I suppose it's my duty to write a review of "The Princess and the Frog (2009)". But I don't have time to do that right now, because I am tired as fuck. I'll write one tomorrow... er, today. I promise. Sort of.
I'll say really quick though that you shouldn't bother with this movie if you're expecting some new sort of Disney Plot just because the Princess is of a different descent than all the others. It makes literally no difference in the story. And the music was just boring and uninspired. The result: I'm pretty sure Disney is convinced that all Cajuns are mentally handicapped and that perpetuating stereotypes is okay.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
No Cinema 10 this week/Sad face.
Unfortunately there's no Cinema 10 screening tonight or for the remainder of the semester. Won't be another one until a couple of weeks into Spring semester. Sorry, folks. Looks like you'll have to search for your weekly dose of Indie Films elsewhere. Never fear, though! Stoked Reviews never sleeps! I'm going to keep updating this as new movies come out and I have the opportunity to see them. I was going to write a blog about "Everybody's Fine (2009)" a few days ago, but then I decided that I didn't care too much about it. The long and short of it: De Niro was good; Rockwell was good; the kids sucked; the music sucked. It wasn't a Christmas Comedy. The end.
Keep checking back for what I'm told are witty reviews.
Keep checking back for what I'm told are witty reviews.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Bored in Kazakhstan
Tonight was the final Cinema 10 film of the Fall 2009 Season. While I love what Cinema 10 does for the community and appreciate the hard work that goes into setting it up, sometimes the films presented are a bit of a let down. But I've never been so taken aback as I was tonight. It's not that "Tulpan (2008)" was terrible; the acting was fine, and quite a few of the shots contained beautiful images. It just wasn't interesting to me in the slightest. The plot sort of meanders around for an hour and a half, and there's never really any clear indication of what's going on or why we should care about the characters.
The title suggests that a girl named Tulpan will be the person of interest, and she is... sort of. Asa, the protagonist, tries desperately (sometimes) to win her affection, and seems to have turned her into a symbol of change and complacency. That is: once he weds Tulpan and mans his own flock and yurt, he'll be a happy person. The fact that we never see her face leaves a kind of mystery, but even that is not incredibly engaging. The movie begins with Asa's first attempt to court the girl, which predictably ends in a less than desirable fashion. From there, the director throws in about ten minutes of lingering shots on the desert farmland of Kazakhstan and the family's herd. What makes this movie so boring is the lingering and the superfluous information the audience is given. The director devotes an absurd amount of time to the family's animals, and while I understand the purpose - which is, of course, to show the importance of the flock - it's just not entertaining. Animals are not really characters, unless of course it's a single character and his dog placed out in the wilderness, in which case the narrator only has one outlet for interaction. (Or, Ahem...)In this case though, the animals are so numerous and interchangeable that almost any time spent on them seems like too much. In addition, too much importance was placed on the family members. While they were certainly played an integral role in Asa's life, they, like the animals, were the focus of a number of lingering shots that added almost nothing to the film. A little flavor here and there, perhaps, but it could have been worked into a cohesive plot.
Verdict: Not Stoked at all, God Dammit.I fell asleep somewhere around thirty minutes in, coming to and passing out again at various points. When I finally woke to the sound of bleating - a constant, whining reminder that we were stuck on a farm - I didn't feel the least bit guilty. I had missed nothing, and the plot still made perfect sense because it was so loose and wandering that I didn't need to be awake. I was bored to sleep and missed nothing. If you see this movie, make sure you have control of the volume, or stay far away from speakers, lest you have your ears bleated and screamed off by animals and children.
The title suggests that a girl named Tulpan will be the person of interest, and she is... sort of. Asa, the protagonist, tries desperately (sometimes) to win her affection, and seems to have turned her into a symbol of change and complacency. That is: once he weds Tulpan and mans his own flock and yurt, he'll be a happy person. The fact that we never see her face leaves a kind of mystery, but even that is not incredibly engaging. The movie begins with Asa's first attempt to court the girl, which predictably ends in a less than desirable fashion. From there, the director throws in about ten minutes of lingering shots on the desert farmland of Kazakhstan and the family's herd. What makes this movie so boring is the lingering and the superfluous information the audience is given. The director devotes an absurd amount of time to the family's animals, and while I understand the purpose - which is, of course, to show the importance of the flock - it's just not entertaining. Animals are not really characters, unless of course it's a single character and his dog placed out in the wilderness, in which case the narrator only has one outlet for interaction. (Or, Ahem...)In this case though, the animals are so numerous and interchangeable that almost any time spent on them seems like too much. In addition, too much importance was placed on the family members. While they were certainly played an integral role in Asa's life, they, like the animals, were the focus of a number of lingering shots that added almost nothing to the film. A little flavor here and there, perhaps, but it could have been worked into a cohesive plot.
Verdict: Not Stoked at all, God Dammit.I fell asleep somewhere around thirty minutes in, coming to and passing out again at various points. When I finally woke to the sound of bleating - a constant, whining reminder that we were stuck on a farm - I didn't feel the least bit guilty. I had missed nothing, and the plot still made perfect sense because it was so loose and wandering that I didn't need to be awake. I was bored to sleep and missed nothing. If you see this movie, make sure you have control of the volume, or stay far away from speakers, lest you have your ears bleated and screamed off by animals and children.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Fantastic Mr. Fox
So I saw "Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)" for the second time tonight, the first at a private midnight screening, and to applaud it by referencing the first word of the title would be cliche, so I won't. I will, however, say that it was wonderful and is certainly a movie that any Wes Anderson fan would enjoy. But that's also boring, so I'll be perfectly honest. I could not be more pleased with this movie than I am; having seen almost none of the trailers, and even fewer of the tv spots, I went in with a completely blank slate and came out quoting it from the second I left the theater.
I read a review in Entertainment a few weeks ago that gave it an "A" rating, citing that Wes Anderson's style and tone were expressed perfectly through the world of animation, so much so that the critic said the director should have been manning the helm of animated movies from the start. I was hesitant to agree, as I feel that Anderson's live action films are nothing short of hilarious masterpieces. In fact, I was a little taken aback when I first read that Anderson was going to be working on an animated feature. I was not convinced that his subtle and awkward humor could work using anything other than real people. But I had no reason to worry, it turns out. The jerky animation and extreme close-ups that help personify the animals, not to mention the Anderson-esque dialogue, makes you forget that you're watching something fake.
If you love "The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)" and "The Life Aquatic (2004)" but are hestitant to see this movie because it's animated, then shut up. Go hock the G.I. Joe 2-Disc collector's Edition DVD that you got as an early Christmas present for some cash, and go see George Clooney talk smug while killing chickens. There is nothing to worry about. Unless of course you don't enjoy this movie, which means you don't have a soul, and you might want to seek professional help immediately. Why? Each and every line in this movie's 87 minutes is hilarious, and as is typical with all other Anderson movies, there are a few beautiful shots that catch you off guard, that seem almost out of place amidst the humor, but are surprisingly appropriate. The soundtrack is much more playful than his previous works, but it helps the mood and progresses the story. There was something else I wanted to say... oh, yeah. Perhaps what I find most enjoyable about Anderson's expositions is how he introduces each character in segments that are almost asides from the storyline. This film is no different, and is perhaps enhanced by the fact that it is animated.
Verdict: So Stoked out of my mind it's unbelievable. I haven't a single complaint about Wes Anderson's sixth feature length. While some have labeled it a children's movie, that is something of a rushed conclusion. It's certainly more accessible to children, and a lot of the jokes will go unnoticed, and that's okay. But in order to be fully appreciated, the movie's got to be seen by an adult. Jesus, I feel like I just kinda droned on for a few paragraphs. Go see the movie, that's all.
I read a review in Entertainment a few weeks ago that gave it an "A" rating, citing that Wes Anderson's style and tone were expressed perfectly through the world of animation, so much so that the critic said the director should have been manning the helm of animated movies from the start. I was hesitant to agree, as I feel that Anderson's live action films are nothing short of hilarious masterpieces. In fact, I was a little taken aback when I first read that Anderson was going to be working on an animated feature. I was not convinced that his subtle and awkward humor could work using anything other than real people. But I had no reason to worry, it turns out. The jerky animation and extreme close-ups that help personify the animals, not to mention the Anderson-esque dialogue, makes you forget that you're watching something fake.
If you love "The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)" and "The Life Aquatic (2004)" but are hestitant to see this movie because it's animated, then shut up. Go hock the G.I. Joe 2-Disc collector's Edition DVD that you got as an early Christmas present for some cash, and go see George Clooney talk smug while killing chickens. There is nothing to worry about. Unless of course you don't enjoy this movie, which means you don't have a soul, and you might want to seek professional help immediately. Why? Each and every line in this movie's 87 minutes is hilarious, and as is typical with all other Anderson movies, there are a few beautiful shots that catch you off guard, that seem almost out of place amidst the humor, but are surprisingly appropriate. The soundtrack is much more playful than his previous works, but it helps the mood and progresses the story. There was something else I wanted to say... oh, yeah. Perhaps what I find most enjoyable about Anderson's expositions is how he introduces each character in segments that are almost asides from the storyline. This film is no different, and is perhaps enhanced by the fact that it is animated.
Verdict: So Stoked out of my mind it's unbelievable. I haven't a single complaint about Wes Anderson's sixth feature length. While some have labeled it a children's movie, that is something of a rushed conclusion. It's certainly more accessible to children, and a lot of the jokes will go unnoticed, and that's okay. But in order to be fully appreciated, the movie's got to be seen by an adult. Jesus, I feel like I just kinda droned on for a few paragraphs. Go see the movie, that's all.
Friday, November 20, 2009
New Moon
Yes, I saw "New Moon (2009)," the newest addition to the Twilight Family. Let's just get that out in the open right here and now. And I wasn't dragged to it. Sure, it was free for me, and that's probably why I went. But I still went of my own accord and in a sober state of mind. And really, honestly? I enjoyed it. It was a wonderful comedy full of off the wall slapstick antics and pointless teenage drama bullshit, sprinkled throughout with delightful special effects that were eye-catching and believable.
Oh. It wasn't a comedy?
Well, then it was just really, really, really stupid. But that's not to say that it was terrible by any means. I'm not going to be one of those IMDb trolls that claims that it was the worst movie ever made and gives it a 1-star rating under four different account names (Ahem...) Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner were fine, if over dramatic (which is what the roles call for). Their acting was believable and not quite as off-putting as I expected. By their own admission (in an Entertainment Weekly article), this movie isn't about the acting. It's all about appearances. Still, though, they tried and displayed at least a somewhat vast range of expressions. The most laughable part was Kristen Stewart's acting. I've heard people say that she's a great actress, but I just don't see it. Ever. And I really want to, for a number of reasons. But it just isn't there. Maybe she's just not trying, but every emotion that she's supposed to have seems the same. There was literally no difference in her tone between begging Edward not to leave her and walking away from a motorcycle gang, expressing the "rush" that she felt from the danger. I just don't know how that's passable or reasonable at all. I'm not an actor, though, so I guess I can't talk too much shit.
And I don't want to gripe ad nauseam about the story line. There were plot holes and very clear issues with the display of the passing of time, but in terms of what people actually go to this movie for, that's secondary. It's all about appearances. So, why then, do the werewolves look like cartoon characters? Wikipedia lists the estimated budget for this movie to be between $50 and $70 million. The actors had to be paid, I guess, along with the rest of the crew, but certainly a substantial part of the budget was dedication to visual effects. Despite this, I'm almost positive that everyone in the sold-out theater this morning laughed when the werewolves finally showed up. Let's look at another werewolf flick just for a second. "Dog Soldiers (2002)" is a British Horror movie about a group of soldiers dropped into a forest infested with a family of werewolves. The creatures in this movie look amazing, and are probably the best that I've seen in almost any movie. And yet - gasp! - they weren't created using CGI. To top it all of, all sources indicate that this was a low budget movie, though none can give an exact figure. In any case, it didn't come close to the $70 mil mark. It seems like the creative geniuses behind the second of fifteen films in this Saga could have saved themselves a lot of money by going for a more natural look. Sure, there might have been some functional issues, like the werewolves fighting, but CGI could have been used a little more sparingly.
Verdict: Not Stoked.I feel as though at this point I've droned on far too long for a Twilight movie. It wasn't great, and it wasn't terrible. It was just a money-making, appearance driven feature that had nothing to say. But god dammit am I envious of that Vampire complexion. If I could be pale and glittery at the same time, I think I'd be okay with my life.
Oh. It wasn't a comedy?
Well, then it was just really, really, really stupid. But that's not to say that it was terrible by any means. I'm not going to be one of those IMDb trolls that claims that it was the worst movie ever made and gives it a 1-star rating under four different account names (Ahem...) Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner were fine, if over dramatic (which is what the roles call for). Their acting was believable and not quite as off-putting as I expected. By their own admission (in an Entertainment Weekly article), this movie isn't about the acting. It's all about appearances. Still, though, they tried and displayed at least a somewhat vast range of expressions. The most laughable part was Kristen Stewart's acting. I've heard people say that she's a great actress, but I just don't see it. Ever. And I really want to, for a number of reasons. But it just isn't there. Maybe she's just not trying, but every emotion that she's supposed to have seems the same. There was literally no difference in her tone between begging Edward not to leave her and walking away from a motorcycle gang, expressing the "rush" that she felt from the danger. I just don't know how that's passable or reasonable at all. I'm not an actor, though, so I guess I can't talk too much shit.
And I don't want to gripe ad nauseam about the story line. There were plot holes and very clear issues with the display of the passing of time, but in terms of what people actually go to this movie for, that's secondary. It's all about appearances. So, why then, do the werewolves look like cartoon characters? Wikipedia lists the estimated budget for this movie to be between $50 and $70 million. The actors had to be paid, I guess, along with the rest of the crew, but certainly a substantial part of the budget was dedication to visual effects. Despite this, I'm almost positive that everyone in the sold-out theater this morning laughed when the werewolves finally showed up. Let's look at another werewolf flick just for a second. "Dog Soldiers (2002)" is a British Horror movie about a group of soldiers dropped into a forest infested with a family of werewolves. The creatures in this movie look amazing, and are probably the best that I've seen in almost any movie. And yet - gasp! - they weren't created using CGI. To top it all of, all sources indicate that this was a low budget movie, though none can give an exact figure. In any case, it didn't come close to the $70 mil mark. It seems like the creative geniuses behind the second of fifteen films in this Saga could have saved themselves a lot of money by going for a more natural look. Sure, there might have been some functional issues, like the werewolves fighting, but CGI could have been used a little more sparingly.
Verdict: Not Stoked.I feel as though at this point I've droned on far too long for a Twilight movie. It wasn't great, and it wasn't terrible. It was just a money-making, appearance driven feature that had nothing to say. But god dammit am I envious of that Vampire complexion. If I could be pale and glittery at the same time, I think I'd be okay with my life.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Cold Souls
For the first time I feel almost at a loss for words over a Cinema 10 movie. This week was the screening of Sophie Barthes' first feature film, "Cold Souls (2009)," which I have been waiting for since the beginning of the season. It seemed like it would be a perfect movie. It stars Paul Giamatti playing a fictionalized version of himself, and that alone got me Stoked out of my mind for the movie. Add to that a plotline in which he travels to Russia to find his soul after it's been removed from his body. What could go wrong? Existential and maybe metafictional and you've got my approval, even though I don't really understand either concept too well. So why is it that I feel almost totally indifferent to this movie? I feel as though I'm not compelled to ask too many questions, and honestly humored the idea that I, personally, have no soul because I wasn't incredibly touched by this movie and its outstanding ending.
Looking back, I can find no fault with the story, the acting, or the themes. All were incredible. But maybe I wanted too much out of it. Having done so much research prior to the screening, naturally I had certain expectations. But I received something entirely different; I didn't feel how I wanted to feel. Reviewers and critics alike - yes, there is a difference - have drawn some parallels between this movie and other quirky dramas in the vein of Charlie Kauffman. I guess that's why I expected to be moved a great deal, like my last experience with existential, maybe-metafiction, courtesy of Cinema 10 (Ahem...) I find that such films can move me to tears, but Barthes' attempt did not. That is not to say that her debut wasn't beautiful. All of the messages were presented wonderfully, and as I said before, the ending was powerful in a way that I could never master in my art. Why, then, do I feel indifference?
I wonder if I did, indeed, miss something crucial. My brother didn't have to tell me how this picture moved him. It was noticeable in the absence of words, in the grimace that tried desperately to become positive. Others around me wore similar expressions, though I'm not totally convinced that they understood what they saw, either. The only conclusion that I can draw about this film is that it absolutely warrants a second viewing, perhaps a third. Though our souls can be condensed to chic-peas and easily contained, this film won't fit into any glass jar. It's much too deep and vast to be quickly examined and discarded.
Verdict: Not sure how Stoked I am. It might be an important film, but I can't say yet. Get back at me, or watch it for yourself. In fact, do the latter because you're going to draw your own conclusions no matter what I say. But Jesus God, man, respond to all of this and let me know. Someone set me straight.
Looking back, I can find no fault with the story, the acting, or the themes. All were incredible. But maybe I wanted too much out of it. Having done so much research prior to the screening, naturally I had certain expectations. But I received something entirely different; I didn't feel how I wanted to feel. Reviewers and critics alike - yes, there is a difference - have drawn some parallels between this movie and other quirky dramas in the vein of Charlie Kauffman. I guess that's why I expected to be moved a great deal, like my last experience with existential, maybe-metafiction, courtesy of Cinema 10 (Ahem...) I find that such films can move me to tears, but Barthes' attempt did not. That is not to say that her debut wasn't beautiful. All of the messages were presented wonderfully, and as I said before, the ending was powerful in a way that I could never master in my art. Why, then, do I feel indifference?
I wonder if I did, indeed, miss something crucial. My brother didn't have to tell me how this picture moved him. It was noticeable in the absence of words, in the grimace that tried desperately to become positive. Others around me wore similar expressions, though I'm not totally convinced that they understood what they saw, either. The only conclusion that I can draw about this film is that it absolutely warrants a second viewing, perhaps a third. Though our souls can be condensed to chic-peas and easily contained, this film won't fit into any glass jar. It's much too deep and vast to be quickly examined and discarded.
Verdict: Not sure how Stoked I am. It might be an important film, but I can't say yet. Get back at me, or watch it for yourself. In fact, do the latter because you're going to draw your own conclusions no matter what I say. But Jesus God, man, respond to all of this and let me know. Someone set me straight.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
A Christmas Carol (in 3D)
A friend recently said that in a drunken stupor he stumbled upon my blog in the hopes of finding a review of "A Christmas Carol (2009)". Unfortunately, he did not find it. This is my quick attempt at an apology to him.
The story is one that everyone already knows, but this incarnation had a much darker feel to it. I was surprised to find that it wasn't child friendly, and held nothing back. A few of the images and scenes were fairly brutal, especially for the younger audiences that have been attending. But I don't so much care about them, as I'm pretty relieved that the movie wasn't hokey. It was hilarious when it needed to be, and frightening when the scene called for it. The voice acting left nothing to be desired.
What was much more impressive, however, was the utilization of the 3D effect. This is the first film I've seen that was intended for 3D; the only other attempt was the reissue of Toy Story, which was never meant to be shown in this way, so it jumped back and forth between 2 and 3D, ultimately resulting in a god damn splitting headache. This movie, however, used the effect the entire time, and I could not be more pleased with it than I am right now. While I was fairly convinced that it would be just an attempt to throw things at the screen for some cheap shock value, it was anything but. Granted, there were a few moments where gold flecks and whips flew at the audience, but it was used purposefully. At times where it was snowing on screen, I had to remind myself that I was in a theater, and that the audience around me had no reason to shiver. A scene near the end in which a surprised Bob Cratchit watches from outside the office as Scrooge dances was so deep that I could not believe that I was watching a film; I felt as though I had been dropped into the scene and I was intruding on the action.
Verdict: So Stoked. I firmly believe now that 3D can be a great addition to a film as long as it is utilized carefully. If the effect is your only selling point, so much so that the plot is lacking and wholly unentertaining, don't bother to make the movie at all. If used well, though, 3D can allow the audience to feel like a part of the action instead of an innocent bystander.
The story is one that everyone already knows, but this incarnation had a much darker feel to it. I was surprised to find that it wasn't child friendly, and held nothing back. A few of the images and scenes were fairly brutal, especially for the younger audiences that have been attending. But I don't so much care about them, as I'm pretty relieved that the movie wasn't hokey. It was hilarious when it needed to be, and frightening when the scene called for it. The voice acting left nothing to be desired.
What was much more impressive, however, was the utilization of the 3D effect. This is the first film I've seen that was intended for 3D; the only other attempt was the reissue of Toy Story, which was never meant to be shown in this way, so it jumped back and forth between 2 and 3D, ultimately resulting in a god damn splitting headache. This movie, however, used the effect the entire time, and I could not be more pleased with it than I am right now. While I was fairly convinced that it would be just an attempt to throw things at the screen for some cheap shock value, it was anything but. Granted, there were a few moments where gold flecks and whips flew at the audience, but it was used purposefully. At times where it was snowing on screen, I had to remind myself that I was in a theater, and that the audience around me had no reason to shiver. A scene near the end in which a surprised Bob Cratchit watches from outside the office as Scrooge dances was so deep that I could not believe that I was watching a film; I felt as though I had been dropped into the scene and I was intruding on the action.
Verdict: So Stoked. I firmly believe now that 3D can be a great addition to a film as long as it is utilized carefully. If the effect is your only selling point, so much so that the plot is lacking and wholly unentertaining, don't bother to make the movie at all. If used well, though, 3D can allow the audience to feel like a part of the action instead of an innocent bystander.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Saw VI
Every once in a great while I like to post a review of something that's not Cinema 10 related. This is one of those times. I'm told that this blog is decent enough and thorough, but I'm going to keep this one brief. I think. I don't know, let's see what happens.
After work the other night, I finally got a chance to see "Saw VI (2009)." Sure, you could be wondering why I even bothered; didn't I expect the same gore from the other five installments? Absolutely. But I tend to keep my faith in directors or series for much longer than I should, holding out in the hopes that they'll surprise me or, at the most, redeem themselves (Ahem...) Now let's be clear, the first "Saw (2004)" was and still is awesome. It was incredibly original and very well executed. Its only fault is that it spawned six sequels (as Saw VII is in the works - and in 3D!), and those sequels have sadly failed to match up to the high bar set by the original. The fact is that as long as these movies continue to make money they'll continue being made, no matter how confused and up-their-own-asses they become.
This installment showed that the film makers have got their fingers to the pulse, dropping a Health Insurance Exec into a hell-hole where he's forced to decide who lives and who dies based on a formula he created. Meanwhile, Agent Hoffman is trying to tie up loose ends so as to not be found out to be the current proprietor of Jigsaw, Inc. Like Hoffman, the film itself plays catch-up and answers most of the questions posed by the other five movies. All-in-all was not terrible. The acting was what I expected; the Saw movies rarely have awful actors. But I guess the story just left a lot to be desired. I found myself just repeating, "Really? Come on," and wanting for their to be some semblance of the feeling I had after the completion of the first movie. It just wasn't very gripping or intense, and I didn't have too many reasons to care about whether the characters lived or died.
It ends in such a way that I feel as if there's no need for a seventh installment, but I know this will not be the case. My only hope is that if and when the seventh comes out, it's not just a cheap thrill that uses 3D as an excuse to get rid of plot, much like the last "Final Destination (2009)" film. Although I know the series is mostly just gore and is partly responsible for the infatuation with "torture porn," I can't help but feeling like the original minds behind this have got something up their sleeves that will bring the series home. I.e. - where the fuck is Dr. Gordon and why hasn't he hobbled his way back into my life?
Verdict: Not Stoked. Watched this in a theater with just four other people, which is to be expected now that it's been out for a few weeks. They seemed just as displeased as I was. What I don't get is that I overheard them saying that they had never seen a Saw movie in its entirety. Why go to see it then? Granted, the series has mostly been reduced to gore for gore's sake, but it still relies on plot points from the other five movies. Someone want to help me out with this?
After work the other night, I finally got a chance to see "Saw VI (2009)." Sure, you could be wondering why I even bothered; didn't I expect the same gore from the other five installments? Absolutely. But I tend to keep my faith in directors or series for much longer than I should, holding out in the hopes that they'll surprise me or, at the most, redeem themselves (Ahem...) Now let's be clear, the first "Saw (2004)" was and still is awesome. It was incredibly original and very well executed. Its only fault is that it spawned six sequels (as Saw VII is in the works - and in 3D!), and those sequels have sadly failed to match up to the high bar set by the original. The fact is that as long as these movies continue to make money they'll continue being made, no matter how confused and up-their-own-asses they become.
This installment showed that the film makers have got their fingers to the pulse, dropping a Health Insurance Exec into a hell-hole where he's forced to decide who lives and who dies based on a formula he created. Meanwhile, Agent Hoffman is trying to tie up loose ends so as to not be found out to be the current proprietor of Jigsaw, Inc. Like Hoffman, the film itself plays catch-up and answers most of the questions posed by the other five movies. All-in-all was not terrible. The acting was what I expected; the Saw movies rarely have awful actors. But I guess the story just left a lot to be desired. I found myself just repeating, "Really? Come on," and wanting for their to be some semblance of the feeling I had after the completion of the first movie. It just wasn't very gripping or intense, and I didn't have too many reasons to care about whether the characters lived or died.
It ends in such a way that I feel as if there's no need for a seventh installment, but I know this will not be the case. My only hope is that if and when the seventh comes out, it's not just a cheap thrill that uses 3D as an excuse to get rid of plot, much like the last "Final Destination (2009)" film. Although I know the series is mostly just gore and is partly responsible for the infatuation with "torture porn," I can't help but feeling like the original minds behind this have got something up their sleeves that will bring the series home. I.e. - where the fuck is Dr. Gordon and why hasn't he hobbled his way back into my life?
Verdict: Not Stoked. Watched this in a theater with just four other people, which is to be expected now that it's been out for a few weeks. They seemed just as displeased as I was. What I don't get is that I overheard them saying that they had never seen a Saw movie in its entirety. Why go to see it then? Granted, the series has mostly been reduced to gore for gore's sake, but it still relies on plot points from the other five movies. Someone want to help me out with this?
Monday, November 9, 2009
You see what you want to see.
After last week's surprise, I was a little more open to tonight's screening of "Everlasting Moments (2008)." Okay, okay, I'll admit that I fell asleep after about 45 minutes, but I have an excuse! For once my dozing wasn't the result of the movie boring my lids shut, but because of being overly comfortable and tired from such a long, arduous day of being a student of my caliber (Ahem...). On the contrary, my first encounter with a Swedish film was an enjoyable one.
Gritty and minimalist (in regards to the score), "Everlasting Moments" portrays the life of a Swedish woman, Maria, belabored by an alcoholic husband and the children he has her bare. Like so many other films before it, this one is propelled by the horrors of capitalism, and how it can tear families apart. Though a common theme in cinema, it is a story that is told well by director Jan Troell. The cinematography is also noteworthy, as it is nothing short of fantastic. It perfectly captures the Sepia tones present in photography of the early 1900s, accentuated by bursts of color in very particular shots.
Though I'm certainly not ecstatic after watching this, I was only able to find two faults. The first is the narration provided by Maja, Maria's eldest daughter. The voiceover feels almost like an afterthought, as it is prominent in the beginning, and reappears at the end. From the middle section, it seems almost entirely absent, though I know this is not the case. What is spoken seems superfluous; what she says we already know, or can figure out on our own, from the action and the dialogue already occurring. The only time Maja's grown voice plays a crucial role is the resurgence at the end when she comments on her Mother and Father's relationship; quite a bit is revealed here in only a few words. The second area of contention is with the ending. I'm reminded of the fifteen or sixteen endings of "The Return of the King (2003)," though that is a gross over exaggeration. The film seems to end over and over again during the last ten minutes, and though they're all wonderful, they could have been arranged in a different manner, perhaps ending with the snapshot of Maria being spun around in her husband's arm. But I suppose you can't change the past.
Which leads me to my next point: the philosophical nature of "Everlasting Moments." I think this movie bridges on metafilm. Or meta something. I wracked my brain in the theater during Maria's last scene with her would-be lover, Mr. Pedersen, trying to find a term for this. Maybe it's meta-art. If that doesn't ring any bells, what I mean is that this film could be considered art about art. It focuses on a woman's inherent talent for photography, and the things she makes using it. The film, aside from being about family life and the struggles of women in early 1900s Sweden, is about how art is created and the effects it has. At one point, Maria wants to sell her camera back because it's starting to interfere with her home life. She says she forgets that she's a mother and puts all of her effort into her art. As a writer, there are often things I have to put aside to focus on my fiction, and it sometimes is detrimental to my personal relationships. But it is unavoidable. Art in any form, even those intended for exhibition or wholly collaborative, is born out of a certain solitude. Working with a group of people still necessitates that each member participate in serious inner-reflection, and often must shut out those not in the group. This is Maria's quandary. She distances herself in order to produce pictures, and her family suffers as a result.
Secondly, this film asks "what purpose do photographs serve?" This film unflinchingly states that they serve as a window into the past, and are taken under the assumption that the current happy moment will be better than the one that follows. Each picture in this film is taken when there is an abundance of beauty, no matter how ironic. Immediately after the capture, something even worse happens, usually involving the husband's rage. I had more to say during the movie, and now I've forgotten it. If I had written it down (or maybe taken a picture) we'd be in much better shape.
I guess that's all. Thoughts?
Verdict: Not Overly Stoked. Another great turnout. I'd like to think this blog and all of my advertising is having something to do with consistent attendance, but I'll keep my ego at bay for now.
Next week we've got Paul Giamatti playing Paul Giamatti in "Cold Souls (2009)." So Stoked for this movie. Hope it exceeds all set expectations.
Gritty and minimalist (in regards to the score), "Everlasting Moments" portrays the life of a Swedish woman, Maria, belabored by an alcoholic husband and the children he has her bare. Like so many other films before it, this one is propelled by the horrors of capitalism, and how it can tear families apart. Though a common theme in cinema, it is a story that is told well by director Jan Troell. The cinematography is also noteworthy, as it is nothing short of fantastic. It perfectly captures the Sepia tones present in photography of the early 1900s, accentuated by bursts of color in very particular shots.
Though I'm certainly not ecstatic after watching this, I was only able to find two faults. The first is the narration provided by Maja, Maria's eldest daughter. The voiceover feels almost like an afterthought, as it is prominent in the beginning, and reappears at the end. From the middle section, it seems almost entirely absent, though I know this is not the case. What is spoken seems superfluous; what she says we already know, or can figure out on our own, from the action and the dialogue already occurring. The only time Maja's grown voice plays a crucial role is the resurgence at the end when she comments on her Mother and Father's relationship; quite a bit is revealed here in only a few words. The second area of contention is with the ending. I'm reminded of the fifteen or sixteen endings of "The Return of the King (2003)," though that is a gross over exaggeration. The film seems to end over and over again during the last ten minutes, and though they're all wonderful, they could have been arranged in a different manner, perhaps ending with the snapshot of Maria being spun around in her husband's arm. But I suppose you can't change the past.
Which leads me to my next point: the philosophical nature of "Everlasting Moments." I think this movie bridges on metafilm. Or meta something. I wracked my brain in the theater during Maria's last scene with her would-be lover, Mr. Pedersen, trying to find a term for this. Maybe it's meta-art. If that doesn't ring any bells, what I mean is that this film could be considered art about art. It focuses on a woman's inherent talent for photography, and the things she makes using it. The film, aside from being about family life and the struggles of women in early 1900s Sweden, is about how art is created and the effects it has. At one point, Maria wants to sell her camera back because it's starting to interfere with her home life. She says she forgets that she's a mother and puts all of her effort into her art. As a writer, there are often things I have to put aside to focus on my fiction, and it sometimes is detrimental to my personal relationships. But it is unavoidable. Art in any form, even those intended for exhibition or wholly collaborative, is born out of a certain solitude. Working with a group of people still necessitates that each member participate in serious inner-reflection, and often must shut out those not in the group. This is Maria's quandary. She distances herself in order to produce pictures, and her family suffers as a result.
Secondly, this film asks "what purpose do photographs serve?" This film unflinchingly states that they serve as a window into the past, and are taken under the assumption that the current happy moment will be better than the one that follows. Each picture in this film is taken when there is an abundance of beauty, no matter how ironic. Immediately after the capture, something even worse happens, usually involving the husband's rage. I had more to say during the movie, and now I've forgotten it. If I had written it down (or maybe taken a picture) we'd be in much better shape.
I guess that's all. Thoughts?
Verdict: Not Overly Stoked. Another great turnout. I'd like to think this blog and all of my advertising is having something to do with consistent attendance, but I'll keep my ego at bay for now.
Next week we've got Paul Giamatti playing Paul Giamatti in "Cold Souls (2009)." So Stoked for this movie. Hope it exceeds all set expectations.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Magic wands aren't always where you expect them.
Sometimes I'm wrong. Sometimes, but not often. As of late, I've taken to admitting when my mouth runoff is in the wrong. For example, last Wednesday I thought that the water being pumped through our bathroom had a disgusting yellow tinge to it, and so I put off showering as long as possible in the hopes that clarity would return. To my surprise upon closer inspection, the water was, and always had been, clear. I stunk for no reason, but acknowledged that maybe I should have just showered in the first place (Ahem...). The fact that I didn't shower has almost nothing to do with this week's Cinema 10 showing of Les plages d'Agnès (2008), except that my apprehension toward the water in my room was about as justified as what was felt upon entering the theater.
To this humble blogger, the description provided for the film suggests a certain degree of arrogance. I expected just under two hours of self-praise, scene after scene of director Agnès Varda talking about how awesome her life is and how influential her fifty-year film career has been. On the contrary, what I found is that the film was comparable to Ray Bradbury's "Zen in the Art of Writing," which is not a how-to-write guide. Rather, it is a guide to finding the inspiration to write. And that's what "The Beaches of Agnes" is: a glimpse into the director's life and how she has used her experiences in her art. It is a two hour documentary of Varda chasing her muse. In a a scene nearing the end, she films each living member of her close family, during which she beautifully states that she doesn't know or understand them; she just goes towards them. She doesn't always comprehend her ideas, but she follows and uses them to the best of her ability, often creating something beautiful and open, allowing for a great deal of viewer interpretation.
The film was not at all what I had expected. To be perfectly honest, I wanted to hate this movie because I assumed it was pretentious. And - as is fairly consistent in the art of assumption - I was mistaken. The audience needn't any prior exposure to the director; the film stands alone as a portrait of the nine (or more) muses. It is not an attempt to pat herself on the back. If anything, Varda marginalizes her role, though her soothing French is ever-present. Rather than make an attempt to flex her movie knowledge, the fact that she had seen only ten films before making her first is presented without hesitation. What she has chased and how it has been used is the focus.
I didn't find myself caught up in the quirky stylistic choices, either. Nor am I now reflecting upon the color schemes, or wondering at the use of mirrors. Their implementation is fairly obvious, and to dwell upon them infinitely would only detract from this film's purpose. They are unconventional, certainly. But the film's not about how unconventional Agnès Varda is. It's about how important the people around her are; the shots of loved ones are the most crucial and advance the (loose) plot more than a million shots of beaches ever could.
My only gripe is the use of special effects at the end. After we learn of the death of her husband, Jacques, a few shots have particularly strange overlapping effects. A shot of her back to the audience with waves crashing over her shirt is odd and seems like something out of a PBS documentary.
Verdict: Surprisingly Stoked. The audience actually clapped after the credits. Hm. Next week: Everlasting Moments (2008). I'll try to keep an open mind before I sit down in the theater.
To this humble blogger, the description provided for the film suggests a certain degree of arrogance. I expected just under two hours of self-praise, scene after scene of director Agnès Varda talking about how awesome her life is and how influential her fifty-year film career has been. On the contrary, what I found is that the film was comparable to Ray Bradbury's "Zen in the Art of Writing," which is not a how-to-write guide. Rather, it is a guide to finding the inspiration to write. And that's what "The Beaches of Agnes" is: a glimpse into the director's life and how she has used her experiences in her art. It is a two hour documentary of Varda chasing her muse. In a a scene nearing the end, she films each living member of her close family, during which she beautifully states that she doesn't know or understand them; she just goes towards them. She doesn't always comprehend her ideas, but she follows and uses them to the best of her ability, often creating something beautiful and open, allowing for a great deal of viewer interpretation.
The film was not at all what I had expected. To be perfectly honest, I wanted to hate this movie because I assumed it was pretentious. And - as is fairly consistent in the art of assumption - I was mistaken. The audience needn't any prior exposure to the director; the film stands alone as a portrait of the nine (or more) muses. It is not an attempt to pat herself on the back. If anything, Varda marginalizes her role, though her soothing French is ever-present. Rather than make an attempt to flex her movie knowledge, the fact that she had seen only ten films before making her first is presented without hesitation. What she has chased and how it has been used is the focus.
I didn't find myself caught up in the quirky stylistic choices, either. Nor am I now reflecting upon the color schemes, or wondering at the use of mirrors. Their implementation is fairly obvious, and to dwell upon them infinitely would only detract from this film's purpose. They are unconventional, certainly. But the film's not about how unconventional Agnès Varda is. It's about how important the people around her are; the shots of loved ones are the most crucial and advance the (loose) plot more than a million shots of beaches ever could.
My only gripe is the use of special effects at the end. After we learn of the death of her husband, Jacques, a few shots have particularly strange overlapping effects. A shot of her back to the audience with waves crashing over her shirt is odd and seems like something out of a PBS documentary.
Verdict: Surprisingly Stoked. The audience actually clapped after the credits. Hm. Next week: Everlasting Moments (2008). I'll try to keep an open mind before I sit down in the theater.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Los cronocimenes.
Another packed theater this week for Nacho Vigalondo's first feature length film, "Los Cronocrimenes (2007)" which translates into English as "Time Crimes." Thankfully, my viewing at Cinema 10 was my second encounter with the three Hectors, and I was able to appreciate the film on a new level. As was the subject of my last post, this Spanish film was a relatively low budget picture at just over $2 million, and it's clear that none of that money was wasted. The director even cut corners at appropriate - but never detracting - spots, particularly with the cast which consisted of only four actors, one of whom was the director himself.
The film follows Hector, a middle aged Spanish man, who gets inadvertently caught up in a web of time-travel. He finds himself chased by a strangely dressed assailant, which leads him to a lab where his only means of escape from certain death is in the belly of pretty plain looking tank. Transported back through time by only an hour, Hector tries to go home, but is stopped short when he sees his wife is having an affair... with - gasp! - Hector! Even though there's no technical difference, Hector feels the need to see to it that he, himself, gets back with his wife. Confusing? Only slightly. He foolishly and selfishly sets off a series of events that results in a deeply troubling, philosophical film.
Perhaps one of the film's strongest points is that it wastes no time trying in vain to explain the intricacies of the time travel it presents. There are no flashing machines or flux capacitors (Ahem...), or long involved monologues about what could happen if Hector interacts with his former self. Instead, the writer/director focuses on story and character, which should always be a film maker's intention. The audience gets a chance to see three different aspects of Hector's psyche as he's put through various tests of himself. We see - quite literally - his different faces and what each means to accomplish. In the end, though, his goal throughout is a noble one: to stay with and protect his wife.
There are two things present that are troubling. Maybe more. Almost definitely more, in fact. The first, though, is the overwhelming longing one feels after leaving the theater. It's a thirst that can only be satisfied by answers to questions that cannot possibly be answered. I'm not at liberty to spoil any aspect of the movie if you have not yet had the chance to see it, so I'll only say that I wonder what happens to the Hector we have at the end. Does he stay, or does he disappear? (On that note: the ending was perfect and beautiful in a manner reminiscent of "Fight Club (1999)" in which the two central characters find some comfort in the crumbling infinity around them). It's not a bad longing, the viewer is just left pleasantly unsettled. While most films have some sort of backdoor or solitary shot that allows for a relieving understanding of the film, this one is sealed up.
Secondly, the film seems to be haunted by the "horror" label. Maybe this is for the sake of American audiences, which differ drastically from those in Spain (as does the film industry). Horror has come to imply some sort of gore, and at the very least, a scary scene or two. You're not supposed to want to sleep alone after watching because you're scared of what's lurking. But this film has none of that. It's not scary or frightening, and is completely devoid of gore. It doesn't need blood and guts; it's not dependent upon people jumping out of the dark. It puts you on the edge of your seat and makes you want to sleep next to someone because it's suspenseful and thought provoking. It makes you want to share a bed so thoughts can be shared, and a comfort can be found in the blissful hopelessness that the film offers. Let's just call the film sci-fi and leave it at that.
Verdict: So Stoked! I could say "Great Scott," and it would be equally as appropriate. The film is surprising and smart and is nothing like I expected, which is said with something like an exhausted contentment. It's entertaining as hell as most definitely is a mental exercise. See the Spanish-Language English-Subtitled version if you can; there's a certain tone to the original language that adds to the film. The dialogue is minimal in the first place, so subtitles should not be an issue. Incredible turn out from the Cinema 10 Crowd, though I'm not sure what to expect for next weeks exhibition of "The Beaches of Agnes (2008)".
The film follows Hector, a middle aged Spanish man, who gets inadvertently caught up in a web of time-travel. He finds himself chased by a strangely dressed assailant, which leads him to a lab where his only means of escape from certain death is in the belly of pretty plain looking tank. Transported back through time by only an hour, Hector tries to go home, but is stopped short when he sees his wife is having an affair... with - gasp! - Hector! Even though there's no technical difference, Hector feels the need to see to it that he, himself, gets back with his wife. Confusing? Only slightly. He foolishly and selfishly sets off a series of events that results in a deeply troubling, philosophical film.
Perhaps one of the film's strongest points is that it wastes no time trying in vain to explain the intricacies of the time travel it presents. There are no flashing machines or flux capacitors (Ahem...), or long involved monologues about what could happen if Hector interacts with his former self. Instead, the writer/director focuses on story and character, which should always be a film maker's intention. The audience gets a chance to see three different aspects of Hector's psyche as he's put through various tests of himself. We see - quite literally - his different faces and what each means to accomplish. In the end, though, his goal throughout is a noble one: to stay with and protect his wife.
There are two things present that are troubling. Maybe more. Almost definitely more, in fact. The first, though, is the overwhelming longing one feels after leaving the theater. It's a thirst that can only be satisfied by answers to questions that cannot possibly be answered. I'm not at liberty to spoil any aspect of the movie if you have not yet had the chance to see it, so I'll only say that I wonder what happens to the Hector we have at the end. Does he stay, or does he disappear? (On that note: the ending was perfect and beautiful in a manner reminiscent of "Fight Club (1999)" in which the two central characters find some comfort in the crumbling infinity around them). It's not a bad longing, the viewer is just left pleasantly unsettled. While most films have some sort of backdoor or solitary shot that allows for a relieving understanding of the film, this one is sealed up.
Secondly, the film seems to be haunted by the "horror" label. Maybe this is for the sake of American audiences, which differ drastically from those in Spain (as does the film industry). Horror has come to imply some sort of gore, and at the very least, a scary scene or two. You're not supposed to want to sleep alone after watching because you're scared of what's lurking. But this film has none of that. It's not scary or frightening, and is completely devoid of gore. It doesn't need blood and guts; it's not dependent upon people jumping out of the dark. It puts you on the edge of your seat and makes you want to sleep next to someone because it's suspenseful and thought provoking. It makes you want to share a bed so thoughts can be shared, and a comfort can be found in the blissful hopelessness that the film offers. Let's just call the film sci-fi and leave it at that.
Verdict: So Stoked! I could say "Great Scott," and it would be equally as appropriate. The film is surprising and smart and is nothing like I expected, which is said with something like an exhausted contentment. It's entertaining as hell as most definitely is a mental exercise. See the Spanish-Language English-Subtitled version if you can; there's a certain tone to the original language that adds to the film. The dialogue is minimal in the first place, so subtitles should not be an issue. Incredible turn out from the Cinema 10 Crowd, though I'm not sure what to expect for next weeks exhibition of "The Beaches of Agnes (2008)".
Friday, October 23, 2009
Oh my god.
"Paranormal Activity (2007)" just got a wide release, and I had the pleasure of catching the midnight screening with a bunch of friends at the Roxy Theater. I cannot recall ever having been so terrified by a movie in my life. For the first time in a long time, we got to watch a horror movie that wasn't dependent upon CGI or gore or nudity, like so many others that are getting released for the Halloween season (including "Saw VI (2009)" which also played last night). The terror was in what you didn't see: the loud noises, the screaming, and the total absence of the ghost's form. Each time I expected the movie to pussy out and throw in a cliche, it ignored me, and went right along its path. Instead of wasting his money on gallons of blood, first-time director Oren Peli spent his money on letting your imagination do the work. He conditioned us for an hour and a half to tense up every time the lights went out, and then pulled that rug out from under us, too. I'm trying not to reveal too much here, so I have to be vague. What I can say without tip-toeing is that the movie let out around 1:30 AM, and my friends and I weren't comfortable enough to go to bed until 5 AM. Although we laughed and tried to ease up, we found ourselves in the grips of what could only have been PTSD every twenty minutes, as we recalled scenes from the movie that made our skin crawl. I would be listening to a friend tell a hilarious story, but I would be off in space, reminiscing about this movie, hypersensitive to all the creeps and bumps in the building around me. Oh, and still scared out of my fucking mind.
All I can really say is that you need to go see this movie. There are certainly some people that won't find it frightening and will think that it was boring. And that's fine. You're allowed to be wrong. Even if it's not your cup of tea, it's still a really innovative movie that's found a good balance between the shaky cam fixation and standard haunting stories. Its predecessors can't compare.
Verdict: So Stoked. Theater was almost full, and everyone stood outside afterwords shaking, but not from the cold, and laughing, but not because anything was funny. This movie is worth your money.
All I can really say is that you need to go see this movie. There are certainly some people that won't find it frightening and will think that it was boring. And that's fine. You're allowed to be wrong. Even if it's not your cup of tea, it's still a really innovative movie that's found a good balance between the shaky cam fixation and standard haunting stories. Its predecessors can't compare.
Verdict: So Stoked. Theater was almost full, and everyone stood outside afterwords shaking, but not from the cold, and laughing, but not because anything was funny. This movie is worth your money.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Too much on your plate.
Food, Inc. (2008) is one of the better documentaries to be released in recent memory. Not only is it a compelling presentation of shocking, and often times sickening information, but it is also a film that employs a number of classic cinematic techniques to scare the shit out of you. And it does. Granted, I didn't leave the theater vowing to convert to a plate full of organic food, or swear off store bought beef for the rest of my life. I did, however, take a step back and just stew in what Robert Kenner had just spent an hour and half showing me. I knew going in that there would be some grainy night vision footage of animals being abused. I was prepared for that and was completely unaffected by it, as cruel as that might sound. I've seen it all before. What had me struggling to keep my dinner down were the mountains of overwhelming corn to which half of the film was devoted. Shot after shot of corn falling at the screen, or the camera panning across an ocean of corn that is destined to become soda and crackers and feed. It all boils down to a food industry in which there is little to no variety, with a handful of people controlling what goes into your body three times a day. The film did what any documentary should do, which is preach to the unconvinced and spark a fresh thought. It made me wonder why my family, after so many years, had stopped relying on our own garden and animals for food. There was a time when our kitchen was full of home-grown vegetables and home-slaughtered pig. Why had we stopped doing this altogether so suddenly? That I can't answer, though the film shows why this happens with a lot of families. What I can say is that it makes me, and probably a lot of other viewers, long for locally grown food.
I was excited to see this film, even though I was prepared not to agree with a lot of what was presented (as I assumed that it would be a message laden with organic-only intentions). I grew more and more excited as the theater continued to fill until only a few seats were left. Following the film there was a panel discussion about the importance of locally owned and operated food production, which strengthened the film's message by allowing the opinions of those closer to the audience than the flashing images. Even better was that every person left the theater talking. That's what a good documentary - a good film - does. It stirs shit up, throws a wrench into the machine so that people start questioning what they're doing. While it wasn't the most artsy film Cinema 10 has brought to Potsdam since I've been attending, I cannot think of movie with more a connection to the North Country. Of all the films, I've attended, this one seemed to have the biggest impact.
My only concern (and the cause of a certain degree of puzzlement) is the inclusion of information regarding the founder of Stonyfield Farm. What bothers me is that his story almost goes against what the film encourages, which is for people to support local farming and demand to know what's going into their food. While Stonyfield Farm produces organic only yogurt products, this does not mean that they have anything to do with local interests. Just because something is labeled "organic," does not mean that it comes from a small, independent producer. The founder says that his business deal with Walmart is a small step toward the nation becoming more involved in their food choices. But selling out to one of the largest (if not the largest) suppliers in the world seems to take away from the movement. There's even a segment in the film where the producers and Stonyfield's founder walk around a convention full of organic and "independent" food producers. But, as is pointed out, most of these companies are owned by larger businesses like Coke and Pepsi. What this means is that although the ingredients might be organic, someone is still getting fucked. Walmart sets the prices because they command the majority of the market on everything. They're still going to find a way to produce the organic food cheaper and quicker so that there can be more of it supplied to people as the demand grows. He's taken his business from something small and meaningful, to just another wing in the corporate mansion. By buying in, he seems to have lost sight of what the movement means. Am I reading into this correctly? I wonder, then, why the film makers included this. Perhaps it's because they disagree with his methods, and are showing his methods as if to say that this is the opposite of what should be done. Maybe I'm wrong? I would absolutely love feedback on this, because when I think about this film, I get caught up on this section.
Verdict: Pretty much Stoked. Amazing turnout. I wish the response was always this great, and maybe it will be from now on. Really looking forward to next week's screening of Los cronocrimenes (2007).
I was excited to see this film, even though I was prepared not to agree with a lot of what was presented (as I assumed that it would be a message laden with organic-only intentions). I grew more and more excited as the theater continued to fill until only a few seats were left. Following the film there was a panel discussion about the importance of locally owned and operated food production, which strengthened the film's message by allowing the opinions of those closer to the audience than the flashing images. Even better was that every person left the theater talking. That's what a good documentary - a good film - does. It stirs shit up, throws a wrench into the machine so that people start questioning what they're doing. While it wasn't the most artsy film Cinema 10 has brought to Potsdam since I've been attending, I cannot think of movie with more a connection to the North Country. Of all the films, I've attended, this one seemed to have the biggest impact.
My only concern (and the cause of a certain degree of puzzlement) is the inclusion of information regarding the founder of Stonyfield Farm. What bothers me is that his story almost goes against what the film encourages, which is for people to support local farming and demand to know what's going into their food. While Stonyfield Farm produces organic only yogurt products, this does not mean that they have anything to do with local interests. Just because something is labeled "organic," does not mean that it comes from a small, independent producer. The founder says that his business deal with Walmart is a small step toward the nation becoming more involved in their food choices. But selling out to one of the largest (if not the largest) suppliers in the world seems to take away from the movement. There's even a segment in the film where the producers and Stonyfield's founder walk around a convention full of organic and "independent" food producers. But, as is pointed out, most of these companies are owned by larger businesses like Coke and Pepsi. What this means is that although the ingredients might be organic, someone is still getting fucked. Walmart sets the prices because they command the majority of the market on everything. They're still going to find a way to produce the organic food cheaper and quicker so that there can be more of it supplied to people as the demand grows. He's taken his business from something small and meaningful, to just another wing in the corporate mansion. By buying in, he seems to have lost sight of what the movement means. Am I reading into this correctly? I wonder, then, why the film makers included this. Perhaps it's because they disagree with his methods, and are showing his methods as if to say that this is the opposite of what should be done. Maybe I'm wrong? I would absolutely love feedback on this, because when I think about this film, I get caught up on this section.
Verdict: Pretty much Stoked. Amazing turnout. I wish the response was always this great, and maybe it will be from now on. Really looking forward to next week's screening of Los cronocrimenes (2007).
Friday, October 16, 2009
Food, Inc!
So the plan is as follows, dudes and dudes. On the 19th, the Roxy Theater will be screening Food, Inc. twice, with a panel discussion following the first. It's a look into the corporate dominated world of the Food industry, and it's received really good reviews thus far. I don't remember where, but someone said it was "the film 'Fast Food Nation' should have been." Or something to that effect. Either way, it'll probably be busy come showtime, so make sure you show up early to get your tickets. Just because you have a season pass does not mean you are guaranteed a seat. Too many pronouns in this.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
"She'd never looked so beautiful."
The only Japanese cinema to which I had been exposed before this week's Cinema 10 film were the likes of "Battle Royale," "Oldboy," and "Tokyo Gore Police." There's also the slew of horror movies that have been remade for American Audiences. While these movies are actually completely awesome, they all deal with subject matter that's pretty disturbing. "Departures" was something entirely different. Made in 2008, it received an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, and I can understand why. Yojiro Takita's film work is nothing short of beautiful.
The film follows Daigo Kobayashi, a struggling cellist, as he attempts to make ends meet in a less than respectable position. After his orchestra is dissolved, he takes up the shunned craft of preparing the deceased for cremation. He is a blissfully awkward character in the midst of indifference and unfaltering joy. Though he's seen as something of an untouchable after he begins cleansing the skin of the dead, he finds some comfort in it, and eventually learns to love what he does. But that all sounds kind of trite and unoriginal. A person thrust into uncomfortable circumstances, and then coming to terms with his station in life? Been done. But Takita plays up such a parallel between the living and the dead, between what it means to be alive and what happens when we're dead, that other films that address such circumstances fall short. "Departures" is comic, yet sad; beautiful, yet dingy. You won't know what I'm saying until you see the film, as it is nothing short of phenomenal, so find it on Netflix or at Video King or whatever you have.
But before you do that, I want to say what I have to say, dammit! All I could think of in the theater was how much this film had in common with 2007's "No Country For Old Men." Stay with me. There have been a few occasions where I've started at my DVD collection and found pairs of movies that were opposite sides of the same coin. For example, "Trainspotting," and "Requiem for a Dream," would be heads and tails, respectively. Both deal with heroin addicted groups of friends, but while one suggests something hopeful, the other is somber and depressing. "No Country" is about fate; how the only real certain destination anyone has is the afterlife, and to what do our lives between birth and death really amount? It leaves the viewer wondering what all of their morals and ideas mean, and if they matter. "Departures" also deals in fate, but is much more uplifting. The film recognizes that death is the only true certainty anyone can have, but the departed here are treated with such care and grace that the viewer can't help but think that maybe it's a peaceful drift down that god damn lake of fire.
Verdict: Completely and Utterly Stoked.
The only real criticism I have is that this is another film that's a victim of its trailer. Because the companies seem so intent on showing you everything in the movie in the two minutes of trailer, you get a pretty clear idea of how the film's going to end a lot earlier than you should. Any foreshadowing to the ending that the film uses seems so obvious because of the trailer, that a lot of the surprise is used up by the time we get to the climax. Oh, well.
By far the best film Cinema 10 has brought to Potsdam in recent memory, certainly this season. The crowd was nearly double that of the previous week, and the theater was noisy with the buzz of opinions as the credits rolled. Hopefully the showings continue to impress.
Cinema 10's going to take a break next week, as SUNY Potsdam will be on October break. It will return on the 19th with "Food Inc." Can't wait.
The film follows Daigo Kobayashi, a struggling cellist, as he attempts to make ends meet in a less than respectable position. After his orchestra is dissolved, he takes up the shunned craft of preparing the deceased for cremation. He is a blissfully awkward character in the midst of indifference and unfaltering joy. Though he's seen as something of an untouchable after he begins cleansing the skin of the dead, he finds some comfort in it, and eventually learns to love what he does. But that all sounds kind of trite and unoriginal. A person thrust into uncomfortable circumstances, and then coming to terms with his station in life? Been done. But Takita plays up such a parallel between the living and the dead, between what it means to be alive and what happens when we're dead, that other films that address such circumstances fall short. "Departures" is comic, yet sad; beautiful, yet dingy. You won't know what I'm saying until you see the film, as it is nothing short of phenomenal, so find it on Netflix or at Video King or whatever you have.
But before you do that, I want to say what I have to say, dammit! All I could think of in the theater was how much this film had in common with 2007's "No Country For Old Men." Stay with me. There have been a few occasions where I've started at my DVD collection and found pairs of movies that were opposite sides of the same coin. For example, "Trainspotting," and "Requiem for a Dream," would be heads and tails, respectively. Both deal with heroin addicted groups of friends, but while one suggests something hopeful, the other is somber and depressing. "No Country" is about fate; how the only real certain destination anyone has is the afterlife, and to what do our lives between birth and death really amount? It leaves the viewer wondering what all of their morals and ideas mean, and if they matter. "Departures" also deals in fate, but is much more uplifting. The film recognizes that death is the only true certainty anyone can have, but the departed here are treated with such care and grace that the viewer can't help but think that maybe it's a peaceful drift down that god damn lake of fire.
Verdict: Completely and Utterly Stoked.
The only real criticism I have is that this is another film that's a victim of its trailer. Because the companies seem so intent on showing you everything in the movie in the two minutes of trailer, you get a pretty clear idea of how the film's going to end a lot earlier than you should. Any foreshadowing to the ending that the film uses seems so obvious because of the trailer, that a lot of the surprise is used up by the time we get to the climax. Oh, well.
By far the best film Cinema 10 has brought to Potsdam in recent memory, certainly this season. The crowd was nearly double that of the previous week, and the theater was noisy with the buzz of opinions as the credits rolled. Hopefully the showings continue to impress.
Cinema 10's going to take a break next week, as SUNY Potsdam will be on October break. It will return on the 19th with "Food Inc." Can't wait.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Every Little Step
I expected to be completely bored by "Every Little Step," (2008). I have almost no interest in musicals, and even less of an interest in dancing. Since that's what the marketing for the film suggests, I didn't go into the theater thinking that I'd enjoy the content as much as I did. As art should be: it was very entertaining, despite my bias going in.
I suppose it's safe to say that this documentary has been thirty years in the making. It mixes original recordings from the planning stages of 1975's Broadway run of "A Chorus Line," and footage from the original production with revival auditions and production footage. The first half of the film relies almost entirely on what's spoken in the planning recordings. We hear original director Michael Bennett discussing very personal details of his life; in turn, those auditioning share their stories. What results is an incredibly close look into the heart of the story. Cliche? I know. But these recordings, accompanied by grainy archive footage of Michael Bennett interviews, expose the meaning of the film. The filmmakers (Deo and Stern) induce a feeling of nostalgia, but not the kind of nostalgia that hipsters cling to when in the midst of the ever-retro original Nintendo or ugly Ray-Bans. The almost black-and-white footage and the reel-to-reel are moving. I can't speak for everyone in the theater, but I know that I wish there had been more of this. It's not often that I find myself really caring for what the author of the book or song or show thinks. Even with film I try to distance myself from the writer/director while simultaneously combing IMDb and Wikipedia for any sort of revealing facts. Art should be able to stand alone; it is the reader/viewer that should give the piece meaning. With documentary, though, perhaps the expectation is a little different. The audience is supposed to care about what the creator thinks. In this particular case, we absolutely have to know what the authors and directors envisioned and what inspired them in order to be able to grasp fully the concept of this film and the musical to which it alludes. The audience has to know that the only thing the director cared about was doing what he wanted to do. The filmmakers mix in just enough drama to make the audience care, and they most certainly do.
But it's not flawless. I know, I started a sentence with "but." But I'm doing what I want to do, dammit! After the first half, the film wanes a bit. I found that far too much time was spent on the audition footage, especially for some of the performers who were ultimately not cast. I cannot understand why there needed to be as much time spent on the first round of auditions, or the second... What was more revealing were the final callbacks. And the star of the auditions is barely touched upon following his few minute stint. Jason Tam, who auditions for the gripping character Paul, performs so well that he brings the judges to tears... and then we don't see him again, save for a glimpse or two at the end. Clearly he had a big story to tell, but we don't see any of it. Instead we're bombarded in the second half with minute after minute after minute of extreme close up dancing that's no different than anything I could see on a weeknight on Fox, which is the greatest flaw. The filmmakers have to cater to an audience that is regularly exposed to "Dancing with the Stars," and "So You Think You Can Dance," and "Dance Your Ass Off." And so there has to be some resemblance to these shows in order for a greater group of people to give a shit. Which is unfortunate. More attention should have been focused on the roots of the play, on how all of the original ideas fell into place. But I suppose no movie is perfect.
Verdict: Pretty Stoked (For a movie about dancing).
Unfortunately, there was a dismal turnout compared to last week's screening of "The Class," (2008). Probably due to the abrupt change in scheduling, as 2008's "Soul Power," was dropped from the bill. Hopefully next week's Monday streets will be filled with flood water, and Potsdam will have nothing else to do but find refuge in the theater.
-E
I suppose it's safe to say that this documentary has been thirty years in the making. It mixes original recordings from the planning stages of 1975's Broadway run of "A Chorus Line," and footage from the original production with revival auditions and production footage. The first half of the film relies almost entirely on what's spoken in the planning recordings. We hear original director Michael Bennett discussing very personal details of his life; in turn, those auditioning share their stories. What results is an incredibly close look into the heart of the story. Cliche? I know. But these recordings, accompanied by grainy archive footage of Michael Bennett interviews, expose the meaning of the film. The filmmakers (Deo and Stern) induce a feeling of nostalgia, but not the kind of nostalgia that hipsters cling to when in the midst of the ever-retro original Nintendo or ugly Ray-Bans. The almost black-and-white footage and the reel-to-reel are moving. I can't speak for everyone in the theater, but I know that I wish there had been more of this. It's not often that I find myself really caring for what the author of the book or song or show thinks. Even with film I try to distance myself from the writer/director while simultaneously combing IMDb and Wikipedia for any sort of revealing facts. Art should be able to stand alone; it is the reader/viewer that should give the piece meaning. With documentary, though, perhaps the expectation is a little different. The audience is supposed to care about what the creator thinks. In this particular case, we absolutely have to know what the authors and directors envisioned and what inspired them in order to be able to grasp fully the concept of this film and the musical to which it alludes. The audience has to know that the only thing the director cared about was doing what he wanted to do. The filmmakers mix in just enough drama to make the audience care, and they most certainly do.
But it's not flawless. I know, I started a sentence with "but." But I'm doing what I want to do, dammit! After the first half, the film wanes a bit. I found that far too much time was spent on the audition footage, especially for some of the performers who were ultimately not cast. I cannot understand why there needed to be as much time spent on the first round of auditions, or the second... What was more revealing were the final callbacks. And the star of the auditions is barely touched upon following his few minute stint. Jason Tam, who auditions for the gripping character Paul, performs so well that he brings the judges to tears... and then we don't see him again, save for a glimpse or two at the end. Clearly he had a big story to tell, but we don't see any of it. Instead we're bombarded in the second half with minute after minute after minute of extreme close up dancing that's no different than anything I could see on a weeknight on Fox, which is the greatest flaw. The filmmakers have to cater to an audience that is regularly exposed to "Dancing with the Stars," and "So You Think You Can Dance," and "Dance Your Ass Off." And so there has to be some resemblance to these shows in order for a greater group of people to give a shit. Which is unfortunate. More attention should have been focused on the roots of the play, on how all of the original ideas fell into place. But I suppose no movie is perfect.
Verdict: Pretty Stoked (For a movie about dancing).
Unfortunately, there was a dismal turnout compared to last week's screening of "The Class," (2008). Probably due to the abrupt change in scheduling, as 2008's "Soul Power," was dropped from the bill. Hopefully next week's Monday streets will be filled with flood water, and Potsdam will have nothing else to do but find refuge in the theater.
-E
Cinema 10 - 9/28/09
Tonight's showing is "Every Little Step," (2008) a documentary about the casting process involved for the revival of the musical, "A Chorus Line." Though I'm not big on musicals, this looks like it could be pretty interesting. Starts at 7:15 at the Roxy Theatre in Potsdam. Tickets are: $3.50 for students and seniors; $4.50 for General Admission. Hope to see you there.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Goodbye, Solo
I wish I had better things to say about this movie, because apparently everyone else on the planet does. I spent a fair amount of time researching Goodbye, Solo (2008) before I went to the theater to watch it, and I cannot recall having seen a negative review. Charlie Rose had the stars and director on for a twenty minute interview that left me Stoked out of my mind for this movie. Roger Ebert said that Ramin Bahrani was the new great American film maker. The film boasts a 7.5 on IMDb. While generally I'm a little wary of a critic's opinion - and herein lies the irony of this blog - I found myself accepting what they had to say. I decided that this movie was going to be fucking awesome, god dammit. But sadly, I literally fell asleep, and have since decided that Goodbye, Solo's folly was not necessarily present within the film, but was in fact the praise that it wrought. Like so many other films before it, Bahrani's was the victim of hype. ...Solo could not have possibly lived up to the praise that it was given before audiences were allowed to watch.
Bahrani says himself - just type the name into a YouTube search and voila! - that the film is an unconventional look at the impossible formation of a loving relationship. It is an unlikely friendship that forms between our protagonist, Solo (Savane), and his suicidal counterpart, William (West). It's suggested that the film is beautiful and deeply personal, while simultaneously presenting ideas that are difficult to comprehend. It prides itself, as do the critics, on its implementation of amateur actors that provide the film with a more realistic feel than your average Hollywood Blockbuster. I also caught wind of there being a strange parallel between the film's characters, and the actors who portray them. All that's fine and good, but what Bahrani seems to forget is that a film is first and foremost a form of entertainment. In order for your audience to be able to consider the message that you put forth, they must be entertained by it. This film failed to do so, almost wholly because of the hype that preceded it. Again, I literally fell asleep.
How this film may have affected me had I not been exposed to the mass of information available, I cannot say. Such an endeavor is pointless; I cannot separate myself from the hype surrounding it, and so I must say that the movie is mediocre at best. Few films can live up to the hype that precede them. I can think only of two offhand: The Dark Knight and District 9. Certainly there are others. But when you hear a review of a movie, you never hear that it's terrible. What the fuck would be the point in that? That would not get you Stoked about a movie at all. It's safe to say that one should be skeptical when going into a theater. Though I told myself to put the hype as far out of mind as possible when I sat down, I could not help but be let down. The principal actors were wonderful, especially when one considers that this was their starring premiere. The supporting cast, however, weighs down the film so much that it's hard to enjoy what the leads are doing. Bahrani also has placed, seemingly arbitrarily, a number of lingering shots that serve no purpose. The plot is less than remarkable, so much so that one must argue that the film is merely a character study in order to salvage some sort of credibility. That alone does not save it, though. While many things happen, they're never very interesting, and if they are, it's because they're unrealistic, which completely negates Bahrani's intention of being as true-to-life as possible.
Verdict: Not Stoked.
More importantly is that a million and a half people turned out to watch the movie, not all of whom were required to do so because of class obligations. Which is awesome. No matter what they thought, people still showed up and talked about the movie. Whether they were bitching, or raving, what's crucial is that they were discussing it. No matter what I thought of the movie, the fact that I watched something with people in my town means I had something to talk to them about. Which is always better and more productive than sitting around watching douchebags get makeovers on some reality show.
Ultimately, see the film for yourself and decide, but make sure you talk about it with someone after. Otherwise, what's the point?
Bahrani says himself - just type the name into a YouTube search and voila! - that the film is an unconventional look at the impossible formation of a loving relationship. It is an unlikely friendship that forms between our protagonist, Solo (Savane), and his suicidal counterpart, William (West). It's suggested that the film is beautiful and deeply personal, while simultaneously presenting ideas that are difficult to comprehend. It prides itself, as do the critics, on its implementation of amateur actors that provide the film with a more realistic feel than your average Hollywood Blockbuster. I also caught wind of there being a strange parallel between the film's characters, and the actors who portray them. All that's fine and good, but what Bahrani seems to forget is that a film is first and foremost a form of entertainment. In order for your audience to be able to consider the message that you put forth, they must be entertained by it. This film failed to do so, almost wholly because of the hype that preceded it. Again, I literally fell asleep.
How this film may have affected me had I not been exposed to the mass of information available, I cannot say. Such an endeavor is pointless; I cannot separate myself from the hype surrounding it, and so I must say that the movie is mediocre at best. Few films can live up to the hype that precede them. I can think only of two offhand: The Dark Knight and District 9. Certainly there are others. But when you hear a review of a movie, you never hear that it's terrible. What the fuck would be the point in that? That would not get you Stoked about a movie at all. It's safe to say that one should be skeptical when going into a theater. Though I told myself to put the hype as far out of mind as possible when I sat down, I could not help but be let down. The principal actors were wonderful, especially when one considers that this was their starring premiere. The supporting cast, however, weighs down the film so much that it's hard to enjoy what the leads are doing. Bahrani also has placed, seemingly arbitrarily, a number of lingering shots that serve no purpose. The plot is less than remarkable, so much so that one must argue that the film is merely a character study in order to salvage some sort of credibility. That alone does not save it, though. While many things happen, they're never very interesting, and if they are, it's because they're unrealistic, which completely negates Bahrani's intention of being as true-to-life as possible.
Verdict: Not Stoked.
More importantly is that a million and a half people turned out to watch the movie, not all of whom were required to do so because of class obligations. Which is awesome. No matter what they thought, people still showed up and talked about the movie. Whether they were bitching, or raving, what's crucial is that they were discussing it. No matter what I thought of the movie, the fact that I watched something with people in my town means I had something to talk to them about. Which is always better and more productive than sitting around watching douchebags get makeovers on some reality show.
Ultimately, see the film for yourself and decide, but make sure you talk about it with someone after. Otherwise, what's the point?
Cinema 10
For the remainder of this fall semester, the blog you see before you will be devoted to reviews of films shown during this season's Cinema 10 run. Oh, you don't know what Cinema 10 is? Well hell. This is what it is. If that tells you nothing, then you didn't read anything at all, and I'll just tell you.
Cinema 10 is a non-profit organization operating in the frozen tundra of Potsdam, New York. Run on a volunteer basis, it is devoted to exposing our little town to independent filmmaking that our radar wouldn't catch otherwise. Each season, it features ten independent films from around the world, whether documentary, or drama, or comedy, that have had some sort of impact on the world of Film. This fall, they've arranged to show a wide variety of films, some with completely untrained actors, while others star the likes of Paul Giamatti. Stoked? It's cheap, so that should do something for you. Tickets at the Roxy Theatre are $3.50 for Students and Seniors, while Adult tickets are $4.50. In any case, what else are you going to do? Especially when October 5th rolls around, and you've got two options: a heated theater and popcorn... or MANswers and Pabst Blue Ribbon. If the latter of the two has you Stoked, turn away now. Find some other blog.
-E
Cinema 10 is a non-profit organization operating in the frozen tundra of Potsdam, New York. Run on a volunteer basis, it is devoted to exposing our little town to independent filmmaking that our radar wouldn't catch otherwise. Each season, it features ten independent films from around the world, whether documentary, or drama, or comedy, that have had some sort of impact on the world of Film. This fall, they've arranged to show a wide variety of films, some with completely untrained actors, while others star the likes of Paul Giamatti. Stoked? It's cheap, so that should do something for you. Tickets at the Roxy Theatre are $3.50 for Students and Seniors, while Adult tickets are $4.50. In any case, what else are you going to do? Especially when October 5th rolls around, and you've got two options: a heated theater and popcorn... or MANswers and Pabst Blue Ribbon. If the latter of the two has you Stoked, turn away now. Find some other blog.
-E
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)