Or would I wait to see which gender the child most identifies with?
This film examines that decision through the story of Alex, raised as a girl but housing the equipment of both genders. Her Mom has brought an old friend to town and with her comes her surgeon husband. Unbenownst to Alex or her father, Alex's Mom plans on having the surgeon permanently assign Alex's gender to female. Alex's father wants Alex to decide what she wants to do and Alex wonders why she has to make a choice at all.
Though this all might seem quite promising, I found the movie just OK. First-time Argentinean director Lucia Puenzo is to be commended for making a bold feature that doesn't shy away from or sugar coat its subject matter (the graphic anal scene between Alex and the surgeon's son set that straight right away). However, I found the script to be wildly inconsistent and the characters very blah. For example, the surgeon character starts off by being this shadowy doctor interested more in medical accolades than Alex's well-being. He then seems to soften-up by helping Alex in dealing with her issues with some of the young locals. He then ends the movie by telling his son he has no talent and that he is concerned he is a "faggot".
Not a bad movie. Linda seemed to like it more than I did. I can only give it a mildly favourable review.
Oh, and I'm glad I didn't take my parents to see this one
While it didn't do that, it did make me wonder what I would do if I happened to be the father of a hermaphrodite child. Would I opt for early surgery and force the child into one of the two acceptable gender roles? Or would I wait to see which gender the child most identifies with?
This film examines that decision through the story of Alex, raised as a girl but housing the equipment of both genders. Her Mom has brought an old friend to town and with her comes her surgeon husband. Unbenownst to Alex or her father, Alex's Mom plans on having the surgeon permanently assign Alex's gender to female. Alex's father wants Alex to decide what she wants to do and Alex wonders why she has to make a choice at all.
Though this all might seem quite promising, I found the movie just OK. First-time Argentinean director Lucia Puenzo is to be commended for making a bold feature that doesn't shy away from or sugar coat its subject matter (the graphic anal scene between Alex and the surgeon's son set that straight right away). However, I found the script to be wildly inconsistent and the characters very blah. For example, the surgeon character starts off by being this shadowy doctor interested more in medical accolades than Alex's well-being. He then seems to soften-up by helping Alex in dealing with her issues with some of the young locals. He then ends the movie by telling his son he has no talent and that he is concerned he is a "faggot".
Not a bad movie. Linda seemed to like it more than I did. I can only give it a mildly favourable review.
Oh, and I'm glad I didn't take my parents to see this one
Sarah's Film Fest Sum Up
It was only an okay year for me at this festival. In my mind I had too many so-so or full on dud movies.
I am going to go back to the book and look at descriptions for movies that failed me. There must be some code words there in descriptions that I can remember and try to avoid for next year. Does anyone have any suggestions for me?
I am going to go back to the book and look at descriptions for movies that failed me. There must be some code words there in descriptions that I can remember and try to avoid for next year. Does anyone have any suggestions for me?
Shadows
If you have seen The 6th Sense you do not need to see Shadows. Lucky, the main character of the movie is a resident doctor who returns to work after taking a year off to recover from a nasty car accident. While at work and home Lucky is bothered repeatedly by four mysterious people who seem to want something of him.
None of the characters in the movie are very engaging or likable. Worse still, the movie lacks any kind of tension because the solution to Lucky's situation is so obvious to everyone but Lucky 1/4 of the way into the two hours that Shadows takes to play out. Don't go to see this one.
None of the characters in the movie are very engaging or likable. Worse still, the movie lacks any kind of tension because the solution to Lucky's situation is so obvious to everyone but Lucky 1/4 of the way into the two hours that Shadows takes to play out. Don't go to see this one.
Chaotic Ana
My second to last film of this year was a disappointment. Ana is a free spirit who lives with her father in a cave in Ibiza Spain. Ana's unusual paintings are discovered at a tourist market one day by an arts patron. The patron takes Ana to live in her artist commune in Madrid. At the commune Ana learns that through hypnosis she can remember several dozen of her past lives. This part of the film is enjoyable.
Sadly the movie then takes a bizarre turn 3/4 of the way in and tries to turn a simple enjoyable story into a political message about the current Iraq war (and I guess all wars in general) and woman's role in the world. The setting is moved to New York. The film required a suspension of disbelief from the beginning but once the storyline moves to New York it becomes entirely implausible and ridiculous. One scene see Ana take a dump on the face of a politician that we are told is responsible for starting the war. It is a very funny scene but is meant to be taken seriously.
I cannot recommend this movie solely because of the last 1/4.
Sadly the movie then takes a bizarre turn 3/4 of the way in and tries to turn a simple enjoyable story into a political message about the current Iraq war (and I guess all wars in general) and woman's role in the world. The setting is moved to New York. The film required a suspension of disbelief from the beginning but once the storyline moves to New York it becomes entirely implausible and ridiculous. One scene see Ana take a dump on the face of a politician that we are told is responsible for starting the war. It is a very funny scene but is meant to be taken seriously.
I cannot recommend this movie solely because of the last 1/4.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Eight Films
Well damn, the whole thing is over for another year. It's gone by quickly as usual, and I never got fully into the swing of things in my own mind, perhaps because all but three of my films were at the Scotia Bank. Nevertheless, I've been very happy, with a couple of exceptions, with the films I saw this year. I lost a bit of momentum on the whole review thing, but I hate to leave a job unfinished, so I thought I'd polish off all eight in quickie reviews:
With Your Permission
A Danish film co-written and directed by Paprika Steen, who's apparently been in a few famous Dogme films, this is a quirky (utterly non-Dogme-esque) comedy about an uptight loser who's a victim of domestic abuse - his frustrated, depressed, former opera singer wife beats him up regularly. It was very entertaining and unusual for 90% of the film, but ended in a haze of Hollywood confection which seemed to play against the film's strengths up to that point. Still, recommended.
No Country for Old Men
Kyle got it right. Utterly entertaining, energetic, hilarious, harrowing, and extremely violent. Not my favourite of all time of theirs, but that's likely pure sentimentality on my part. A must see.
It's a Free World
Ken Loach's latest is a drama set in London about the problems of illegal immigration as told through the eyes of an opportunistic single mom who sets up her own casual labour staffing agency, and loses her moral compass along the way. I loved the verite-style and most of the performances...and I thought the loss of innocence and, later, control in the brash lead as she falls from grace was well portrayed. Also just interesting subject matter. Recommended. Incidentally, Derek didn't like the film at all.
Une Vieille Maitresse
Catherine Breillat doing a period piece? Seems very out of character for the creator of Romance and The Fat Girl, but somewhat surprisingly, this is a convincing and compelling dark anti-romance, in the tradition of Dangerous Liasions. Strong performances, and a script that takes us down an inexorable path to the death of love and innocence. Well worth a look if it ever gets wide release, or shows up in your video store.
The Savages
Another satisfying film, this time from American writer/director Tamara Jenkins (her first film in ten years, and yet she looked to be in her late-30's), this one is a slice of life about two unhappy, 40-ish siblings who have to come together to deal with their dying father. Sounds moribund in its own right, but on the strength of a great screenplay, sensitive direction, and winning performances by P.S. Hoffman and Laura Linney (be still my heart), this was a strong, memorable film. Good mid-winter rental.
Silent Resident
Yikes. See Sarah's post. Laughably incomprehensible. Entirely un-intriguing too. Only real clunker this year.
L'enemi Intime
A French film dealing with the Algerian military campaign of the 1950's, this one was almost a take on Stone's film in its focus on the day-to-day activities of the French platoon and its struggles of trying to quell the vicious Algerian freedom fighters, the Feghalla. The story centres on a new platoon leader, who tries to stay above the brutality of the fighting methods that both sides use. I found this to be far too well-trod material, and not especially new or compelling in its perspective. However, I did leave with the profound realization of just how horrific the French occupation of Algeria was (+/- 500,000 Algerian deaths over twenty years.)
Angel
I ended my fest this afternoon with Francois Ozon's latest film Angel. A strangely toned movie that danced between obvious (almost Mel Brooks-esque) satire, 30's hollywood homage (which generally equated to a less jarring satirical approach), and serious drama, I found this film pleasant to look at and funny at times, but too unsure of itself. Satire does not expect you to care much about its characters, and so when the gears shifted into high drama, there was nobody to hold onto. Good performances nevertheless from newcomer Romola Garai as Angel, and Michael Fassbender as her lover/husband Esme. Curious to hear other people's thoughts on this one.
Hope you all enjoyed the rest of your festivals.
With Your Permission
A Danish film co-written and directed by Paprika Steen, who's apparently been in a few famous Dogme films, this is a quirky (utterly non-Dogme-esque) comedy about an uptight loser who's a victim of domestic abuse - his frustrated, depressed, former opera singer wife beats him up regularly. It was very entertaining and unusual for 90% of the film, but ended in a haze of Hollywood confection which seemed to play against the film's strengths up to that point. Still, recommended.
No Country for Old Men
Kyle got it right. Utterly entertaining, energetic, hilarious, harrowing, and extremely violent. Not my favourite of all time of theirs, but that's likely pure sentimentality on my part. A must see.
It's a Free World
Ken Loach's latest is a drama set in London about the problems of illegal immigration as told through the eyes of an opportunistic single mom who sets up her own casual labour staffing agency, and loses her moral compass along the way. I loved the verite-style and most of the performances...and I thought the loss of innocence and, later, control in the brash lead as she falls from grace was well portrayed. Also just interesting subject matter. Recommended. Incidentally, Derek didn't like the film at all.
Une Vieille Maitresse
Catherine Breillat doing a period piece? Seems very out of character for the creator of Romance and The Fat Girl, but somewhat surprisingly, this is a convincing and compelling dark anti-romance, in the tradition of Dangerous Liasions. Strong performances, and a script that takes us down an inexorable path to the death of love and innocence. Well worth a look if it ever gets wide release, or shows up in your video store.
The Savages
Another satisfying film, this time from American writer/director Tamara Jenkins (her first film in ten years, and yet she looked to be in her late-30's), this one is a slice of life about two unhappy, 40-ish siblings who have to come together to deal with their dying father. Sounds moribund in its own right, but on the strength of a great screenplay, sensitive direction, and winning performances by P.S. Hoffman and Laura Linney (be still my heart), this was a strong, memorable film. Good mid-winter rental.
Silent Resident
Yikes. See Sarah's post. Laughably incomprehensible. Entirely un-intriguing too. Only real clunker this year.
L'enemi Intime
A French film dealing with the Algerian military campaign of the 1950's, this one was almost a take on Stone's film in its focus on the day-to-day activities of the French platoon and its struggles of trying to quell the vicious Algerian freedom fighters, the Feghalla. The story centres on a new platoon leader, who tries to stay above the brutality of the fighting methods that both sides use. I found this to be far too well-trod material, and not especially new or compelling in its perspective. However, I did leave with the profound realization of just how horrific the French occupation of Algeria was (+/- 500,000 Algerian deaths over twenty years.)
Angel
I ended my fest this afternoon with Francois Ozon's latest film Angel. A strangely toned movie that danced between obvious (almost Mel Brooks-esque) satire, 30's hollywood homage (which generally equated to a less jarring satirical approach), and serious drama, I found this film pleasant to look at and funny at times, but too unsure of itself. Satire does not expect you to care much about its characters, and so when the gears shifted into high drama, there was nobody to hold onto. Good performances nevertheless from newcomer Romola Garai as Angel, and Michael Fassbender as her lover/husband Esme. Curious to hear other people's thoughts on this one.
Hope you all enjoyed the rest of your festivals.
Friday, September 14, 2007
A Gentle Breeze in the Village
As the title suggests, this is nice, lighthearted fare. Set in a small village in rural Japan, 'A Gentle Breeze...' is the story of an 8th grade girl, Yoyo, and the new student to the school, Osawa, who becomes her first boyfriend. Though the film primarily explores themes central to young adolescence (the loss of innocence, the mixture of sadness and excitement of change), it's also a lamentation on the decline of pastoral life in contemporary Japan.
The languid pacing, sun-drenched cinematography, and adorable cast make for pleasant, laidback viewing. At times, it was almost like watching a litter of puppies playing with each other, with many audience members (myself included) unable to refrain from tilting their heads and cooing, 'Awww' each time the youngest student appeared on screen.
If there is any darkness, it's hinted at in brief, fleeting moments--the suggestion of a father's infedility, the light teasing of friends that could become bullying but doesn't-- that pass quickly. [To the audience member who claimed, in her 'question' to the director during the Q&A, that she was really worried Osawa was being manipulated by Yoyo, I hope you were able to get some sleep last night. Also, you may want to pick up a newspaper, read any article about what's happening internationally, and get a life.]
To some, a story like this may sound a tad dull, but it really was a beautiful film that I enjoyed more than I thought I would. Why have I suddenly become a sucker for such sentimentality?
A quick glance back at the films I've seen over the past 7 days at the festival may shed some clues. On screen I've witnessed countless brutal murders by drowing, firearm, and airgun, a suicide by hanging, the self-severance of an ear, and the brutal group beating death of a young boy. Guess this film was a bit of an antidote.
Reccomended viewing, particularly if you're looking a cinematic experience with your parents that avoids discomfort for both parties.
The languid pacing, sun-drenched cinematography, and adorable cast make for pleasant, laidback viewing. At times, it was almost like watching a litter of puppies playing with each other, with many audience members (myself included) unable to refrain from tilting their heads and cooing, 'Awww' each time the youngest student appeared on screen.
If there is any darkness, it's hinted at in brief, fleeting moments--the suggestion of a father's infedility, the light teasing of friends that could become bullying but doesn't-- that pass quickly. [To the audience member who claimed, in her 'question' to the director during the Q&A, that she was really worried Osawa was being manipulated by Yoyo, I hope you were able to get some sleep last night. Also, you may want to pick up a newspaper, read any article about what's happening internationally, and get a life.]
To some, a story like this may sound a tad dull, but it really was a beautiful film that I enjoyed more than I thought I would. Why have I suddenly become a sucker for such sentimentality?
A quick glance back at the films I've seen over the past 7 days at the festival may shed some clues. On screen I've witnessed countless brutal murders by drowing, firearm, and airgun, a suicide by hanging, the self-severance of an ear, and the brutal group beating death of a young boy. Guess this film was a bit of an antidote.
Reccomended viewing, particularly if you're looking a cinematic experience with your parents that avoids discomfort for both parties.
And Along Come Tourists
This is a movie that deals very tastefully with tough subject matter. The movie follows Sven, a young German man who has come to Auschwitz to complete his mandatory year of civil service. During his time at the camp he is made responsible for a holocaust survivor that chooses to live on the camp site and befriends a young Polish camp tour guide.
Mr. Krzeminski lives at the camp after all of these years to ensure that the story of all of those who weren't as lucky as him survives. He refuses to go to live in the comfort of his sisters lovely country home to finish what he believes to be his life's work. He works to restore the personal items of the camp inmates for the camp museum.
The film also details the frustration of the people of the town of Auschwitz with the history imposed on them. The young camp tour guide applies for a job in a more urban area, looking to get away from her small hometown. She explains to Sven the horror on the faces of the interview panel as they ask and she tells them where she is from. One character seems to sum up the feeling well when he tells Sven that he wishes that they didn't have to deal with the constant reminder of the camp, that he wishes the Germans had taken their camp with them when they went.
I would recommend this movie. For being set in the camps at Auschwitz there are hardly any shots of the camp or the museum. In the Q & A the director explained that getting permission to shoot anything but the outer edges of the camp (usually the shot of the entrance to the camp or the watch towers) is impossible. Instead the movie focuses on the people living in and around the camp and those who work there. Shots of the camp may have taken away from the story of the characters in the movie. The three actors in the movie make the characters real by giving understated, authentic performances.
It is just too bad that all of those who see the movie in the future will not also have the experience of the Q & A with the director as well. He spoke with humour and shared interesting insights into the writing and making of the film.
Mr. Krzeminski lives at the camp after all of these years to ensure that the story of all of those who weren't as lucky as him survives. He refuses to go to live in the comfort of his sisters lovely country home to finish what he believes to be his life's work. He works to restore the personal items of the camp inmates for the camp museum.
The film also details the frustration of the people of the town of Auschwitz with the history imposed on them. The young camp tour guide applies for a job in a more urban area, looking to get away from her small hometown. She explains to Sven the horror on the faces of the interview panel as they ask and she tells them where she is from. One character seems to sum up the feeling well when he tells Sven that he wishes that they didn't have to deal with the constant reminder of the camp, that he wishes the Germans had taken their camp with them when they went.
I would recommend this movie. For being set in the camps at Auschwitz there are hardly any shots of the camp or the museum. In the Q & A the director explained that getting permission to shoot anything but the outer edges of the camp (usually the shot of the entrance to the camp or the watch towers) is impossible. Instead the movie focuses on the people living in and around the camp and those who work there. Shots of the camp may have taken away from the story of the characters in the movie. The three actors in the movie make the characters real by giving understated, authentic performances.
It is just too bad that all of those who see the movie in the future will not also have the experience of the Q & A with the director as well. He spoke with humour and shared interesting insights into the writing and making of the film.
Silent Resident
In my opinion there is no reason to ever see this movie.
From what I could gather, Hannah, the movie's main character, may or may not be the victim of a government (or at least a police) plot directed at those living in very creepy looking apartments in a gated type of community at some point in the future. Trust me when I say that you really won't care to figure it out. When the movie ended last night I turned to fellow festi-blogger Brian and the two of us just burst into laughter.
There were two funny scenes in the movie. I don't think they were meant to be funny. They were only funny because they were so ridiculous. In one scene an elevator jockey turns to Hannah and gives her the cunnilingus sign (making a v with his fingers and wiggling his tongue between the fingers). In the other scene a man explains that Hannah's name is like Otto. They can both be spelled forwards and backwards. But the goes on to explain, Hannah is a pretty name and Otto is not. Now that I have shared the two funny scenes I have made certain that you really do not need to see this movie.
Do not believe the film fest book. This movie is not "wracked with perplexity and intrigue." It only contains uninteresting perplexity. I do not buy that it is an "allegory for 21st century's perpetual state of alienation and unease." Something must be done about these film fest book write ups!
From what I could gather, Hannah, the movie's main character, may or may not be the victim of a government (or at least a police) plot directed at those living in very creepy looking apartments in a gated type of community at some point in the future. Trust me when I say that you really won't care to figure it out. When the movie ended last night I turned to fellow festi-blogger Brian and the two of us just burst into laughter.
There were two funny scenes in the movie. I don't think they were meant to be funny. They were only funny because they were so ridiculous. In one scene an elevator jockey turns to Hannah and gives her the cunnilingus sign (making a v with his fingers and wiggling his tongue between the fingers). In the other scene a man explains that Hannah's name is like Otto. They can both be spelled forwards and backwards. But the goes on to explain, Hannah is a pretty name and Otto is not. Now that I have shared the two funny scenes I have made certain that you really do not need to see this movie.
Do not believe the film fest book. This movie is not "wracked with perplexity and intrigue." It only contains uninteresting perplexity. I do not buy that it is an "allegory for 21st century's perpetual state of alienation and unease." Something must be done about these film fest book write ups!
Thursday, September 13, 2007
El Pasado (The Past)
The Past follows Rimini (Gael García Bernal), a man who cannot seem to get his life together after leaving his wife Sofia. He sets out to form relationships and make a new life for himself but the unfinished business he has with Sofia keeps taking over.
This felt very much like an Almodóvar movie to me - something I enjoyed. The characters were quirky and storylines did not all tie up neatly like they do in many conventional films. The acting was solid and I liked the pacing. I do recommend this movie.
There is one thing I found bothersome. There is a fair amount of sex in this movie - this is not what bothered me. Most of the women Rimini had relations with were fully naked. Some had a token piece of clothing on. Rimini remained fully dressed during all love scenes. All he did was unzip. It became very noticeable to me as the movie when on. Seemed very odd. Is GGB no longer okay with on-screen nudity?
GGB was present to introduce the movie. The director was on hand after the movie for a Q & A. I left after the first question of the Q & A. The question (The character in the film was a translator. How do you feel about movie translation?) was so lame that I figured nothing interesting was going to come from this audience. To be fair the director did handle the question well.
This felt very much like an Almodóvar movie to me - something I enjoyed. The characters were quirky and storylines did not all tie up neatly like they do in many conventional films. The acting was solid and I liked the pacing. I do recommend this movie.
There is one thing I found bothersome. There is a fair amount of sex in this movie - this is not what bothered me. Most of the women Rimini had relations with were fully naked. Some had a token piece of clothing on. Rimini remained fully dressed during all love scenes. All he did was unzip. It became very noticeable to me as the movie when on. Seemed very odd. Is GGB no longer okay with on-screen nudity?
GGB was present to introduce the movie. The director was on hand after the movie for a Q & A. I left after the first question of the Q & A. The question (The character in the film was a translator. How do you feel about movie translation?) was so lame that I figured nothing interesting was going to come from this audience. To be fair the director did handle the question well.
Married Life
The story centres on an adulterous yet sensitive husband, Harry Allen, who plots the death of his wife in order to save her from the humiliation of a divorce. Set in the late 1940s and narrated by the husband’s friend Richard, who falls in love, at first sight, with the ‘other woman’, the film moves back and forth between period drama and black comedy, eventually reaching a satisfying compromise. Characters shamelessly lie to one another, justifying their actions with pure intention, but failing to realize the consequences of their various extracurricular romantic entanglements.
The film’s greatest strength may lie with the cast, who manage to elicit sympathy even when their scheming characters are at their manipulative worst. The always great Patricia Clarkson gives the loving wife an intelligence and independent spirit seldom seen in films set in this era (though her roles in 'Far From Heaven' and 'Good Night and Good Luck' may belie that statement). Chris Cooper, as the romantic but frightening husband and Rachel MacAdams, as the mistress torn between two men, instill a sense of sadness and fragility in their respective characters while Pierce Brosnan, as the charming, smooth-talking Richard, lends the voiceover a soothing, lullaby-like quality.*
If at times the plot seems to stray—as if the screenwriter was unsure whether to plunge the characters into farce or tragedy—it ultimately comes together in the end, in a manner that’s far more plausible and meaningful than either of the two extremes. I think that’s why I liked it and would recommend it to others.**
Couldn’t stay for the Q & A as the film started 20 minutes late (stupid red carpet!!) and I had to literally run to the Wintergarden to make it to Mad Detective. Director Ira Sachs and stars Rachel MacAdams, Chris Cooper, and Patricia Clarkson were all in attendance so I’m assuming the discussion afterwards was interesting one. If any readers attended the Q & A for this screening, I’d love to hear your comments.
Footnotes:
*As soothing as Pierce’s voice may have been, I wonder if the film might have been improved by ditching the voice-over narration completely and letting the onscreen action speak for itself. With such an accomplished cast, it may have been more interesting to let the audience interpret their emotions and thoughts from their facial expressions. While the ending would have been a little more ambiguous, this may have been an improvement as well.
**Having recommended this to others, I'm a little unsure as to this film's fate mostly because I'm not quite sure who the intended audience for this film might be. It's definitely a quieter, character-driven film that doesn't employ the standard pacing and plot devices that seem necessary for mainstream success/appeal. Yet the presence of higher profile actors may make it less marketable to independent film audiences, who would be most likely to embrace it. At any rate, I wish it well.
The film’s greatest strength may lie with the cast, who manage to elicit sympathy even when their scheming characters are at their manipulative worst. The always great Patricia Clarkson gives the loving wife an intelligence and independent spirit seldom seen in films set in this era (though her roles in 'Far From Heaven' and 'Good Night and Good Luck' may belie that statement). Chris Cooper, as the romantic but frightening husband and Rachel MacAdams, as the mistress torn between two men, instill a sense of sadness and fragility in their respective characters while Pierce Brosnan, as the charming, smooth-talking Richard, lends the voiceover a soothing, lullaby-like quality.*
If at times the plot seems to stray—as if the screenwriter was unsure whether to plunge the characters into farce or tragedy—it ultimately comes together in the end, in a manner that’s far more plausible and meaningful than either of the two extremes. I think that’s why I liked it and would recommend it to others.**
Couldn’t stay for the Q & A as the film started 20 minutes late (stupid red carpet!!) and I had to literally run to the Wintergarden to make it to Mad Detective. Director Ira Sachs and stars Rachel MacAdams, Chris Cooper, and Patricia Clarkson were all in attendance so I’m assuming the discussion afterwards was interesting one. If any readers attended the Q & A for this screening, I’d love to hear your comments.
Footnotes:
*As soothing as Pierce’s voice may have been, I wonder if the film might have been improved by ditching the voice-over narration completely and letting the onscreen action speak for itself. With such an accomplished cast, it may have been more interesting to let the audience interpret their emotions and thoughts from their facial expressions. While the ending would have been a little more ambiguous, this may have been an improvement as well.
**Having recommended this to others, I'm a little unsure as to this film's fate mostly because I'm not quite sure who the intended audience for this film might be. It's definitely a quieter, character-driven film that doesn't employ the standard pacing and plot devices that seem necessary for mainstream success/appeal. Yet the presence of higher profile actors may make it less marketable to independent film audiences, who would be most likely to embrace it. At any rate, I wish it well.
Sleuth
Sleuth directed by Ken Branaugh, starring Michael Caine and Jude Law.
I lucked out thanks to a client and managed to get passes to this ....highly enjoyable
dialogue drama, based on a play by someone I should probably know...
It is also a remake of a 1973 film by the same name in which Michael starred in the role played by Jude Law this time around (ie the yonger man)...
It is really an exploration of mind games and manipulation, but the real star is the script....the acting while bang on , especially from.....yes actually Jude law, is very very good, as of course Caine unsurprisingly is always great.... There is a twist to this plot , which is simply mind boggling , so dont read reviews about it or it may be spolied if you wish to watch it. There is also a minor homoerotic component which is lame and not critical to the plot, which takes a bit off the final act , but overall a highly fun film... and I was surprised to see that what the ladies have been telling me is actually true, now having seen him in person, I see that I actually am a dead ringer for Jude Law...
I lucked out thanks to a client and managed to get passes to this ....highly enjoyable
dialogue drama, based on a play by someone I should probably know...
It is also a remake of a 1973 film by the same name in which Michael starred in the role played by Jude Law this time around (ie the yonger man)...
It is really an exploration of mind games and manipulation, but the real star is the script....the acting while bang on , especially from.....yes actually Jude law, is very very good, as of course Caine unsurprisingly is always great.... There is a twist to this plot , which is simply mind boggling , so dont read reviews about it or it may be spolied if you wish to watch it. There is also a minor homoerotic component which is lame and not critical to the plot, which takes a bit off the final act , but overall a highly fun film... and I was surprised to see that what the ladies have been telling me is actually true, now having seen him in person, I see that I actually am a dead ringer for Jude Law...
Mad Detective
An inventive, hilarious, sometimes graphic twist on the hardboiled Hong Kong police thriller, Mad Detective follows the titular character’s initial descent into madness—a shocking gesture in the opening minutes that sets the manic tone for the rest of the film—and his subsequent involvement in a new case with a younger, eager former colleague.
As they track the disappearance of a missing police detective, the younger colleague, Ho, relies on intellect and facts, while Bun, the mad detective, relies on intuition and a preternatural ability to see the distinct ‘personalities’ that lurk within an individual. Once this skill is established, in a funny scene where a toadying investigative team member’s insecurities are revealed, the perspective shifts back and forth between Bun’s reality and the reality experienced by other characters. The real strength of the film rests on the way the filmmakers exploit this device, setting up scenes where multiple ‘personalities’ are played by actors of different ages, sizes, and genders, often physically grappling with one another.
It makes for fascinating viewing. There’s a nervous energy throughout as the audience is never entirely sure which perspective is ‘real’ or whether Bun can be trusted. His unpredictable outbursts and revelations are particularly memorbable. But there are also some affectionate moments between Bun and his (late? ex?) wife which resonate, underscoring the way relationships are often undermined by memories of a less complicated past.
My only tiny grumble is that the film falls a bit short as a detective story. Since the main character can, at any time, ‘know’ whodunnit and how, there's very little doubt about how the mytery will be solved. Still, what the film may lack in suspense, it more makes up for in originality and humour. Recommend.
In the Q&A after the film, the filmmakers explained that they were influenced by Vincent Van Gogh, who saw in the world around him what others could not. The premise of this film is thus, “What if Van Gogh were a police detective in Hong Kong?” How can you NOT like that?
As they track the disappearance of a missing police detective, the younger colleague, Ho, relies on intellect and facts, while Bun, the mad detective, relies on intuition and a preternatural ability to see the distinct ‘personalities’ that lurk within an individual. Once this skill is established, in a funny scene where a toadying investigative team member’s insecurities are revealed, the perspective shifts back and forth between Bun’s reality and the reality experienced by other characters. The real strength of the film rests on the way the filmmakers exploit this device, setting up scenes where multiple ‘personalities’ are played by actors of different ages, sizes, and genders, often physically grappling with one another.
It makes for fascinating viewing. There’s a nervous energy throughout as the audience is never entirely sure which perspective is ‘real’ or whether Bun can be trusted. His unpredictable outbursts and revelations are particularly memorbable. But there are also some affectionate moments between Bun and his (late? ex?) wife which resonate, underscoring the way relationships are often undermined by memories of a less complicated past.
My only tiny grumble is that the film falls a bit short as a detective story. Since the main character can, at any time, ‘know’ whodunnit and how, there's very little doubt about how the mytery will be solved. Still, what the film may lack in suspense, it more makes up for in originality and humour. Recommend.
In the Q&A after the film, the filmmakers explained that they were influenced by Vincent Van Gogh, who saw in the world around him what others could not. The premise of this film is thus, “What if Van Gogh were a police detective in Hong Kong?” How can you NOT like that?
Free Seat Questionnaire
I am going to have to begin to ask people a few questions before answering if the seat next to me is free. Are you currently well? Are you one of those people who makes random comments to themselves, hums, talks to others, clears their throats or rustles food packaging constantly during movies?
Yesterday a perfectly normal looking individual asked me if they could have the seat beside me.....then she sat down. Sitting down caused her to launch into a long and nasty series of coughs. She then opened up her bag and took out a whole series of cough and cold medications and began applying and taking them. I really wanted to move but the theatre was quite full by that point. Now I am just waiting out the cold incubation period to see if I got a free viral gift while screening this movie.
Anyone else have bad seat mate experiences this year?
Yesterday a perfectly normal looking individual asked me if they could have the seat beside me.....then she sat down. Sitting down caused her to launch into a long and nasty series of coughs. She then opened up her bag and took out a whole series of cough and cold medications and began applying and taking them. I really wanted to move but the theatre was quite full by that point. Now I am just waiting out the cold incubation period to see if I got a free viral gift while screening this movie.
Anyone else have bad seat mate experiences this year?
Shiver me night vision goggles
You know we’re in the final stretch of the fest when audiences start getting goofy. Not sure precisely when it happened but people are now shouting out ‘Arrr’ and ‘Matey’ when the anti-piracy warning scrolls in the opening credits.
And what of the threatened deployment of night vision goggles? I keep looking out for camouflaged ushers creeping through the aisles, periodically scanning the crowd, signaling to each other as they spot a potential offender but…nothing. Of course, maybe I’m just not learned in the subtle art of recording detection in a large theatre. Is this practice so clandestine that it’s happening without my knowledge? If any readers have witnessed a mid-screening pirate takedown, please post here. Oh and, um, yarrr.
And what of the threatened deployment of night vision goggles? I keep looking out for camouflaged ushers creeping through the aisles, periodically scanning the crowd, signaling to each other as they spot a potential offender but…nothing. Of course, maybe I’m just not learned in the subtle art of recording detection in a large theatre. Is this practice so clandestine that it’s happening without my knowledge? If any readers have witnessed a mid-screening pirate takedown, please post here. Oh and, um, yarrr.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Chrysalis
A French (did I mention it's French) noir flic half-heartedly disguised as sci-fi, Chrysalis had many enjoyable elements, but ultimately failed to create enough of a connection with its characters to build much in the way of care, anxiety and catharsis through its (noir-esque) roller-coaster plot.
On the style - substance spectrum, this film, which was made by French people, was heavily skewed towards (you guessed it) style. One suspects that the director (first timer Julien Leclercq) set it in the future so that he could show some cool sleek police uniforms, and excellent designer fridges in sparsely furnished metallic apartment complexes.. That's about as deep as the future gets apparently (which I'm fine with). Paris (France) looks a little greyer, and has a couple of new skyscrapers, if you were wondering. So while not immensely creative in its vision, and definitely not "M"-like (M-esque?) in its disavowal of script quality, one sensed that much more time was spent setting up each shot then in writing the dialogue.
The sci-fi twist involves a machine which allows people (mostly bad guys) to erase memory and re-program personalities, although interestingly the machine was created for good reasons (.....like.....leave it with me) and was stolen by the evil do-ers and used for malicious purposes. There are numerous bloody, bone-crunching, cartilege-julienning showdowns between the psychopathic tortured lead (policeman David Hoffman) and the psychopathic mercenary baddy (Nikolov). David has his memory erased in the third act (which I saw as a bit of a positive) but annoyingly still recognizes Nikolov in the cosmetic surgery clinic where this unlikely retinue seem to hang out, thereby engaging in another mano-a-mano for, oh say, nine minutes. Maybe I just don't like "action" sequences but this stuff is dull with a capital B.
In the end David is fine but chooses to forego his memory, recognizing that he's not sure likes that guy he was. Fair enough.
And I wonder what the same strong raw material would have yielded in the hands of a Teutonic or Slavic director?
On the style - substance spectrum, this film, which was made by French people, was heavily skewed towards (you guessed it) style. One suspects that the director (first timer Julien Leclercq) set it in the future so that he could show some cool sleek police uniforms, and excellent designer fridges in sparsely furnished metallic apartment complexes.. That's about as deep as the future gets apparently (which I'm fine with). Paris (France) looks a little greyer, and has a couple of new skyscrapers, if you were wondering. So while not immensely creative in its vision, and definitely not "M"-like (M-esque?) in its disavowal of script quality, one sensed that much more time was spent setting up each shot then in writing the dialogue.
The sci-fi twist involves a machine which allows people (mostly bad guys) to erase memory and re-program personalities, although interestingly the machine was created for good reasons (.....like.....leave it with me) and was stolen by the evil do-ers and used for malicious purposes. There are numerous bloody, bone-crunching, cartilege-julienning showdowns between the psychopathic tortured lead (policeman David Hoffman) and the psychopathic mercenary baddy (Nikolov). David has his memory erased in the third act (which I saw as a bit of a positive) but annoyingly still recognizes Nikolov in the cosmetic surgery clinic where this unlikely retinue seem to hang out, thereby engaging in another mano-a-mano for, oh say, nine minutes. Maybe I just don't like "action" sequences but this stuff is dull with a capital B.
In the end David is fine but chooses to forego his memory, recognizing that he's not sure likes that guy he was. Fair enough.
And I wonder what the same strong raw material would have yielded in the hands of a Teutonic or Slavic director?
LARS AND THE REAL GIRL
I've been lucky enough to have gone 2 years without seeing a movie at the Ryerson Theatre. That streak ended as I rounded 2 blocks just to find the end of the ticketholder line-up. Now I'm sure this happens at the other venues, but I've never witnessed so blatant an epidemic of people waiting to jump the line. I mean do you really think we don't know what you're doing as you walk up and down the line, talking on your cellphone only to suddenly find your friend as soon as the line starts moving?? Between the line jumpers and those saving whole rows of seats at a time, I'm surprised that Linda and I managed to scrounge-up two. Somebody at TIFF, please, STOP THE SEAT CARTELS!!!
Then, as I walk by the red carpet I discover that Ryan Gosling has usurped my "scraggly beard with puffy hair" look. Isn't it enough that he gets to sleep with Rachel McAdams? Can't he leave anything for the little people? Sheesh
OK - enough venting and on to the movie....
Lars & the Real Girl is the story of a small-town boy who falls in love with a sex doll.
Before you snicker or roll your eyes - I LOVED THIS MOVIE!! What could have easily devolved into Weekend at Bernie's meets The Notebook was instead a hilariously quirky film. Ryan Gosling's performance as Lars was exceptional, as was the rest of the cast. Gosling again harnesses his understated yet immensely powerful charisma he utilized to great effect in Half Nelson. The script was intelligent and touching. Sure, the doll gag got a tad tiring once or twice (a very minor quibble) but overall the story zipped right along and I was totally caught up in Lars' pediophiliac relationship (definition: somebody who is sexually attracted to dolls - not exactly applicable here but I just wanted to impress you with my medical/scientific vocabulary).
I would highly recommend this movie....especially to those who've enjoyed movies like Fargo and The Royal Tennenbaums. This is definitely a feel-good movie without the Disnefication (not a word - I know) the term usually entails.
I had never heard of director Craig Gillespie before this film. My crack research team informs me that's because his first two features were/will be released in 2007. His other film? The cinematic masterpiece Mr. Woodcock. This might qualify him for treatment for multiple personality disorder (just showing off that medical vocabulary again). He may also want to seek treatment for chronic hatism - he's worn a newsboy hat in every picture I've seen of him, his TIFF photo and his appearance last night. Hey Craig, bald is beautiful - set that cranium free!!
Lars & The Real Girl - my favourite film of the festival so far.
Then, as I walk by the red carpet I discover that Ryan Gosling has usurped my "scraggly beard with puffy hair" look. Isn't it enough that he gets to sleep with Rachel McAdams? Can't he leave anything for the little people? Sheesh
OK - enough venting and on to the movie....
Lars & the Real Girl is the story of a small-town boy who falls in love with a sex doll.
Before you snicker or roll your eyes - I LOVED THIS MOVIE!! What could have easily devolved into Weekend at Bernie's meets The Notebook was instead a hilariously quirky film. Ryan Gosling's performance as Lars was exceptional, as was the rest of the cast. Gosling again harnesses his understated yet immensely powerful charisma he utilized to great effect in Half Nelson. The script was intelligent and touching. Sure, the doll gag got a tad tiring once or twice (a very minor quibble) but overall the story zipped right along and I was totally caught up in Lars' pediophiliac relationship (definition: somebody who is sexually attracted to dolls - not exactly applicable here but I just wanted to impress you with my medical/scientific vocabulary).
I would highly recommend this movie....especially to those who've enjoyed movies like Fargo and The Royal Tennenbaums. This is definitely a feel-good movie without the Disnefication (not a word - I know) the term usually entails.
I had never heard of director Craig Gillespie before this film. My crack research team informs me that's because his first two features were/will be released in 2007. His other film? The cinematic masterpiece Mr. Woodcock. This might qualify him for treatment for multiple personality disorder (just showing off that medical vocabulary again). He may also want to seek treatment for chronic hatism - he's worn a newsboy hat in every picture I've seen of him, his TIFF photo and his appearance last night. Hey Craig, bald is beautiful - set that cranium free!!
Lars & The Real Girl - my favourite film of the festival so far.
M
Though I'm tempted to simply invoke the concise yet passionate two-word stuart watson review from last year, I'll elaborate and try to be charitable.
Ostensibly a story about a writer haunted by images and nightmares from his past, 'M' veers from intrique to slapstick comedy to mawkish sentimentality in the span of twenty minutes, then repeats this loop until the film's uninteresting, trite, wholly pointless conclusion. A showcase for the filmmaker's cinematic technique, I will give the movie points for style; from gorgeous sets to carefully edited chase sequences to the use of still-life photography, the director is clearly technically skilled and the premise itself could have been fleshed out into an interesting if somewhat slight narrative. But he gives little if any thought to developing empathic characters, instead presenting a series of bumbling fools who flit from one unconvincing emotional state to the next, usually managing a maniacal laugh or scream along the way, apparently for the sole purpose of irrating the audience.
What else did I like about the film? Very little, other than the fact that it eventually ended, and I could leave. Had I been seated at the end and not the middle of the aisle, this would have occurred thirty minutes into the proceedings. You should be able to guess my recommendation on this one.
No Country for Old Men
I hate to ratchet up the hyperbole on what is already a highly praised/rated film but I'm going to do so anyway. 'No Country for Old Men' is not only the best film I've seen this year but quite possibly the Coen Brothers' best film. Ever.
I suspect most of their fans won't embrace it the same way they do ‘Lebowski’ or ‘Fargo, largely because McCarthy’s source novel offers little in the way of affection or redemption for its main characters (to say nothing of its shockingly poor treatment of those in the periphery) . ‘No Country…’ is executed with such precision, detail, and nuance. Every frame is filled with elements of dark humour, suspense, horror, and intelligence. The dialogue is pitch perfect (better dressed dead bodies are conjectured to be ‘managerial types’, a half naked man in cowboy boots is asked how his footwear is working out for him), with characters spouting a equal measures of wisdom and humour in as few words as possible. The cast is incredibly strong, with particularly impressive turns from Tommy Lee Jones, as the world-weary lawman and Javier Bardem, as the 70s-coiffed killer (more on the doo below).
Looking back, I can't recall a scene that went on too long or didn't leave me hanging on what came next. That the film also contains—somewhat improbably, given the setting is rural Texas-- the most harrowing 'animal pursues human in water' sequence since Jaws (with perhaps a quicker, more cathartic resolution) is further evidence of the filmmakers’ genius, as is creating a chilling psychopath with a page-boy haircut.
I’ll say little about the storyline itself because I don’t want to ruin it for others. I will say that it does not conform to audience expectations and that it offers little for those who may be uncomfortable with a high body count and bloodshed. For everyone else...
Highly Recommend.
I suspect most of their fans won't embrace it the same way they do ‘Lebowski’ or ‘Fargo, largely because McCarthy’s source novel offers little in the way of affection or redemption for its main characters (to say nothing of its shockingly poor treatment of those in the periphery) . ‘No Country…’ is executed with such precision, detail, and nuance. Every frame is filled with elements of dark humour, suspense, horror, and intelligence. The dialogue is pitch perfect (better dressed dead bodies are conjectured to be ‘managerial types’, a half naked man in cowboy boots is asked how his footwear is working out for him), with characters spouting a equal measures of wisdom and humour in as few words as possible. The cast is incredibly strong, with particularly impressive turns from Tommy Lee Jones, as the world-weary lawman and Javier Bardem, as the 70s-coiffed killer (more on the doo below).
Looking back, I can't recall a scene that went on too long or didn't leave me hanging on what came next. That the film also contains—somewhat improbably, given the setting is rural Texas-- the most harrowing 'animal pursues human in water' sequence since Jaws (with perhaps a quicker, more cathartic resolution) is further evidence of the filmmakers’ genius, as is creating a chilling psychopath with a page-boy haircut.
I’ll say little about the storyline itself because I don’t want to ruin it for others. I will say that it does not conform to audience expectations and that it offers little for those who may be uncomfortable with a high body count and bloodshed. For everyone else...
Highly Recommend.
The Banishment
This is a fine film, from Russian director Andrey Zvyagintsev, whose only previous film - The Return - won the Golden Lion at Venice in 2003. I haven't seen The Return but I will definitely look for it now.
As for the Banishment, it's a character study revolving around fidelity, the bonds of family, and the distance that (sometimes) builds over time in our love relationships. Its plot focuses on an apparent affair and a pregnancy. It has some twists and turns so I will leave it at that in terms of narrative. Except to say, the plot takes dramatic shape halfway through the first act with a classic reversal - an unexpected confession, which later is re-examined for its veracity, and in a brilliant third act is revealed for what it truly was. However, the confession itself, upon reflection and revelation of its truth later in the picture, struck me as requiring a pretty huge leap of faith in the viewer. All of which to say that, other than this very central weakness, I thought this was a brilliant screenplay.
The acting is uniformly excellent, such well-drawn characters that will stay with me. I see in re-reading the package that Konstantin Lavrenenko's portrayal of the enigmatic Alex won him the best actor prize at Cannes this year. The other principles are also extremely strong. The cinematography is equally captivating, with gorgeous interweaving of the countryside where much of the film is set, with the nearby bleak and black cityscape (both unidentified, but presumably in Russia) where the characters drive to and from throughout the film.
My early choice for best pic of the fest.
As for the Banishment, it's a character study revolving around fidelity, the bonds of family, and the distance that (sometimes) builds over time in our love relationships. Its plot focuses on an apparent affair and a pregnancy. It has some twists and turns so I will leave it at that in terms of narrative. Except to say, the plot takes dramatic shape halfway through the first act with a classic reversal - an unexpected confession, which later is re-examined for its veracity, and in a brilliant third act is revealed for what it truly was. However, the confession itself, upon reflection and revelation of its truth later in the picture, struck me as requiring a pretty huge leap of faith in the viewer. All of which to say that, other than this very central weakness, I thought this was a brilliant screenplay.
The acting is uniformly excellent, such well-drawn characters that will stay with me. I see in re-reading the package that Konstantin Lavrenenko's portrayal of the enigmatic Alex won him the best actor prize at Cannes this year. The other principles are also extremely strong. The cinematography is equally captivating, with gorgeous interweaving of the countryside where much of the film is set, with the nearby bleak and black cityscape (both unidentified, but presumably in Russia) where the characters drive to and from throughout the film.
My early choice for best pic of the fest.
Monday, September 10, 2007
No Country For Old Men
I will let Kyle and Brian take care of the reviews for this one. Derek...were you there?
I thought it was fantastic and would highly recommend it!
I thought it was fantastic and would highly recommend it!
A Thousand Years of Good Prayers and Princess of Nebraska
On Sunday night the two Wayne Wang films playing at the festival played back to back - two movies for the price of one ticket. I could not resist that bargain.
My review must start before the movies even began. Noah Cowan was on hand to introduce the two films and the director. I know that he must have many films to introduce during these 10 days and that it must all blur together but I do not think it is acceptable to read in a robot like way from cue cards to introduce the movies and the director who is standing right beside you. Was he drunk? Was he rushed? Is he just a poor film introducer? I don't know. All I can say is that I found it embarrassing.
Now to the movies....
A Thousand Years of Good Prayers
A Chinese American woman grates at the presence of her visiting Chinese father. Past history and a recent divorce (one the father finds shameful) mean that dinner each night is full of either tense silence or a series of questions addressed to the daughter about why her marriage did not work and what her father can do to get her married again and producing grandchildren. Many of the scenes of the parent overstepping boundaries and refusing to see his daughter as an adult rang very true. It was an enjoyable movie and was well done but not one I would go out of my way to recommend. I gave it a 2 on the audience choice voting card.
Princess of Nebraska
This movie could be subtitled "should I have an abortion?" Basically the main character spent the length of the film walking around San Fran either being an asshole to people (even those who were trying to help her), playing at prostitution, trying to figure out how much money she could get for her unborn baby on the black market and taking camera phone videos of herself (including shots of her hands and her eye). I think that there is a message to be found on the film about children with lots of money and a lack of direction and values going to school in a strange country. It just didn't appeal to me that much.
The director did speak before the movie and between the two movies. I found what he had to say as he spoke interesting and funny. I didn't stay for the Q and A simply because I was tired and very thirsty.
My review must start before the movies even began. Noah Cowan was on hand to introduce the two films and the director. I know that he must have many films to introduce during these 10 days and that it must all blur together but I do not think it is acceptable to read in a robot like way from cue cards to introduce the movies and the director who is standing right beside you. Was he drunk? Was he rushed? Is he just a poor film introducer? I don't know. All I can say is that I found it embarrassing.
Now to the movies....
A Thousand Years of Good Prayers
A Chinese American woman grates at the presence of her visiting Chinese father. Past history and a recent divorce (one the father finds shameful) mean that dinner each night is full of either tense silence or a series of questions addressed to the daughter about why her marriage did not work and what her father can do to get her married again and producing grandchildren. Many of the scenes of the parent overstepping boundaries and refusing to see his daughter as an adult rang very true. It was an enjoyable movie and was well done but not one I would go out of my way to recommend. I gave it a 2 on the audience choice voting card.
Princess of Nebraska
This movie could be subtitled "should I have an abortion?" Basically the main character spent the length of the film walking around San Fran either being an asshole to people (even those who were trying to help her), playing at prostitution, trying to figure out how much money she could get for her unborn baby on the black market and taking camera phone videos of herself (including shots of her hands and her eye). I think that there is a message to be found on the film about children with lots of money and a lack of direction and values going to school in a strange country. It just didn't appeal to me that much.
The director did speak before the movie and between the two movies. I found what he had to say as he spoke interesting and funny. I didn't stay for the Q and A simply because I was tired and very thirsty.
What's the Dealio?
How come there's no TIFF film trailer this year?? Did they get tired of people cheering? I knew the program cover graphics were dull - but I figured they'd be able to squeeze something out of it.
Also - anybody see anything at the Cumberland? I think they've put in new digital projectors and the picture is amazing - incredibly crisp, even to the untrained eye. I noticed the quality of the picture right away. When I saw a movie at Scotiabank the next night I definitely noticed that the picture wasn't quite as good. Coincidentally, one of the pre-film ads at the Cumberland was for some brand of digital projector - this same ad was not played at the Scotiabank screening. I think I'm on to something here!
Lastly, the Cadillac "Be Original" ads are hilarious. What are some of the plot synopses you've seen so far? My fave is "in this movie we've got 2 cowboys, one horse"
Also - anybody see anything at the Cumberland? I think they've put in new digital projectors and the picture is amazing - incredibly crisp, even to the untrained eye. I noticed the quality of the picture right away. When I saw a movie at Scotiabank the next night I definitely noticed that the picture wasn't quite as good. Coincidentally, one of the pre-film ads at the Cumberland was for some brand of digital projector - this same ad was not played at the Scotiabank screening. I think I'm on to something here!
Lastly, the Cadillac "Be Original" ads are hilarious. What are some of the plot synopses you've seen so far? My fave is "in this movie we've got 2 cowboys, one horse"
BARCELONA (UNA MAPA) / BARCELONA (A MAP)
Another world premiere! A surprisingly packed house greeted us at the Scotiabank theatre as we arrived just in time for the flick.
Barcelona traces the lives of three characters as they intersect with an old couple hellbent on evicting them from the rooming house that they run. Unlike The Man from London, this movie is incredibly heavy on dialogue. It didn't surprise me to find out that this film was based on a play. Although the movie benefits from its ability to use flashback vignettes to illustrate whatever the characters happen to be talking about, this is basically a theatre production committed to film. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but I do question the choice of the original source material. I mean nothing really happens. Sure, we get to discover a few skeletons in the closet and we get to see some shots of the majestic city of Barcelona. But other than that, we invest a large chunk of time getting to know these characters and their dirty little secrets without the payoff of something actually happening. As I've said before, I'm not generally a fan of subtlety so the fault may lie with me and not with the movie - but I'd give this movie a pass. I mean surely you can take adultery, sexual deviance and cross-dressing and make SOMETHING memorable happen - can't you?
Barcelona traces the lives of three characters as they intersect with an old couple hellbent on evicting them from the rooming house that they run. Unlike The Man from London, this movie is incredibly heavy on dialogue. It didn't surprise me to find out that this film was based on a play. Although the movie benefits from its ability to use flashback vignettes to illustrate whatever the characters happen to be talking about, this is basically a theatre production committed to film. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but I do question the choice of the original source material. I mean nothing really happens. Sure, we get to discover a few skeletons in the closet and we get to see some shots of the majestic city of Barcelona. But other than that, we invest a large chunk of time getting to know these characters and their dirty little secrets without the payoff of something actually happening. As I've said before, I'm not generally a fan of subtlety so the fault may lie with me and not with the movie - but I'd give this movie a pass. I mean surely you can take adultery, sexual deviance and cross-dressing and make SOMETHING memorable happen - can't you?
BOY A
My first film of the festival and a world premiere to boot!
The story behind Boy A is loosely inspired by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson - the 10-year olds that kidnapped and murdered 2-year old James Bulger in 1993. The film centres on "Jack". We meet him as a young man just being released from prison. He has spent the majority of his life behind bars due to his participation in a sadistic crime as a young school boy. There is such public hatred towards him that he is forced to enter a sort of witness protection program for felons. As a result, he takes on a whole new persona in a new city with his only support being the life coach assigned to him. We are taken on his journey to settle into his new city, get a job, make new friends and even date - all while he struggles to adjust to life "on the outside" and the fact that he is forced to be dishonest with everybody he knows in regards to his past.
The film moves along at a good pace. The performances are understated and totally believable. I would especially commend the young actor who played Philip - Jack's partner in crime (literally). The key to his role was to walk a line between pure evil and childhood vulnerability - a difficult task to be sure and he handles it brilliantly.
We catch glimpses of the crime in flashback sequences and we begin to understand the horror of this boy's past. The film leaves us with unanswered questions regarding forgiveness and an individual's right to a second chance. Definitely one of those movies that would provoke discussion following a viewing.
I liked the movie - certainly better than average. The English accents were tough to decipher at times - but hey, I guess that is to be expected in a movie from the UK.
Before I actually saw the film I was trying to find out some info about it (like Sarah, I was taking my parents to the movie and was concerned about the potential for "uncomfortable content"). I was a little disappointed to learn that this movie was originally made for British TV. Although this calmed my fears of scenes involving a huge Roman orgy or a prolonged torture sequence, I automatically lowered my expectations assuming I was about to catch a Lifetime movie of the week. Now, I don't know whats considered acceptable for network viewing in England, but I was wrong on both counts. Apparently lots of sex on TV is OK. As well, the quality of the film was excellent - far better than what you would expect from North American television and I wouldn't be surprised if it got a theatre release on this side of the pond (the fact that the Weinstein Group scooped up the worldwide rights to it before anybody really had a chance to see it kind of supports my hypothesis).
Lastly, Andrew Garfield, the actor who plays Jack has generated quite a nice buzz for himself as a result of his perfomance. Monday's Star had a fairly lengthy article about him predicting all sorts of future big things for him (apparently his next film is with Tom Cruise and Robert Redford). If this little bit of fortune telling proves true, I can say I was there for the premiere of his first film and that he was quite polite as he excused himself to get by me on the way to the bathroom.
The story behind Boy A is loosely inspired by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson - the 10-year olds that kidnapped and murdered 2-year old James Bulger in 1993. The film centres on "Jack". We meet him as a young man just being released from prison. He has spent the majority of his life behind bars due to his participation in a sadistic crime as a young school boy. There is such public hatred towards him that he is forced to enter a sort of witness protection program for felons. As a result, he takes on a whole new persona in a new city with his only support being the life coach assigned to him. We are taken on his journey to settle into his new city, get a job, make new friends and even date - all while he struggles to adjust to life "on the outside" and the fact that he is forced to be dishonest with everybody he knows in regards to his past.
The film moves along at a good pace. The performances are understated and totally believable. I would especially commend the young actor who played Philip - Jack's partner in crime (literally). The key to his role was to walk a line between pure evil and childhood vulnerability - a difficult task to be sure and he handles it brilliantly.
We catch glimpses of the crime in flashback sequences and we begin to understand the horror of this boy's past. The film leaves us with unanswered questions regarding forgiveness and an individual's right to a second chance. Definitely one of those movies that would provoke discussion following a viewing.
I liked the movie - certainly better than average. The English accents were tough to decipher at times - but hey, I guess that is to be expected in a movie from the UK.
Before I actually saw the film I was trying to find out some info about it (like Sarah, I was taking my parents to the movie and was concerned about the potential for "uncomfortable content"). I was a little disappointed to learn that this movie was originally made for British TV. Although this calmed my fears of scenes involving a huge Roman orgy or a prolonged torture sequence, I automatically lowered my expectations assuming I was about to catch a Lifetime movie of the week. Now, I don't know whats considered acceptable for network viewing in England, but I was wrong on both counts. Apparently lots of sex on TV is OK. As well, the quality of the film was excellent - far better than what you would expect from North American television and I wouldn't be surprised if it got a theatre release on this side of the pond (the fact that the Weinstein Group scooped up the worldwide rights to it before anybody really had a chance to see it kind of supports my hypothesis).
Lastly, Andrew Garfield, the actor who plays Jack has generated quite a nice buzz for himself as a result of his perfomance. Monday's Star had a fairly lengthy article about him predicting all sorts of future big things for him (apparently his next film is with Tom Cruise and Robert Redford). If this little bit of fortune telling proves true, I can say I was there for the premiere of his first film and that he was quite polite as he excused himself to get by me on the way to the bathroom.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Nothing Is Private
Oh my goodness!
Last night I attended the screening of Nothing Is Private as my first film festival movie this year. A fabulous movie. It shows us a short period of time in a 13 year old girls life. Jasira has been sent to live with her father in a Texas suburb after her mother learns of inappropriate behaviour that has occurred in her home. She decides that her daughter is out of control and needs more discipline in her upbringing. So Jasira leaves the home of her self centred, manipulative mother to live in the home of her ultra-strict, abusive father. Since she receives no love and only the most basic care from her parents, Jasira accepts the attention of men. This is the most basic of descriptions. To give any other detail is to destroy the tension the film opens with and continues to build until the very last moment.
This is a movie that you feel in your gut. Although none of the characters in this movie are entirely evil or good, we do spend a great deal of time with the nasty bits of these people. The nastiness and redeeming moments are carried off because of the talents of the actors. There is not a bad performance in the movie. In fact, all performances were amazing. The movie also succeeds because of the fine script (based on the novel "Towelhead" by Alicia Erian) and excellent direction.
There will be many comparison's with American Beauty. There are many similar themes in the two films: bigotry, the sexuality of young people, abusive family relationships and social isolation. Some of these same themes were even to be found in Six Feet Under. Nothing Is Private, American Beauty and Six Feet Under all also use daydreams to show the inner thoughts of characters. I believe that Nothing Is Private stands on its own.
The only drawback to my experience last night was that this was the movie that I chose to take my parents to. I had worried that the movie might be racy and might be uncomfortable to have watched with parents. Visions in my head of what racy material I might see were far surpassed by a huge volume uncomfortable sexual material. If you are not comfortable with movies that involve the shaving of a 13 year old's genital area more than once.....do not take your parents to see this movie! Now....having said that I must point out that all sexual material in the movie is very tastefully handled. Many events are implied rather than viewed and my parents did tell me that they thought the movie was excellent. Still I feel pretty comfortable saying that it is not a movie that most people would feel comfortable viewing with their folks.
The cast and the director attended our screening and took part in a very enjoyable Q and A.
Last night I attended the screening of Nothing Is Private as my first film festival movie this year. A fabulous movie. It shows us a short period of time in a 13 year old girls life. Jasira has been sent to live with her father in a Texas suburb after her mother learns of inappropriate behaviour that has occurred in her home. She decides that her daughter is out of control and needs more discipline in her upbringing. So Jasira leaves the home of her self centred, manipulative mother to live in the home of her ultra-strict, abusive father. Since she receives no love and only the most basic care from her parents, Jasira accepts the attention of men. This is the most basic of descriptions. To give any other detail is to destroy the tension the film opens with and continues to build until the very last moment.
This is a movie that you feel in your gut. Although none of the characters in this movie are entirely evil or good, we do spend a great deal of time with the nasty bits of these people. The nastiness and redeeming moments are carried off because of the talents of the actors. There is not a bad performance in the movie. In fact, all performances were amazing. The movie also succeeds because of the fine script (based on the novel "Towelhead" by Alicia Erian) and excellent direction.
There will be many comparison's with American Beauty. There are many similar themes in the two films: bigotry, the sexuality of young people, abusive family relationships and social isolation. Some of these same themes were even to be found in Six Feet Under. Nothing Is Private, American Beauty and Six Feet Under all also use daydreams to show the inner thoughts of characters. I believe that Nothing Is Private stands on its own.
The only drawback to my experience last night was that this was the movie that I chose to take my parents to. I had worried that the movie might be racy and might be uncomfortable to have watched with parents. Visions in my head of what racy material I might see were far surpassed by a huge volume uncomfortable sexual material. If you are not comfortable with movies that involve the shaving of a 13 year old's genital area more than once.....do not take your parents to see this movie! Now....having said that I must point out that all sexual material in the movie is very tastefully handled. Many events are implied rather than viewed and my parents did tell me that they thought the movie was excellent. Still I feel pretty comfortable saying that it is not a movie that most people would feel comfortable viewing with their folks.
The cast and the director attended our screening and took part in a very enjoyable Q and A.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
The Man From London
I started out my festival this year with Hungarian director Bela Tarr's take on film noir, The Man From London. The film is based on a Georges Simenon novel (though not a Maigret), and contains many of the elements of the famous French crime writer (the few that I have read anyway) - a cerebral, almost philosophical slow-motion plot, and a central crisis of morality, rather than crime per se.
However, Tarr is a supreme stylist (I've spent a little while looking him up after seeing TMFL), and his take on Simenon and film noir generally is unlike any I have ever seen. Indeed, his style is completely new to me - though Kyle mentioned Bergman as a possible influence, and I don't disagree - so I'll try to describe the style of the film and its effect, rather than the plot or other elements.
It's shot in rich, beautiful black and white, particularly well suited to its setting, an ancient European port, mostly at night. The key stylistic elements are pace and stillness - Tarr uses long (excruciatingly long on many occassions) shots and a very slow and still camera to evoke the loneliness, monotony, and pain of its central characters' lives. We watch the main character walk from the local bar to the port's breakwall for a minute and a half; we see the same man's wife screaming at him over a misguided purchase of a fur wrap for their daughter, and the camera stays on her for 45 seconds after he has left and she has stopped crying; we watch the detective (the Man From London) interviewing the wife of a key supsect in the robbery (but never mind the plot), and we close in on her face for possibly as long as 7 or 8 minutes - as an interminable accordion plays on and grows in volume. The opening shot of the film is twelve minutes long, half of which is the slowest pan in film history (I'm guessing) up the hull of a passenger ship. There are countless other examples...and yes, I did start using my watch to time some of the by the end. I was curious (and bored). All in tight close up. If you hadn't intuited this already, there's very little talking; I'm guessing about 100 lines of dialogue, and the film is 2hrs 15 long.
So, yes, it was extremely difficult to watch at times. Particularly after you absorb the technical elements, and are waiting for something to "happen". On another level, it was fascinating, and strangely refreshing to find a director who slows everything down - not a common technique these days. And, to be fair, things do happen, the plot does advance in a torpid fashion, to a meaningful conclusion, so that is not a weakness. However, I found that the exaggeration of style largely overwhelmed that plot.
One becomes aware very early on that the agony of watching this, in sharing each character's simplest action, and tortured thought, is at least partially the point of the exercise, but that didn't win me over in the theatre. And so by the third act I was more than ready for it to end. However, after the fact the film continues to resonate - like the languid but powerful pace of a Bruckner symphony (I would have liked to have used Bartok here to keep the Hungarian theme intact, but it's nothing like Bartok). So, if you're up for a unique, very challenging piece of film-making, then sure, why not consider The Man From London. Be brave.
However, Tarr is a supreme stylist (I've spent a little while looking him up after seeing TMFL), and his take on Simenon and film noir generally is unlike any I have ever seen. Indeed, his style is completely new to me - though Kyle mentioned Bergman as a possible influence, and I don't disagree - so I'll try to describe the style of the film and its effect, rather than the plot or other elements.
It's shot in rich, beautiful black and white, particularly well suited to its setting, an ancient European port, mostly at night. The key stylistic elements are pace and stillness - Tarr uses long (excruciatingly long on many occassions) shots and a very slow and still camera to evoke the loneliness, monotony, and pain of its central characters' lives. We watch the main character walk from the local bar to the port's breakwall for a minute and a half; we see the same man's wife screaming at him over a misguided purchase of a fur wrap for their daughter, and the camera stays on her for 45 seconds after he has left and she has stopped crying; we watch the detective (the Man From London) interviewing the wife of a key supsect in the robbery (but never mind the plot), and we close in on her face for possibly as long as 7 or 8 minutes - as an interminable accordion plays on and grows in volume. The opening shot of the film is twelve minutes long, half of which is the slowest pan in film history (I'm guessing) up the hull of a passenger ship. There are countless other examples...and yes, I did start using my watch to time some of the by the end. I was curious (and bored). All in tight close up. If you hadn't intuited this already, there's very little talking; I'm guessing about 100 lines of dialogue, and the film is 2hrs 15 long.
So, yes, it was extremely difficult to watch at times. Particularly after you absorb the technical elements, and are waiting for something to "happen". On another level, it was fascinating, and strangely refreshing to find a director who slows everything down - not a common technique these days. And, to be fair, things do happen, the plot does advance in a torpid fashion, to a meaningful conclusion, so that is not a weakness. However, I found that the exaggeration of style largely overwhelmed that plot.
One becomes aware very early on that the agony of watching this, in sharing each character's simplest action, and tortured thought, is at least partially the point of the exercise, but that didn't win me over in the theatre. And so by the third act I was more than ready for it to end. However, after the fact the film continues to resonate - like the languid but powerful pace of a Bruckner symphony (I would have liked to have used Bartok here to keep the Hungarian theme intact, but it's nothing like Bartok). So, if you're up for a unique, very challenging piece of film-making, then sure, why not consider The Man From London. Be brave.
Control
As suspected, I loved this film.
Most biopics of musicians follow the standard, drearily predictable story arc: artist grows up in obscurity/pain, catches a break, becomes successful (montage of screaming fans, billboard chart listing, spinning record should the era require it), starts to show signs of becoming an asshole, artist really becomes an asshole (requisite scene where angry wife throws a glass against a wall) something really bad happens to artist involving drugs, alcohol, violence, or a combination of all three, artist hits rock bottom, artist finds redemption, gives one last great performance, title credits explain what happens to every tangential character in the film; in short, tedious fare I avoid like the plague.
But a few years ago I read ‘Touching from a Distance’ by Deborah Curtis on which ‘Control’ is at least partly based, the story of her late husband and his band, Joy Division. It was a very honest, moving book, remarkable for its heartfelt sincerity and its refusal to overdramatize or psychoanalyze. Similarly, first-time feature director Anton Corbijn avoids the forementioned cliches, opting to treats the people in the story with a restrained dignity that celebrates the life of Ian Curtis and the music of Joy Division. That his first job is as a photographer means that the look of the film is incredible, the black and white scenes adding lightness and melanchology in equal turns.
Sam Riley gives an amazing performance, particularly during the concert scenes where he just becomes Ian Curtis, capturing the lead singer’s lanky, slightly spastic, raging dance moves and microphone posture perfectly. The other members of Joy Division/New Order also were well cast, never dominating but not simply there as decoration to the story. The decision to have the actors play the songs gave the concert scenes an added dose of energy, and the use of select original recordings as background were well-timed.
Ultimately, of course, it’s a sad film, and the scene that you know is coming and are dreading is distressing, but isn’t drawn-out. One of the final moments on screen fo Samantha Morton, as his wife Deborah, occupies only seconds of screen time but may be one of the saddest I’ve watched in recent memory. It's all the more effective for capturing, in its brevity, the tragegy of a family abandonned and a shining career lost.
Also bittersweet was seeing the recently deceased Tony Wilson depicted on screen again. Steve Coogan was great playing the former owner of Factory records and early Joy Division supporter in 24 Hour Party People, and here Craig Parkinson is remarkable as well.
Highly Recommend.
Most biopics of musicians follow the standard, drearily predictable story arc: artist grows up in obscurity/pain, catches a break, becomes successful (montage of screaming fans, billboard chart listing, spinning record should the era require it), starts to show signs of becoming an asshole, artist really becomes an asshole (requisite scene where angry wife throws a glass against a wall) something really bad happens to artist involving drugs, alcohol, violence, or a combination of all three, artist hits rock bottom, artist finds redemption, gives one last great performance, title credits explain what happens to every tangential character in the film; in short, tedious fare I avoid like the plague.
But a few years ago I read ‘Touching from a Distance’ by Deborah Curtis on which ‘Control’ is at least partly based, the story of her late husband and his band, Joy Division. It was a very honest, moving book, remarkable for its heartfelt sincerity and its refusal to overdramatize or psychoanalyze. Similarly, first-time feature director Anton Corbijn avoids the forementioned cliches, opting to treats the people in the story with a restrained dignity that celebrates the life of Ian Curtis and the music of Joy Division. That his first job is as a photographer means that the look of the film is incredible, the black and white scenes adding lightness and melanchology in equal turns.
Sam Riley gives an amazing performance, particularly during the concert scenes where he just becomes Ian Curtis, capturing the lead singer’s lanky, slightly spastic, raging dance moves and microphone posture perfectly. The other members of Joy Division/New Order also were well cast, never dominating but not simply there as decoration to the story. The decision to have the actors play the songs gave the concert scenes an added dose of energy, and the use of select original recordings as background were well-timed.
Ultimately, of course, it’s a sad film, and the scene that you know is coming and are dreading is distressing, but isn’t drawn-out. One of the final moments on screen fo Samantha Morton, as his wife Deborah, occupies only seconds of screen time but may be one of the saddest I’ve watched in recent memory. It's all the more effective for capturing, in its brevity, the tragegy of a family abandonned and a shining career lost.
Also bittersweet was seeing the recently deceased Tony Wilson depicted on screen again. Steve Coogan was great playing the former owner of Factory records and early Joy Division supporter in 24 Hour Party People, and here Craig Parkinson is remarkable as well.
Highly Recommend.
THE BATTLE IN SEATTLE
Another dispatch from my brother
"One of the best movies I've seen in a long time (with him watching movies like Balls of Fury on a regular basis, please take this with a grain of salt). I didn't really even know about any of the events that the movie was centred on. It didn't really matter - the movie told a very powerful story. As for star power, Charlize Theron, Michelle Rodrigues and Andre 3000 (???) were all there - as was writer/director Stu Townshend (apparently Charlize had to sleep with him to get the part). And Ryerson theatre still sucks"
Maybe one day I'll get to write a review of a movie that I've actually watched.
"One of the best movies I've seen in a long time (with him watching movies like Balls of Fury on a regular basis, please take this with a grain of salt). I didn't really even know about any of the events that the movie was centred on. It didn't really matter - the movie told a very powerful story. As for star power, Charlize Theron, Michelle Rodrigues and Andre 3000 (???) were all there - as was writer/director Stu Townshend (apparently Charlize had to sleep with him to get the part). And Ryerson theatre still sucks"
Maybe one day I'll get to write a review of a movie that I've actually watched.
THE BRAVE ONE
OK - I didn't watch this - my brother did - but I got him the tickets. Here is his review:
"Jody Foster, Terrence Howard and the director (Neil Jordan) were all there. It was too commercial. Even with the warnings of extreme violence there wasn't anything too off the wall. Just take what you would expect to happen in a vigilante pic and that's exactly what happened in this movie. Ya, and the balcony at Ryerson sucks!"
Too commercial??!! This coming from the guy who selected Shark's Tale (quite) a few years ago. My little brother is all grows up!!
Boy A tonight - with my parents. I think I have the same fears we all do when we accompany our parents to a movie we really know nothing about. At least Harvey Keitel isn't in this one.
"Jody Foster, Terrence Howard and the director (Neil Jordan) were all there. It was too commercial. Even with the warnings of extreme violence there wasn't anything too off the wall. Just take what you would expect to happen in a vigilante pic and that's exactly what happened in this movie. Ya, and the balcony at Ryerson sucks!"
Too commercial??!! This coming from the guy who selected Shark's Tale (quite) a few years ago. My little brother is all grows up!!
Boy A tonight - with my parents. I think I have the same fears we all do when we accompany our parents to a movie we really know nothing about. At least Harvey Keitel isn't in this one.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Mad Props for Mad Detective
Also some dissent on the previously linked 'masterpiece' status of 'Useless'.
Control, yes. Self-control, no.
Okay, no more trips to the online Box Office for me. It's become an obsession.
Online at 7am this morning to report another day of non-paper delivery to the Globe and Mail (arrgh), I drifted over to the Tiff site to see by chance if there were any tickets to Control available. Lo and behold, I managed to snag a ticket to tonight's 9:45pm performance.
So, if you are looking to pick up tix for films you didn't get, you might try going online at 7am.
Online at 7am this morning to report another day of non-paper delivery to the Globe and Mail (arrgh), I drifted over to the Tiff site to see by chance if there were any tickets to Control available. Lo and behold, I managed to snag a ticket to tonight's 9:45pm performance.
So, if you are looking to pick up tix for films you didn't get, you might try going online at 7am.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Looking forward and back
What am I most looking forward to? Like Kyle I chose the Cohen brothers movie on Monday as a replacement for a ticket I didn't get. I figured that it would be coming out in wide release soon and that I would see it then. Now that I have the ticket I am quite excited about it.
What am I most worried about? I am worried about seeing a movie described in part to be about the sexual awakening of a teenager with my parents on Saturday (Nothing is Private). What was I thinking? My mom fast forwarded through the love scene from Top Gun when I watched it with her many years ago.......
But really, I will be happy if I can get by this year without an experience as bad as "Trauma" two years back, the mind numbingly dull experience of the Thai film I walked out of last year or the experience of seeing Harvey Keitel naked again.
Sadly, I have to wait until Saturday for my 1st movie.
What am I most worried about? I am worried about seeing a movie described in part to be about the sexual awakening of a teenager with my parents on Saturday (Nothing is Private). What was I thinking? My mom fast forwarded through the love scene from Top Gun when I watched it with her many years ago.......
But really, I will be happy if I can get by this year without an experience as bad as "Trauma" two years back, the mind numbingly dull experience of the Thai film I walked out of last year or the experience of seeing Harvey Keitel naked again.
Sadly, I have to wait until Saturday for my 1st movie.
It was the worst of times, it was the worst of times
Brian, are we to choose the presumed worst from just your picks or our own? Might as well go through all our lists.
From Brian’s list, the obvious choice is Chrysalis, because it’s a French sci-fi thriller and I’m deeply suspicious of this combination genre, as I suspect it’s going to take itself far too seriously. Despite the presence of the ever luminous Juliette Binoche, sporting the blond locks that I spied when she passed within a few feet of me last year, je pense Le Voyage du Ballon Rouge va etre un voyage très ennuyeux pour m. Derek. Have a sneaking suspicion that Sarah will dislike the one I just got her yesterday ‘Silent Resident’ because it will get be too sci-fi and not enough thriller and that Da…I mean…festival co-director #3 will find himself deeply confused about which way to go regarding XXY. My biggest question mark is ‘A Gentle Breeze in the Village’, which my parents are seeing with me. It has the potential to be either too saccharine-y, too slow, or a lethal combination of both.
Back to celebs, I have a feeling that I’m most likely to bump (that’s with a b not an h, Bri, honestly…) into Rachel McAdams on my way out of Married Life as I frantically try to make Mad Detective on time. I see myself quickly explaining to her that I’d love to stay for Q & A but that Johnnie To beckons. She’s cool w/ it but Ryan Gosling gives me dirty looks and the two of us end up starting a massive brawl later that evening in the lobby of the Four Seasons Hotel. I scramble out a side door, ducking and narrowing avoiding a punch from Jodie Foster that inadvertently lands on Woody Allen (who consequently hightails it back to Manhattan, vowing never to return to TO), and look up to see Keira K staring down at me. She asks me where she can find really good falafel so we cab it to the Annex and….okay…NOW I’m getting silly.
Another question, given the glowing reviews of the Coen Brothers flick, are we bound to be disappointed? Even though it wasn’t among my initial picks, it’s now the film that I’m most looking forward to seeing. Hope that isn't the case. Happy film going, all!
UPDATE: We're number 1! Or possibly 2!
Interesting article in the Star today. The last paragraph illustrates why Piers is Da Man: articulate, gracious when it comes to describing competitors, but with a balsy certitude in stating, simply that Toronto is THE fall festival. You, Mr. Handling, rock!
From Brian’s list, the obvious choice is Chrysalis, because it’s a French sci-fi thriller and I’m deeply suspicious of this combination genre, as I suspect it’s going to take itself far too seriously. Despite the presence of the ever luminous Juliette Binoche, sporting the blond locks that I spied when she passed within a few feet of me last year, je pense Le Voyage du Ballon Rouge va etre un voyage très ennuyeux pour m. Derek. Have a sneaking suspicion that Sarah will dislike the one I just got her yesterday ‘Silent Resident’ because it will get be too sci-fi and not enough thriller and that Da…I mean…festival co-director #3 will find himself deeply confused about which way to go regarding XXY. My biggest question mark is ‘A Gentle Breeze in the Village’, which my parents are seeing with me. It has the potential to be either too saccharine-y, too slow, or a lethal combination of both.
Back to celebs, I have a feeling that I’m most likely to bump (that’s with a b not an h, Bri, honestly…) into Rachel McAdams on my way out of Married Life as I frantically try to make Mad Detective on time. I see myself quickly explaining to her that I’d love to stay for Q & A but that Johnnie To beckons. She’s cool w/ it but Ryan Gosling gives me dirty looks and the two of us end up starting a massive brawl later that evening in the lobby of the Four Seasons Hotel. I scramble out a side door, ducking and narrowing avoiding a punch from Jodie Foster that inadvertently lands on Woody Allen (who consequently hightails it back to Manhattan, vowing never to return to TO), and look up to see Keira K staring down at me. She asks me where she can find really good falafel so we cab it to the Annex and….okay…NOW I’m getting silly.
Another question, given the glowing reviews of the Coen Brothers flick, are we bound to be disappointed? Even though it wasn’t among my initial picks, it’s now the film that I’m most looking forward to seeing. Hope that isn't the case. Happy film going, all!
UPDATE: We're number 1! Or possibly 2!
Interesting article in the Star today. The last paragraph illustrates why Piers is Da Man: articulate, gracious when it comes to describing competitors, but with a balsy certitude in stating, simply that Toronto is THE fall festival. You, Mr. Handling, rock!
Ironically, I turned in two tickets to Useless on Monday. It did look interesting, but I had my eye on a few others.
Celebrities I'd like to bump into (is that a euphimism?).....let me mull on that. OK, how about Laura Linney? She's my age, is great in almost every flic she's in, reasonably well fed, and darned attractive.
The game I like to play at this point is, to guess which film will be the best and the worst from among my picks. I'm thinking that Silent Resident may be the best, based on the plot summary, the simple picture, and the fact that it's German, and not French. The one with the greatest potential for failure is clearly Man From London, the review of which proclaims its mood of a "vacuum in which no joy may enter", and celebrates "long periods of silence and stasis". The dark horse is The Banishment, whose director last film won the Golden Lion in Venice in 2003...mind you, it's a relationship film that runs 2 1/2 hours.
Celebrities I'd like to bump into (is that a euphimism?).....let me mull on that. OK, how about Laura Linney? She's my age, is great in almost every flic she's in, reasonably well fed, and darned attractive.
The game I like to play at this point is, to guess which film will be the best and the worst from among my picks. I'm thinking that Silent Resident may be the best, based on the plot summary, the simple picture, and the fact that it's German, and not French. The one with the greatest potential for failure is clearly Man From London, the review of which proclaims its mood of a "vacuum in which no joy may enter", and celebrates "long periods of silence and stasis". The dark horse is The Banishment, whose director last film won the Golden Lion in Venice in 2003...mind you, it's a relationship film that runs 2 1/2 hours.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Goodbye skinny ebert
After reading an article in The Star regarding Roger Ebert's battle with cancer and his return to active "festival duty" at TIFF, I have finally been persuaded that my former psuedonym was in very poor taste.
So in honour of Piers Handling and his arch nemesis Noah Cowan I am now "festival co-director #3"
Nice to meet all of you (again)
So in honour of Piers Handling and his arch nemesis Noah Cowan I am now "festival co-director #3"
Nice to meet all of you (again)
So Tired, Tired of Waiting....
no reviews yet, obviously but interesting reading from the Venice festival about films that will be playing at TIFF. apparently, derek, you've chosen a masterpiece in 'Useless'. will look forward to hearing your impressions, especially now that i've raised your expectations.
couldn't resist a visit to the online box office this morning. added 'King of the Hill' on Friday September 14th at 9:15pm to my list and 'Silent Resident' on Thursday September 13th to Sarah's list. $20/per ticket w/ a $4.75 handling fee per order is not bad, at least relative to what they are charging for VSR and Gala tix.
still two days till my first film so i'll pose another question to the group:
are there any celebrities you'd like to bump into this week?
i'm hoping keira knightley will ask me to take her out for a proper meal or at the very least that she will flirt with me shamelessly. since i'm not seeing 'atonement', i'm guessing the chances of this happening are quite remote. if i were seeing 'atonement', my chances would be...well...quite remote. still, she's very pretty, albeit slim, which i think is my point.
couldn't resist a visit to the online box office this morning. added 'King of the Hill' on Friday September 14th at 9:15pm to my list and 'Silent Resident' on Thursday September 13th to Sarah's list. $20/per ticket w/ a $4.75 handling fee per order is not bad, at least relative to what they are charging for VSR and Gala tix.
still two days till my first film so i'll pose another question to the group:
are there any celebrities you'd like to bump into this week?
i'm hoping keira knightley will ask me to take her out for a proper meal or at the very least that she will flirt with me shamelessly. since i'm not seeing 'atonement', i'm guessing the chances of this happening are quite remote. if i were seeing 'atonement', my chances would be...well...quite remote. still, she's very pretty, albeit slim, which i think is my point.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Daniel's Picks
Boy A - Sept 8
Barcelona (A Map) - Sept 9
Lars & The Real Girl - Sept 10
XXY - Sept 13
Son of Rambow - Sept 14
Barcelona (A Map) - Sept 9
Lars & The Real Girl - Sept 10
XXY - Sept 13
Son of Rambow - Sept 14
Sarah's Picks
Nothing is Private - Saturday September 8
A Thousand Years of Good Prayers and Princess of Nebraska - Sunday September 9
No Country For Old Men - Monday September 10
The Past - Wednesday September 12
And Along Come Tourists - Wednesday September 12
Silent Resident -Thursday 13th
Chaotic Ana - Friday September 14
Shadows - Saturday September 15
Kyle's List
Okay, the final list:
Friday September 7th - The Man from London
Saturday September 8th - Happiness
Sunday September 9th - La Zona
Thursday September 13th - A Gentle Breeze in the Village
Saturday September 15th - Shadows
Very odd that I don't have any French films this year. Guess my first review will be here on either Friday night or Saturday morning. Until then, you can amuse yourselves looking at trailers at the TIFF screening room site.
Friday September 7th - The Man from London
Saturday September 8th - Happiness
Sunday September 9th - La Zona
Monday September 10th - No Country for Old Men, M
Wednesday September 12th - Married Life, Mad Detective Thursday September 13th - A Gentle Breeze in the Village
Saturday September 15th - Shadows
Very odd that I don't have any French films this year. Guess my first review will be here on either Friday night or Saturday morning. Until then, you can amuse yourselves looking at trailers at the TIFF screening room site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)