Kudos to Tifftalk for posting. Most effective use of twitter, imho.
As I'm in Box 39, this is a better spot for me than last year. Figure I've got a decent shot at getting most of my pix.
Friday, August 29, 2008
And the box called is....
not sure yet!
Trying to call in but the phone lines are jammed. I'm mostly interested in avoiding a tense, 2-3 hour Labour Day morning spent at lines trying to rejig what is going to be a very tight schedule for me this year. Will post my initial film list shortly. And well as the box number called, for those wondering.
This year, we're probably going to be a little bit lighter on the reviews, as we are down to three reviewers/contributors. If anyone outside my circle of friends ends up at this space and would like to post their own reviews, I'm happy to extend you an invitation. Email me.
Trying to call in but the phone lines are jammed. I'm mostly interested in avoiding a tense, 2-3 hour Labour Day morning spent at lines trying to rejig what is going to be a very tight schedule for me this year. Will post my initial film list shortly. And well as the box number called, for those wondering.
This year, we're probably going to be a little bit lighter on the reviews, as we are down to three reviewers/contributors. If anyone outside my circle of friends ends up at this space and would like to post their own reviews, I'm happy to extend you an invitation. Email me.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Daniel's Film Fest Round-up
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)
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)
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)