I had my last two films on Friday. First up was L'intouchable, Benoit Jacquot's latest film, about identity and belonging as seen through the eyes of Jeanne, a young actress in Paris. It is shot in an energetic verite style, with much of the action expressed in a determinedly verasimilitude fashion. The plot concerns Jeanne's search for her father, whom we discover in the first few scenes was an Indian, living near the Ganges, with whom Jeanne's faded bohemian mom had a one-night stand.
The film is shot, loosely, half in Paris and half in Delhi. For me, and I'm pretty sure this was Jacquot's intention, it really came to life when we hit the streets of Delhi. There was a "Sun Also Rises"-like existenstialism to this; whereby the search for Jeanne's identity drove a more profound and meaningful experience. The filming in India felt intensely real; the arrival at the airport, the subseqent street and public transit scenes, and the Ganges itself (particularly the footage of the burial rituals) were fantastic.
The problem I found was that the plot, which relied on the motivation of Jeanne to understand her life better, didn't feel believable. I never really got why going to the Ganges to meet the man who unknowingly impregnated her mother would make everything fall into place for her. And ultimately, she comes to the same empty realization - the meeting of the father never really occurs, she has spent all of her energy on a confused search (mistaken identity - she meets his brother), and basically no longer needs to understand more. The film ends abruptly and anti-climatically, and while this is no doubt the message that Jacquot wanted to convey - like, life is complex and its journey can change us in different ways than we expect - it makes for an unsatisfying, and what feels like an under-written (certainly underfilmed, as it all resolves in about three minutes) conclusion.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Sunday, September 17, 2006
TIFF Awards
Here's a biased summary from the Torontoist. Glad to see Reprise get some love from the credits but I'm not familiar with the other winners.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
rotten tomatoes
Rotten Tomatoes has a whole scetion dedicated to their reviews from TIFF. Thought I would share.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/features/special/2006/toronto_film_festival/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/features/special/2006/toronto_film_festival/
Friday, September 15, 2006
The volunteer love gets quieter with each screening...
...which tells you that the festival will soon be over. Hoping to post some mini reviews this afternoon of Paris Je T'aime, Beauty in Trouble, 7 ans, Woman on the Beach (a footnote to Brian's excellent review), Il Caimano, and this morning's film L'intouchable, which I liked quite a bit (hint of what's to come).
If you've done your films, perhaps you can rank the ones you've seen, in whatever order you see fit, with any comments about the festival this year in general.
2 more to go tomorrow and then sadly, it's done.
If you've done your films, perhaps you can rank the ones you've seen, in whatever order you see fit, with any comments about the festival this year in general.
2 more to go tomorrow and then sadly, it's done.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Nue Propriete (Private Property)
Let me start off by saying that I am biased - I generally don't like French films - they don't interest me (a French film with John Tuturro??!! - now that interests me). Maybe it has something to do with falling asleep during French class - I don't know. I do like other French things.....wine, cheese, kissing, bread, pencil thin moustaches, Napoleon complexes, mimes...so I'm not a total Francophobe.
The movie follows the divorced mother of twin boys. She wants to sell their house so she can open a B&B with her new lover. The twins, of course, oppose. We are subjected to various scenes of conflict - mainly involving boring conversations around the dinner table. The director later stated that he relied heavily on the dinner table to illustrate the mother feeding the "monsters" she has created. MONSTERS??!!! This guy should come to dinner at my house. If he saw the twins as monsters he'd see my family as the direct descendents of Satan. The movie comes to a predictable violent climax that really is not so violent.
You may be reaching the conclusion that I just can't appreciate subtlety. You might have a point. Unfortunately for you, this is about my opinion. My opinion is that this was a plodding movie that never really went anywhere. The Festival program GROSSLY oversold this movie by describing it as the film "with some of the best acting in the festival" (Noah Cowan - you would have LOVED my performance as Pony Boy in high school). I never felt like I got to know any of the characters in any depth. I felt the twins were horribly miscast and were far too old to be playing the age you were supposed to believe they were (they bathed together, their mother bathed in front of them, they double-rided (rode?) through the fields on their motorbike, they talked about girls while playing ping pong, they played video games). I suppose Isabelle Huppert's turn as the keeper of the monsters was OK - but one performance does not a movie make.
You'd have more fun spending 2 hours French kissing.
The movie follows the divorced mother of twin boys. She wants to sell their house so she can open a B&B with her new lover. The twins, of course, oppose. We are subjected to various scenes of conflict - mainly involving boring conversations around the dinner table. The director later stated that he relied heavily on the dinner table to illustrate the mother feeding the "monsters" she has created. MONSTERS??!!! This guy should come to dinner at my house. If he saw the twins as monsters he'd see my family as the direct descendents of Satan. The movie comes to a predictable violent climax that really is not so violent.
You may be reaching the conclusion that I just can't appreciate subtlety. You might have a point. Unfortunately for you, this is about my opinion. My opinion is that this was a plodding movie that never really went anywhere. The Festival program GROSSLY oversold this movie by describing it as the film "with some of the best acting in the festival" (Noah Cowan - you would have LOVED my performance as Pony Boy in high school). I never felt like I got to know any of the characters in any depth. I felt the twins were horribly miscast and were far too old to be playing the age you were supposed to believe they were (they bathed together, their mother bathed in front of them, they double-rided (rode?) through the fields on their motorbike, they talked about girls while playing ping pong, they played video games). I suppose Isabelle Huppert's turn as the keeper of the monsters was OK - but one performance does not a movie make.
You'd have more fun spending 2 hours French kissing.
The Hottest State
William is a man-boy actor who can't get himself together. He goes through women like water and seems to have flashbacks about his absent father on a daily basis. William meets an aspiring singer named Sarah (excellent choice of name) in a bar. Unlike other girls, Sarah does not quickly fall for William. William persues Sarah and finally wins her over but not for long. The Hottest State is a movie that details one mans journey through longing, love, and rejection. It felt accurate and genuine to me. Mark Webber and Catalina Sandino Moreno were terrific as William and Sarah.
There are two things I would change. I think the movie should be half an hour shorter. At two hours it was a little long and some scenes could be lost without harming the story line or the feel of the movie.
Also, Ethan Hawk seemed too young to play William's dad in the Texas scene of the movie. If the writter/ director felt he absolutley must have a role in his own movie he should have had the makeup people age him a little more than they did. Perhaps he is old enough to be the father of a man in his early 20's but he doesn't look it. Ethan Hawk is a solid actor it was just his apperance that didn't fit.
I would recommend this movie.
There are two things I would change. I think the movie should be half an hour shorter. At two hours it was a little long and some scenes could be lost without harming the story line or the feel of the movie.
Also, Ethan Hawk seemed too young to play William's dad in the Texas scene of the movie. If the writter/ director felt he absolutley must have a role in his own movie he should have had the makeup people age him a little more than they did. Perhaps he is old enough to be the father of a man in his early 20's but he doesn't look it. Ethan Hawk is a solid actor it was just his apperance that didn't fit.
I would recommend this movie.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
adaptations.....
I'm sensing some pent-up interest in my TIFF-week discussion question on favourite adaptations from novels....ahem...OK, more as a thank you to Stuart, I will say that I was thinking of this as from novels you have read (but didn't necessarily like).
A few of my faves are "The Last Tycoon", Elia Kazan's 1975 movie of Fitzgerald's last, unfinished novel, starring DeNiro in a very unusual performance for him (a movie which, incidentally, I am somewhat unique in appreciating). Two more mainstream faves of mine are Apocalypse Now and The French Liuetenant's Woman, in both cases great and seemingly unfilmable books turned upside down and successfully re-invented as movies.
A few of my faves are "The Last Tycoon", Elia Kazan's 1975 movie of Fitzgerald's last, unfinished novel, starring DeNiro in a very unusual performance for him (a movie which, incidentally, I am somewhat unique in appreciating). Two more mainstream faves of mine are Apocalypse Now and The French Liuetenant's Woman, in both cases great and seemingly unfilmable books turned upside down and successfully re-invented as movies.
Reprise
Probably my favourite film of the year, and eloquently covered off by Kyle, so I have little to add. Except to say that, overall, the film was an incredible mix of film-making ideas - and experimentation in conveying thoughts, hopes, and emotions - and a spot-on human drama, losing nothing in translation depite its surfeit of style. Unbelievably good.
And while I didn't recognize the JD song Kyle, never having been as big a fan, the Independence Day scene in question is imprinted on my brain as well.
Yours, not over-selling.....
And while I didn't recognize the JD song Kyle, never having been as big a fan, the Independence Day scene in question is imprinted on my brain as well.
Yours, not over-selling.....
Woman on the Beach
Kyle, first off, thanks for reviewing Reprise - a stunner - and not quite getting around to Woman on the Beach, the other film we saw together on Monday.
This is, I believe, my first Korean feature (though I'm getting old and I sometimes forget things), so as I watched I found myself wondering about the the current evolutionary state of the film industry in Korea. Why? Well, Woman on the Beach is almost impossibly naive in a number of ways (I'm thinking cinematography, acting, dialogue), and so the two options that began to form in my mind were that (1) this was all done very deliberately, and referentially in some really cool way - I don't know, to mimic the renewed simplicity of the 1960's French New Wave directors? - or (2) they just make films that look and feel like this in S. Korea.
Particularly after Director Hong Sang-soo was intro'd at the start as perhaps the pre-eminent director in South Korea, I couldn't (and can't) be sure. Taken at face value, Woman on the Beach, which deals in a mix of comedy and drama with a 40-something film director's (I kid you not, Cesc Gay) obsession with his buddy's girflriend, and in a (Hitchcockian?) twist in his conviction that a quite different-looking woman bears a striking resemblance, qualifies as mild and quirky entertainment. It took me ten minutes to get over the fact that it felt like it was made by high school students, and then I bought into it (due I suppose to a plot thread that worked, and a strong performance by the lead woman - Ko Hyeon-geong), until the third act, which dragged on and on (WOTB clocked in at a mind-numbing 128 minutes) and ended needlessly enigmatically. Needless, because at that point the fate of the central relationship was known (sorry, it didn't work out), and frankly, we all just wanted to go for a beer. Or a coffee. Or a walk.
Interestingly, Giovanni Fulvi, in his review in the TIFF guide, described the script as "air-tight". Giovanni, I'll be watching out for you.
This is, I believe, my first Korean feature (though I'm getting old and I sometimes forget things), so as I watched I found myself wondering about the the current evolutionary state of the film industry in Korea. Why? Well, Woman on the Beach is almost impossibly naive in a number of ways (I'm thinking cinematography, acting, dialogue), and so the two options that began to form in my mind were that (1) this was all done very deliberately, and referentially in some really cool way - I don't know, to mimic the renewed simplicity of the 1960's French New Wave directors? - or (2) they just make films that look and feel like this in S. Korea.
Particularly after Director Hong Sang-soo was intro'd at the start as perhaps the pre-eminent director in South Korea, I couldn't (and can't) be sure. Taken at face value, Woman on the Beach, which deals in a mix of comedy and drama with a 40-something film director's (I kid you not, Cesc Gay) obsession with his buddy's girflriend, and in a (Hitchcockian?) twist in his conviction that a quite different-looking woman bears a striking resemblance, qualifies as mild and quirky entertainment. It took me ten minutes to get over the fact that it felt like it was made by high school students, and then I bought into it (due I suppose to a plot thread that worked, and a strong performance by the lead woman - Ko Hyeon-geong), until the third act, which dragged on and on (WOTB clocked in at a mind-numbing 128 minutes) and ended needlessly enigmatically. Needless, because at that point the fate of the central relationship was known (sorry, it didn't work out), and frankly, we all just wanted to go for a beer. Or a coffee. Or a walk.
Interestingly, Giovanni Fulvi, in his review in the TIFF guide, described the script as "air-tight". Giovanni, I'll be watching out for you.
Fiction
I chose to see Fiction because I had thoroughly enjoyed Spanish director Cesc Gay's previous feature "In the City" in 2003. In the City was a very stylish telling of multiple relationships in Madrid, unremarkable on paper but well executed and hence memorable, and I believe I will ultimately feel similarly about this year's film.
I won't bother with much in the way of plot descriptions, other than to say that principally this film is about falling in love unexpectedly (between a 40-something film director and a violinist) , and later in life, and of understanding the conflict between passion and intellect, and action and consequences. It's very evocatively filmed in the Pyrenees, and stylistically has a mature grasp on the filmic power of silences and spaces, particularly in the portrayal of the unspoken thought, and the internal struggles of characters we relate to and understand.
I won't bother with much in the way of plot descriptions, other than to say that principally this film is about falling in love unexpectedly (between a 40-something film director and a violinist) , and later in life, and of understanding the conflict between passion and intellect, and action and consequences. It's very evocatively filmed in the Pyrenees, and stylistically has a mature grasp on the filmic power of silences and spaces, particularly in the portrayal of the unspoken thought, and the internal struggles of characters we relate to and understand.
Quelques jours en septembre
Before the review, a question and a note:
1) If I sent Unifrance a really nice email, do you think they'd offer to host me in Paris, along with Piers and Noah?
2) This review could be influenced by the fact that the stunningly beautiful Juliette Binoche walked past me within a distance of a mere two feet, thus making my night and possibly my festival.
As for the film, it's quite good. As Sarah indicated, there are similarities to the Third Man, in that the retired spy played by Binoche, a young French woman, and a young American, are all brought together by the father figure (natural to the young woman, step to the young man, thus ensuring that the subsequent romantic dalliance between the two isn't technically incest) who is unseen throughout most of the film. They are pursued through Paris and Venice by a disturbed hitman/agent, played with the usual off-kilter gusto by John Turturro, who appears to want to kill the father. The film marks the days leading up to September 11th, and there are hints that father is calling them all together because he knows what's about to happen in the United States.
To its credit, the film doesn't dwell on conspiracies or try to insert itself too deeply into the tragic events of that day, but instead focuses much of its attention on the relationship between the three characters, their feelings for the absent father, and the way in which they overcome their initial impressions of one another. Geopolitical considerations give way to interpersonal dynamics, amidst the gorgeous backdrop of a sunny Venetian skylines, and the movie finds a nice rhythm as the characters alternately bicker and flirt with one another.
It wasn't surprising to learn that the first time filmmaker is a novelist. The story has the feel and structure of a good paperback thriller. Here I'll disagree with with Sarah's assessment, though. I do think that the writer/director knows how to end it, and ties up all the plot elements quite well. The problem is that in doing so, the story loses some of the authenticity, as characters then have to conform to a standard set of reactions which play themselves out quite conventionally. The plot is resolved to satisfaction, but lacks some of the genuine emotion of earlier scenes.
Still, it's an entertaining film, with some very quirky touches. The Turturro character's frequent calls to his psychoanalyst, and the ringtone on his cellphone, are hilarious, as is his, for some reason, his surprisingly competent French. Binoche's Irene takes all the threats to her life and guns pointed in her face in stride, as if midly amused by the absurdity of it all and yet manages to pull off this unexpected levity with a cool assurance. [Did I mention that she's gorgeous? Even with the bleach blond hair, which I assume is for a role]. And the two young people, played by Sara Forestier and Tom Riley, capture loathing and wide-eyed optimism in with credibility and poise.
My only question: what happens to the turtle?
1) If I sent Unifrance a really nice email, do you think they'd offer to host me in Paris, along with Piers and Noah?
2) This review could be influenced by the fact that the stunningly beautiful Juliette Binoche walked past me within a distance of a mere two feet, thus making my night and possibly my festival.
As for the film, it's quite good. As Sarah indicated, there are similarities to the Third Man, in that the retired spy played by Binoche, a young French woman, and a young American, are all brought together by the father figure (natural to the young woman, step to the young man, thus ensuring that the subsequent romantic dalliance between the two isn't technically incest) who is unseen throughout most of the film. They are pursued through Paris and Venice by a disturbed hitman/agent, played with the usual off-kilter gusto by John Turturro, who appears to want to kill the father. The film marks the days leading up to September 11th, and there are hints that father is calling them all together because he knows what's about to happen in the United States.
To its credit, the film doesn't dwell on conspiracies or try to insert itself too deeply into the tragic events of that day, but instead focuses much of its attention on the relationship between the three characters, their feelings for the absent father, and the way in which they overcome their initial impressions of one another. Geopolitical considerations give way to interpersonal dynamics, amidst the gorgeous backdrop of a sunny Venetian skylines, and the movie finds a nice rhythm as the characters alternately bicker and flirt with one another.
It wasn't surprising to learn that the first time filmmaker is a novelist. The story has the feel and structure of a good paperback thriller. Here I'll disagree with with Sarah's assessment, though. I do think that the writer/director knows how to end it, and ties up all the plot elements quite well. The problem is that in doing so, the story loses some of the authenticity, as characters then have to conform to a standard set of reactions which play themselves out quite conventionally. The plot is resolved to satisfaction, but lacks some of the genuine emotion of earlier scenes.
Still, it's an entertaining film, with some very quirky touches. The Turturro character's frequent calls to his psychoanalyst, and the ringtone on his cellphone, are hilarious, as is his, for some reason, his surprisingly competent French. Binoche's Irene takes all the threats to her life and guns pointed in her face in stride, as if midly amused by the absurdity of it all and yet manages to pull off this unexpected levity with a cool assurance. [Did I mention that she's gorgeous? Even with the bleach blond hair, which I assume is for a role]. And the two young people, played by Sara Forestier and Tom Riley, capture loathing and wide-eyed optimism in with credibility and poise.
My only question: what happens to the turtle?
Radiant City
Part of the "Real to Reel" series, Radiant City is a Canadian documentary that explores the social and cultural repercussions of urban sprawl. Focusing on the lives of a young family this film documents their angst at foolishly choosing a bigger house with a lawn over a smaller urban dwelling in a "real neighbourhood". The family's two children serve as our hilarious tour guides around their little slice of suburbia. The vignettes of family life are peppered with the narrative of a number of experts detailing the utter failure of suburban residential planning in North America.
About 3/4s of the way through, we find out that the family we have been spying on is not really a family but a group of actors. I have to admit, I was a bit disappointed - I KNEW those kids were too funny!! However, that's just a testament to how well written and relevant these family scenes were. As one of the directors put it during the Q&A - "we didn't have the time or the budget to follow a family around for 2 years only to edit all the footage down to the dysfunctional parts we just showed you anyway". I guess this could be considered cheating. It definitely tests the boundaries of how a documentary is typically defined. In the end, I felt that it was an effective tool to illustrate what could have otherwise been a very dry subject matter.
The film's message was sobering - one's journey to own a piece of "paradise" in suburbia is also the road to personal isolation, the repercussion of which is only beginning to be felt in society at large. However, this message was brought to the viewer in an engaging and entertaining way. The 86 minutes this film is listed at flew by. I came away entertained and with much food for thought. I'd have to judge the film a success on that basis alone.
I don't know where you'd be able to watch Radiant City. The movie was co-produced by the National Film Board and the CBC. So, it might turn up on the Passionate Eye at some point. Or, more likely, it'll be made available through the NFB library. If the topic interests you at all I would recommend the movie (actually *we* recommend it - Linda enjoyed it as well).
ADDED BONUS: A kick-ass original soundtrack by Joey Santiago of Pixies fame.
NB: In an ironic twist, of the two directors (Gary Burns, Jim Brown) only Burns was present at the screening. Jim Brown was absent because his employer wouldn't give him time off work. His employer? The CBC. What a world.
About 3/4s of the way through, we find out that the family we have been spying on is not really a family but a group of actors. I have to admit, I was a bit disappointed - I KNEW those kids were too funny!! However, that's just a testament to how well written and relevant these family scenes were. As one of the directors put it during the Q&A - "we didn't have the time or the budget to follow a family around for 2 years only to edit all the footage down to the dysfunctional parts we just showed you anyway". I guess this could be considered cheating. It definitely tests the boundaries of how a documentary is typically defined. In the end, I felt that it was an effective tool to illustrate what could have otherwise been a very dry subject matter.
The film's message was sobering - one's journey to own a piece of "paradise" in suburbia is also the road to personal isolation, the repercussion of which is only beginning to be felt in society at large. However, this message was brought to the viewer in an engaging and entertaining way. The 86 minutes this film is listed at flew by. I came away entertained and with much food for thought. I'd have to judge the film a success on that basis alone.
I don't know where you'd be able to watch Radiant City. The movie was co-produced by the National Film Board and the CBC. So, it might turn up on the Passionate Eye at some point. Or, more likely, it'll be made available through the NFB library. If the topic interests you at all I would recommend the movie (actually *we* recommend it - Linda enjoyed it as well).
ADDED BONUS: A kick-ass original soundtrack by Joey Santiago of Pixies fame.
NB: In an ironic twist, of the two directors (Gary Burns, Jim Brown) only Burns was present at the screening. Jim Brown was absent because his employer wouldn't give him time off work. His employer? The CBC. What a world.
Quelques Jours en Septembre
A 3rd man-like story of 3 people waiting for a visit from a spy they are all connected to. The 3 know that this spy is up to something dangerous but they do not know what. The movie is set a few days before September 11, 2001.
The cast had good chemistry and the dialogue was often clever. John Turturro was a very enjoyable bad guy with a need to consult his therapist after each mistake or murder. My criticism would be that the writter got to a certain point in the script and didn't know how to end it. By a certain point the audience pretty much knows how it is going to play out and sadly no surprises were delivered. Not a perfect movie but I really enjoyed it and would recommend it.
One lingering question is - What happened to the turtle?
Kyle was thrilled that a very blonde Juliette Binoche was at the screening before and after the movie.
The cast had good chemistry and the dialogue was often clever. John Turturro was a very enjoyable bad guy with a need to consult his therapist after each mistake or murder. My criticism would be that the writter got to a certain point in the script and didn't know how to end it. By a certain point the audience pretty much knows how it is going to play out and sadly no surprises were delivered. Not a perfect movie but I really enjoyed it and would recommend it.
One lingering question is - What happened to the turtle?
Kyle was thrilled that a very blonde Juliette Binoche was at the screening before and after the movie.
Reprise
I’d advise you to run out and see this film but alas, both screenings at TIFF have already taken place. So you’re gonna have to create a spreadsheet or word document or write down the title of this film somewhere on a piece of paper and then periodically check to see if it’s been released or is available on dvd. My point: see this film.
From the opening montage of quick edits which imagine the future of the two central characters (described in at least one review as an homage to Truffaut’s Jules et Jim but a more recent cultural reference might be those flash, still photo sequences which sketched out the future for some of the characters that the title character would pass while in motion, could almost stand alone as a great short film Tykwer’s Run Lola Run) to a similarly structured, somewhat ambiguous conclusion, this is a film with a lot of passion, energy, humour, and dead-on observations on human relationships.
I hate to ‘over recommend’ a film because it inevitably inflates expectations and leads to disappointment but this is the best one I’ve seen in some time. Sometimes a film just hits every note with precision, capturing what it's like to grow old, struggle with your place in the world and your aspirations to be something interesting to yourself and to the world. If you're guy, that is. If there were any criticisms to make or biases to acknowledge is that this is mostly a guy's film, told from a guy's perspective with keen insight into how guy's tease one another, resist growing old and accepting responsibility, and try to find their place in the world. But I don't think it's a film just for guys; if anything, it provides a glimpse into just how ridiculous and self-important men can be, as well as how difficult it can be to try age with purpose and make real connections with the women in their lives.
Another admission of bias: I'm a huge Joy Division fan and keep thinking back to the opening credit sequence, which shows the characters in the film marching in, and sometimes drunkenly staggering through, an Independence Day parade in Norway (independence from…any Norwegians care to lend a hand with a brief history lesson) while ‘New Dawn Fades’ blares through the soundtrack.
From the opening montage of quick edits which imagine the future of the two central characters (described in at least one review as an homage to Truffaut’s Jules et Jim but a more recent cultural reference might be those flash, still photo sequences which sketched out the future for some of the characters that the title character would pass while in motion, could almost stand alone as a great short film Tykwer’s Run Lola Run) to a similarly structured, somewhat ambiguous conclusion, this is a film with a lot of passion, energy, humour, and dead-on observations on human relationships.
I hate to ‘over recommend’ a film because it inevitably inflates expectations and leads to disappointment but this is the best one I’ve seen in some time. Sometimes a film just hits every note with precision, capturing what it's like to grow old, struggle with your place in the world and your aspirations to be something interesting to yourself and to the world. If you're guy, that is. If there were any criticisms to make or biases to acknowledge is that this is mostly a guy's film, told from a guy's perspective with keen insight into how guy's tease one another, resist growing old and accepting responsibility, and try to find their place in the world. But I don't think it's a film just for guys; if anything, it provides a glimpse into just how ridiculous and self-important men can be, as well as how difficult it can be to try age with purpose and make real connections with the women in their lives.
Another admission of bias: I'm a huge Joy Division fan and keep thinking back to the opening credit sequence, which shows the characters in the film marching in, and sometimes drunkenly staggering through, an Independence Day parade in Norway (independence from…any Norwegians care to lend a hand with a brief history lesson) while ‘New Dawn Fades’ blares through the soundtrack.
Un Crime
Note: I haven't read Kyle's post yet ( I didn't want to be influenced by his comments) so it will be interesting to see if any of our words are the same.
A question.....why oh why do directors feel that I want to see naked Harvey Keitel? Many, many people saw "The Piano." Perhaps prior to "The Piano" directors assumed that we all wondered what exactly Harvey looked like naked. But after we all saw it once did we need to keep seeing it? Harvey is a really good actor. I usually enjoy his performances. I just wish directors would keep him clothed.
So beyond the nakedness, how was the movie? IT SUCKED! The storyline was ridiculous. The acting was not engaging. I should have taken a nap. I was tired and would have benefitted more from the rest than from watching the rest of the film.
The Q and A afterwards was entertaining though. The audience asked the most ridiculous questions I have heard about a movie to date. As an example - One audience member commented on a scene where one a character compares being in love to being in hell. Then the audience member asked if this philosophy was typical the the French.
A question.....why oh why do directors feel that I want to see naked Harvey Keitel? Many, many people saw "The Piano." Perhaps prior to "The Piano" directors assumed that we all wondered what exactly Harvey looked like naked. But after we all saw it once did we need to keep seeing it? Harvey is a really good actor. I usually enjoy his performances. I just wish directors would keep him clothed.
So beyond the nakedness, how was the movie? IT SUCKED! The storyline was ridiculous. The acting was not engaging. I should have taken a nap. I was tired and would have benefitted more from the rest than from watching the rest of the film.
The Q and A afterwards was entertaining though. The audience asked the most ridiculous questions I have heard about a movie to date. As an example - One audience member commented on a scene where one a character compares being in love to being in hell. Then the audience member asked if this philosophy was typical the the French.
2:37
I don't think it would be right to say that I enjoyed a movie about teenage suicide but I can say that I recommend it. The film festival book actually accurately (I say actually because the film descriptions can often be so the opposite of what the movie is like) accurately compared this movie to "Elephant." It has the same mood.
I would not have guessed that it was a 1st time director and a cast of 1st time actors. 2:37 was very well done. I feel badly for the director and cast member that attended the screening. There was an incident in the theatre during the last scene of the screening that really took the attention of the audience away from the movie. Someone near the back of the theatre had some sort of medical emergency. The movie credits were abruptly turned off, the lights came up and people were uncomfortable giving the film the applause it deserved. Obviously I don't blame the ill individual and ending the screening was the right thing to do. It just seemed a shame that a screening of a fine film ended on such a bad note.
I would not have guessed that it was a 1st time director and a cast of 1st time actors. 2:37 was very well done. I feel badly for the director and cast member that attended the screening. There was an incident in the theatre during the last scene of the screening that really took the attention of the audience away from the movie. Someone near the back of the theatre had some sort of medical emergency. The movie credits were abruptly turned off, the lights came up and people were uncomfortable giving the film the applause it deserved. Obviously I don't blame the ill individual and ending the screening was the right thing to do. It just seemed a shame that a screening of a fine film ended on such a bad note.
Paris Je T'aime
Out of 2 hours worth of short films about Paris there was only one that I didn't like. It made me long to go back....
Babel
The movie is in the same style as 21 Grams (and Amores Perros - I confirmed with Kyle....I couldn't watch the whole thing - the dog fights really got to me). It is also heavy like 21 Grams. Luckily it was also well acted and gripping like 21 Grams.
The movie has been getting a lot of press as the next big Brad Pitt movie but it is more accurately an assemble piece. Each of the three storylines were equally absorbing. At 2.5 hours it is quite a long movie but you know I enjoyed it because I have never had to go pee so badly in my life (I swear) but I stayed in my seat until the credits came up.
The movie has been getting a lot of press as the next big Brad Pitt movie but it is more accurately an assemble piece. Each of the three storylines were equally absorbing. At 2.5 hours it is quite a long movie but you know I enjoyed it because I have never had to go pee so badly in my life (I swear) but I stayed in my seat until the credits came up.
Kinshasa Palace
One day a man walks away from his life, leaving his family to wonder where he has gone and if they will ever see him again. Kinshasa Palace is filmed on video and sometimes the camera shots are a shaky handheld fashion that makes me feel motion sick. That being said, it was a well done film. I was pleased that the director chose not to reveal the whole truth to us. It is far more fun to walk away from a film able to make up your own ending.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)