This was the second half of the double feature of the late "serious" season. Throughout the film I kept wondering about how much of it was true. It all seemed so believable. New Jersey politicians, mafia, con artists, this film had a compelling story and it had a lot of techniques that were very well done. For example, the film didn't do an entire flashback or "live" sequence. It used variable flashbacks and flash forward to the present. So you saw some action that was in the past and some that was in the present until they both collided between the characters which furthered the plot and intensity of the conflict.
It was a very well done film. Like Twelve Years a Slave it employs unique narrative structures to tell the story. Both use some form of flashback to present some exposition. Slave uses more than Hustle, but Hustle uses it more selectively with more variety. Hustle is also shot faster. The film moves quicker from one day to the next, from one scene to the next. In contrast, Slave frames shots that last for tens of seconds. I liked how each film was shot. One quicker giving rising action a visual component. The other, using slower takes, emphasizing how long it must be for someone like the main character in Slave.
The acting in Hustle is just great. Each character is at his/her prime. Jeremy Renner was great as the corrupt mayor. Christian Bale totally changed his look to fit into character which was just great. I was totally wrapped up in his characters physical appearance as well as the issues he must face throughout the movie. Amy Adams also does a great job. As does Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper. I don't know how they are put in such emotionally resonant performances. They seemed to pore in a lot of emotion into each shot. I was totally immersed. It was like an Ocean's 11 movie except without all the humor and a much more serious narrative.
The climax of the film comes when the group who is trying to entrap corrupt politicians to make a name for themselves meets Robert De Niro is a cameo performance. During this meeting the whole con is almost blown to bits. From here it is all downhill. The group arranges a meeting with De Niro's lawyer who is actually part of a con. These scenes are executed flawlessly. And when the big twist comes, and no I didn't see it coming, it really spins the elements of the story on it's head. The writing was just outstanding. The twists and turns, the blending of styles, Scorsese with cheap 70 crime films like Serpico, the intrigue and love lives of the characters. I was thoroughly entertained.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Review of Dallas Buyer's Club by Valee
I saw Dallas Buyers as the first part of a late serious season double feature. It was brought back to circulation for awards consideration. I would not be surprised if this film did win a few awards for acting. McConaughy and Leto turn in very good performances. I was not disappointed by any aspect of this film. I read the review in Rolling Stone, but missed it the first time around because of time conflicts. I'm very glad that I saw it on the second time around. I enjoy the serious or "awards" season films much better than the summer blockbuster season. Yet, I'm still interested to see what is coming out for the Summer and I will, against my better judgement, pay for some form of entertainment which may serve as fodder for this blog.
The film was great. An excellent story brought off the page by a director who I have not heard of. Once you get past all the racism and homophobia of McConaughy and his friends the film has real substance about the changing attitudes towards LGBT people. Set in the heart of Texas it takes awhile for McConaughy to overcome his biases and prejudicies, and by the end of the film, you sense that he has changed.
The major turning point comes when Rayon and he hug each other deeply shortly before Rayon dies. Rayon is given great life by Jared Leto. In her we see the situation which a number of LGBT people find themselves in. She is transgendered, a word hardly in use in 1980s Texas, she is infected with HIV/AIDS, and she is an addict. Later on we are led to believe she has been estranged from her family. It is Rayon, and furthermore Rayon's relationship to McConaughy's character that gives the film real substance. It is here that the film grows into a sympathetic portrayal of those infected by, at the time, an unknown virus which decimated the gay community. Through this relationship Rayon is humanized and anyone who watches the film can't help but feel sympathy for her.
This was, for me, one of those movies that I didn't keep watching my watch during. It's an annoying habit, I know, but normally I like to keep track of where the film is; setup, exposition, rising action, conflict, climax, resolution. Yet, in Dallas Buyers I didn't look at my watch until more than half way through the film. It is that compelling of a film to watch. Especially with McConaughy looking so thin. His jaw bones protrude out of his face like stones.
I was left with the feeling that things got better for McConaughy's character. The intertitles at the end of the film show that he lived longer than expected, which was a victory for him. In retrospect just the making of the film shows that attitudes about LGBT people are changing all over the country and World, even in Texas. Although, I don't think so many people in Texas are going to see this movie. That's a search I'd like to run. How many Texans have seen Dallas Buyers and how did it change their perceptions of LGBT people.
The film was great. An excellent story brought off the page by a director who I have not heard of. Once you get past all the racism and homophobia of McConaughy and his friends the film has real substance about the changing attitudes towards LGBT people. Set in the heart of Texas it takes awhile for McConaughy to overcome his biases and prejudicies, and by the end of the film, you sense that he has changed.
The major turning point comes when Rayon and he hug each other deeply shortly before Rayon dies. Rayon is given great life by Jared Leto. In her we see the situation which a number of LGBT people find themselves in. She is transgendered, a word hardly in use in 1980s Texas, she is infected with HIV/AIDS, and she is an addict. Later on we are led to believe she has been estranged from her family. It is Rayon, and furthermore Rayon's relationship to McConaughy's character that gives the film real substance. It is here that the film grows into a sympathetic portrayal of those infected by, at the time, an unknown virus which decimated the gay community. Through this relationship Rayon is humanized and anyone who watches the film can't help but feel sympathy for her.
This was, for me, one of those movies that I didn't keep watching my watch during. It's an annoying habit, I know, but normally I like to keep track of where the film is; setup, exposition, rising action, conflict, climax, resolution. Yet, in Dallas Buyers I didn't look at my watch until more than half way through the film. It is that compelling of a film to watch. Especially with McConaughy looking so thin. His jaw bones protrude out of his face like stones.
I was left with the feeling that things got better for McConaughy's character. The intertitles at the end of the film show that he lived longer than expected, which was a victory for him. In retrospect just the making of the film shows that attitudes about LGBT people are changing all over the country and World, even in Texas. Although, I don't think so many people in Texas are going to see this movie. That's a search I'd like to run. How many Texans have seen Dallas Buyers and how did it change their perceptions of LGBT people.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Review of Accattone by Pasolini
This was my first film of Pasolini. I had watched a brief documentary about him on Fandor and was intrigued by such a complicated man. He is openly gay and a communist in Italy which is a country that put the Fascists in power for more than twenty years. So I think to myself does he have an audience? How was he accepted by Italians? Yet, he made a number of films and wrote several books. So, obviously, he had an audience. In analyzing this film I cannot refrain from mentioning the stark differences between Pasolini and Fellini which are probably the Italian filmmakers I know best. Fellini's films have the heir of bourgeosieness, whereas, at least Accattone has a very proleterian style. It is very explicit in contrast to Fellini's films which are more restrained.
Accattone centers around a pimp. It deals with prostitution, in fact, that is the action of the entire film. I was quite shocked when Accattone's prostitute is beaten up by a group of Italian men. I had premonitions that something bad was going to happen and they were confirmed. Afterwards the movie spirals downward into the morass of working class Italy. The scenes of urban poverty were striking. Several shots were memorable and quite a contrast to Fellini's aerial shots of Rome, or his shots of bustling streets in the Italian capital. It is also devoid, as the nytimes.com reviewer has said, of passion. There is no intellectualism like in Fellini's 8 1/2. Accattone is merely a presentation of how things are. This is the way life is, devoid of morality of any sort of reason. Life is a struggle to survive, whether that means backstabbing your friends, stealing from your son, or pimping out a naive girl.
I'm reminded of Rosselini's Germany year zero. Everything is broken. Buildings are devastated, there is no God, no morals. Like the boy in Germany Year Zero, Accattone does morally reprehensible acts without much consequence. He also meets a tragic end. In both films we see characters trying to live in a World that is destitute and offers them nothing but tragedy and hardship.
Several of the walking shots stuck out in my head. They were tracking shots that really looked improvised. I like how they showed Accattone walking and talking to his prostitute. The shots were very intense, similar to the "shaky" camera that is so popular in contemporary Cinema. I also liked the shots of Accattone and his friends at a Cafe. The headshots showed off Italian style and gave a glimpse into what life was like when the film was made.
Accattone centers around a pimp. It deals with prostitution, in fact, that is the action of the entire film. I was quite shocked when Accattone's prostitute is beaten up by a group of Italian men. I had premonitions that something bad was going to happen and they were confirmed. Afterwards the movie spirals downward into the morass of working class Italy. The scenes of urban poverty were striking. Several shots were memorable and quite a contrast to Fellini's aerial shots of Rome, or his shots of bustling streets in the Italian capital. It is also devoid, as the nytimes.com reviewer has said, of passion. There is no intellectualism like in Fellini's 8 1/2. Accattone is merely a presentation of how things are. This is the way life is, devoid of morality of any sort of reason. Life is a struggle to survive, whether that means backstabbing your friends, stealing from your son, or pimping out a naive girl.
I'm reminded of Rosselini's Germany year zero. Everything is broken. Buildings are devastated, there is no God, no morals. Like the boy in Germany Year Zero, Accattone does morally reprehensible acts without much consequence. He also meets a tragic end. In both films we see characters trying to live in a World that is destitute and offers them nothing but tragedy and hardship.
Several of the walking shots stuck out in my head. They were tracking shots that really looked improvised. I like how they showed Accattone walking and talking to his prostitute. The shots were very intense, similar to the "shaky" camera that is so popular in contemporary Cinema. I also liked the shots of Accattone and his friends at a Cafe. The headshots showed off Italian style and gave a glimpse into what life was like when the film was made.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Review of Cleo 5 to 7 by Varda
This was a very tres chic film. Very similar to other French New Wave films like Breathless. At least I saw it in the car scenes. This is the first Agnes Varda film I've seen and she doesn't depart from the New Wave aesthetic; the jump cuts, the self reflexive authorial voice, the black and white, the dialogue about between characters, all make it a New Wave film.
I read the review by Ebert and I wasn't satisfied. Mostly, and I don't want to be cursed by referrencing a dead person, it was summary. It talked briefly about the life of Varda recounting how he had several dinners, etc. with her. But he didn't really analyze the film in any meaningful way. I wanted more and was disappointed.
As with most, if not all, I haven't seen every French New Wave film, and furthermore I think it's probably impossible to view all of them, Cleo was heavy on dialogue. Some of the details I didn't get. Such as when she plays her song in Cafe and it is called "noise." Otherwise the film follows a simple format, merely following Cleo around Paris as she shops for hats. The major turning point in the film is when she gets fed up with her songwriter and piano player. She storms out of her sparse apartment.
The entire movie centers around Cleo finding out whether she has cancer or not. In the end she does. The movie ends on a sour note. I liked the film for it's style. Several shots were good. Not great though. Definitely not Godard's jump cuts in Breathless. There was also some cross cutting of various elements of Cleo; like her hat, her wig, her apartment, her piano player. I wasn't sure what these meant. I suppose it was a montage sequence about Cleo's life. Those were the most interesting shots of the film.
I read the review by Ebert and I wasn't satisfied. Mostly, and I don't want to be cursed by referrencing a dead person, it was summary. It talked briefly about the life of Varda recounting how he had several dinners, etc. with her. But he didn't really analyze the film in any meaningful way. I wanted more and was disappointed.
As with most, if not all, I haven't seen every French New Wave film, and furthermore I think it's probably impossible to view all of them, Cleo was heavy on dialogue. Some of the details I didn't get. Such as when she plays her song in Cafe and it is called "noise." Otherwise the film follows a simple format, merely following Cleo around Paris as she shops for hats. The major turning point in the film is when she gets fed up with her songwriter and piano player. She storms out of her sparse apartment.
The entire movie centers around Cleo finding out whether she has cancer or not. In the end she does. The movie ends on a sour note. I liked the film for it's style. Several shots were good. Not great though. Definitely not Godard's jump cuts in Breathless. There was also some cross cutting of various elements of Cleo; like her hat, her wig, her apartment, her piano player. I wasn't sure what these meant. I suppose it was a montage sequence about Cleo's life. Those were the most interesting shots of the film.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Review of Total Recall by Verhoeven
This was a very violent movie. At one point I thought the body count was increasing quite exponentially. Then, Arnold uses a pedestrian as a human shield and I thought how could this get more violent? I started to count the bodies. At one point I even speculated as to how many bodies Arnold was going to take out in one scene. It was a group of Imperial troops that served as canon fodder. I don't know which scene is more violent the one from this movie with the human shield or the scene from Terminator where he takes out the whole police station? I suppose the Europeans may be right when they think of Americans as "crazy" to tolerate so much violence.
Roger Ebert in his review cites many examples where the story or plot goes askance. There are logical errors, but, as Ebert wrote, they don't take away from the story which is the best part of the film. Based on a Philip K. Dick story, Total Recall brings up several issues that were current in film theory and are constantly debated in college philosophy courses. Dick's story brings up the question; what is reality? Can it be changed? How is it constructed? When Quaid goes to have the memories implanted it starts the action of the story, but, it also begins the questioning of whether Quaid is dreaming or is he awake? What is reality for Quaid?
This was a quandary for Structuralists who often theorized how reality was constructed. What makes us able to identify with reality? Words? Senses? Perhaps most of all, memories. What we hold most cherished among our lives. Those personal memories. Those pure unadulterated recollections of bliss, of passion, of peace, of experiencing something, of feeling something. Someone said the worst feeling is remembering a previous time when you were happy. And I think this feeling about memories and how valuable they are and how they affect our experience of reality is what Dick's story meant.
So we come to a future place where memories can be replaced or inserted. Now Quaid has fake memories or does he? The film devolves into something of an essay about consciousness and memories into a Sci-fi Action film, which I have already noted, is heavily laden with violence and, also, special effects. For films of this genre; 1980s action films like Blade Runner, the Running Man, Terminator, Rambo, etc which were very violent and masculine this one might be one of the better films. Certainly better than Terminator 2 which was overproduced and used the star system to it's own fault, as well as exploiting it's market to the last penny. White, teenage or pre-adolescent youths who like guns, rock music, and violence. A recipe for commercial success, but not critical. Hollywood must live, like an organism, morphing into different films, seeking profit, exploiting audiences like stranglers from the herd.
Yet, Total Recall was not a total exploitation film. The story was good, the acting, for an Arnold picture, was believable. And the sets, scenes of Mars, and mutants made it a visually alluring film. The best scene, and I agree with NYTimes critic Janet Maslin, is where a doctor appears bring Quaid back from his dream. I was somewhat confused by how Quaid makes his decision to continue his dream. Does the bead of sweat that he saw on the doctor's face mean he was human? Is that why he killed the doctor? I suppose Quaid continues down his schizoid delusion. This is the last we here about whether he was dreaming or awake. I guess it's a mute point. He was awake. He saved the settlers and freed them from the evil corporate dictator. I would have like to see what happens if he chose to take the doctor seriously and took the pill. What would have happened then?
Roger Ebert in his review cites many examples where the story or plot goes askance. There are logical errors, but, as Ebert wrote, they don't take away from the story which is the best part of the film. Based on a Philip K. Dick story, Total Recall brings up several issues that were current in film theory and are constantly debated in college philosophy courses. Dick's story brings up the question; what is reality? Can it be changed? How is it constructed? When Quaid goes to have the memories implanted it starts the action of the story, but, it also begins the questioning of whether Quaid is dreaming or is he awake? What is reality for Quaid?
This was a quandary for Structuralists who often theorized how reality was constructed. What makes us able to identify with reality? Words? Senses? Perhaps most of all, memories. What we hold most cherished among our lives. Those personal memories. Those pure unadulterated recollections of bliss, of passion, of peace, of experiencing something, of feeling something. Someone said the worst feeling is remembering a previous time when you were happy. And I think this feeling about memories and how valuable they are and how they affect our experience of reality is what Dick's story meant.
So we come to a future place where memories can be replaced or inserted. Now Quaid has fake memories or does he? The film devolves into something of an essay about consciousness and memories into a Sci-fi Action film, which I have already noted, is heavily laden with violence and, also, special effects. For films of this genre; 1980s action films like Blade Runner, the Running Man, Terminator, Rambo, etc which were very violent and masculine this one might be one of the better films. Certainly better than Terminator 2 which was overproduced and used the star system to it's own fault, as well as exploiting it's market to the last penny. White, teenage or pre-adolescent youths who like guns, rock music, and violence. A recipe for commercial success, but not critical. Hollywood must live, like an organism, morphing into different films, seeking profit, exploiting audiences like stranglers from the herd.
Yet, Total Recall was not a total exploitation film. The story was good, the acting, for an Arnold picture, was believable. And the sets, scenes of Mars, and mutants made it a visually alluring film. The best scene, and I agree with NYTimes critic Janet Maslin, is where a doctor appears bring Quaid back from his dream. I was somewhat confused by how Quaid makes his decision to continue his dream. Does the bead of sweat that he saw on the doctor's face mean he was human? Is that why he killed the doctor? I suppose Quaid continues down his schizoid delusion. This is the last we here about whether he was dreaming or awake. I guess it's a mute point. He was awake. He saved the settlers and freed them from the evil corporate dictator. I would have like to see what happens if he chose to take the doctor seriously and took the pill. What would have happened then?
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Review of M. Butterfly by Cronenberg
This was one of the weirdest movies I have seen. The entire movie the audience is led to believe that the opera singer is a woman until, at the end she is actually a he. I watched this movie primarily because Jeremy Irons and John Lone were in it. I'm a big fan of Jeremy Irons and have been since I watched Bertolucci's Stealing Beauty. I also have a deep appreciation for Lone. I am a big fan of The Last Emperor which was also by Bertolucci and stands as Lone's crowning achievement. I thought that both actors took risks in doing such a strange film. Lone plays the transvestite. And Irons plays a French diplomat that is all too naively used as an informant for the Chinese government.
The story is based on a true story. Apparently, hard to believe as it is, the French diplomat had no idea that the opera singer was a man. Throughout all of their close encounters, he still had no idea she was he. It is really hard to believe, but it's the truth. So, you would think that the film, which was based on a play, would be intriguing, interesting, and full of ideas about gender, sexuality as well as relations between the East and West, Caucasian and Asian. It is, but those ideas only come about, mostly at the end, when the diplomat is revealed to be an arrogant imperialist.
For it all it's intellectual ideas it wasn't that great of a film. It does take risks. It does try to viscerally affect the audience by bringing them into the historical times in which the movie is set in like the Cultural Revolution, Maoist China, and the 1968 student protests. But all of these events are too briefly depicted on the screen and they seem to have little affect on any of the actors. I would have like to see more of the affects of the tumultuous times on the players
This film reminded me in several ways of Farewell My Concubine. Both were released in the late 80s and early 90s. Both deal with Beijing Opera singers. And, yes, both deal with characters who are queer. The fact that both films deal with characters who are not straight was a positive development. Both films, along with other films, like My Own Private Idaho, give audiences a glimpse into what it's like to be queer, to lack power, to be expendable, to be used as in the case of M. Butterfly.
Although it doesn't have the historical breadth that Last Emperor had or the emotional visceralness of Farewell My Concubine, it is a good piece of Cinema. I just think there were too many elipses of time throught the film. Perhaps there could have been more substance. Yet, the end of the film is very good. I was thoroughly weirded out when Jeremy Irons dresses in drag, performs a scene from Madama Butterlfy, then commits suicide in a prison.
For me, the most lasting question was about relations between Imperialist powers, like France, and those who suffered from Imperialism, like China. It made me re-think how I interact with Asian women. It made me question how I view them or want them to be. Do I, like Irons' character, expect them to be submissive? Do I really feel some sort of superiority over Asians because of the history of Imperialism? I think these are questions that should be studied by Asian historians and others.
The story is based on a true story. Apparently, hard to believe as it is, the French diplomat had no idea that the opera singer was a man. Throughout all of their close encounters, he still had no idea she was he. It is really hard to believe, but it's the truth. So, you would think that the film, which was based on a play, would be intriguing, interesting, and full of ideas about gender, sexuality as well as relations between the East and West, Caucasian and Asian. It is, but those ideas only come about, mostly at the end, when the diplomat is revealed to be an arrogant imperialist.
For it all it's intellectual ideas it wasn't that great of a film. It does take risks. It does try to viscerally affect the audience by bringing them into the historical times in which the movie is set in like the Cultural Revolution, Maoist China, and the 1968 student protests. But all of these events are too briefly depicted on the screen and they seem to have little affect on any of the actors. I would have like to see more of the affects of the tumultuous times on the players
This film reminded me in several ways of Farewell My Concubine. Both were released in the late 80s and early 90s. Both deal with Beijing Opera singers. And, yes, both deal with characters who are queer. The fact that both films deal with characters who are not straight was a positive development. Both films, along with other films, like My Own Private Idaho, give audiences a glimpse into what it's like to be queer, to lack power, to be expendable, to be used as in the case of M. Butterfly.
Although it doesn't have the historical breadth that Last Emperor had or the emotional visceralness of Farewell My Concubine, it is a good piece of Cinema. I just think there were too many elipses of time throught the film. Perhaps there could have been more substance. Yet, the end of the film is very good. I was thoroughly weirded out when Jeremy Irons dresses in drag, performs a scene from Madama Butterlfy, then commits suicide in a prison.
For me, the most lasting question was about relations between Imperialist powers, like France, and those who suffered from Imperialism, like China. It made me re-think how I interact with Asian women. It made me question how I view them or want them to be. Do I, like Irons' character, expect them to be submissive? Do I really feel some sort of superiority over Asians because of the history of Imperialism? I think these are questions that should be studied by Asian historians and others.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Review of Blood Simple by the Coen Brothers
I was recently watching Inside Llewyn Davis by the Coen Brothers and I was so impressed that I thought I'd check out their other films. To my delightful enlightenment it turns out they have a long history of producing high quality film products. Their reputation stretches all the way back to 1984 with the release of Blood Simple which is the subject of this review. As a side note, or main note, I've just picked up Peter Biskind's book about the Indie scene of the 1990s The first chapter talks about the Coen Brothers and Jim Jarmusch among others who made indie films during the 1980s. Anyway I'm reading more about it. Look at my other blog about Biskind's other book about the "New" Hollywood of the 1970s. Great read. Highly recommended.
Anyway, on to the film. It was great So many memorable shots. I salute the director and cinematographer. The best, perhaps, scene was where M. Emmet Walsh sticks his hand around the windowsill and Frances McDormand, not to be confused with Andie MacDowal, why did I get these two confused?, stabs his hand with a knife pinning it to the wooden windowsill. And it stays there for several minutes. I was anxious to know what would happen next, I couldn't formulate a guess. Many times throughout this film I couldn't guess what would happen next. Would he kill the cheating couple? What would happen with the private eye? It was good screenwriting all the way. Plenty of twists and turns. No predictable outcomes. It kept me rapt with attention. And the part where M. Emmet Walsh shoots through the wall is great, creative, cinematography. It shows his struggle with Frances without showing either of them at all in the scene. More is said by having little bullet holes with light shining through them, then by anything such as crosscutting or some such thing.
As someone from New York, upstate, but having lived in the City and New Jersey, this film was a departure from films that overtly portray life in Manhattan or LA. It was centered in Texas and had a decidedly southwestern tone. I couldn't get over the cowboy boots while he was dragging the body from place to place. Furthermore I was reminded of Edgar Allen Poe's Cask of Amontillado when the husband was being buried alive. That scene was also memorable. The pistol that wouldn't shoot. The burial that proceeded. Great cinema. Ideally shot, staged, and acted. Couldn't have been better.
I'm interested to see Barton Fink which won the top prize at Cannes in 1991 over one of my favorite films, Europa, and film directors Lars Von Trier. After I do get a hold of it, it better satisfy or else I wll write a scathing blog about it. I'm sure it will not dissappoint, but who knows? Perhaps I will screen both films, back to back, and write a blog comparing both and assert a claim as to which is better. Should be fun, I hope you will read it.
Anyway, on to the film. It was great So many memorable shots. I salute the director and cinematographer. The best, perhaps, scene was where M. Emmet Walsh sticks his hand around the windowsill and Frances McDormand, not to be confused with Andie MacDowal, why did I get these two confused?, stabs his hand with a knife pinning it to the wooden windowsill. And it stays there for several minutes. I was anxious to know what would happen next, I couldn't formulate a guess. Many times throughout this film I couldn't guess what would happen next. Would he kill the cheating couple? What would happen with the private eye? It was good screenwriting all the way. Plenty of twists and turns. No predictable outcomes. It kept me rapt with attention. And the part where M. Emmet Walsh shoots through the wall is great, creative, cinematography. It shows his struggle with Frances without showing either of them at all in the scene. More is said by having little bullet holes with light shining through them, then by anything such as crosscutting or some such thing.
As someone from New York, upstate, but having lived in the City and New Jersey, this film was a departure from films that overtly portray life in Manhattan or LA. It was centered in Texas and had a decidedly southwestern tone. I couldn't get over the cowboy boots while he was dragging the body from place to place. Furthermore I was reminded of Edgar Allen Poe's Cask of Amontillado when the husband was being buried alive. That scene was also memorable. The pistol that wouldn't shoot. The burial that proceeded. Great cinema. Ideally shot, staged, and acted. Couldn't have been better.
I'm interested to see Barton Fink which won the top prize at Cannes in 1991 over one of my favorite films, Europa, and film directors Lars Von Trier. After I do get a hold of it, it better satisfy or else I wll write a scathing blog about it. I'm sure it will not dissappoint, but who knows? Perhaps I will screen both films, back to back, and write a blog comparing both and assert a claim as to which is better. Should be fun, I hope you will read it.
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Review of Oshima's Night and Fog in Japan
After seeing an early Japanese silent film at MoMA in New York my enthusiasm for Japanese film has been reinvigorated. I did some light research about Shochiku Studios which together with Toho Studios were the major film studios in Japan. I've seen several films by Ozu and have watched Tokyo Story several times. Yet I felt like the narratives get stale and too domestic. Not that domestic is such a bad term. Throughout the 1950s both in Japan and the United States domestic films were very popular, but, in the words of Hauldin Caulfield, they became "phony." by the end of the fifties. And I think Ozu's films started to become more and more phony as the years progressed. Which leads me to the film I am reviewing for this blog, Night and Fog in Japan by Nagisa Oshima.
Oshima is, perhaps, the best director of the Japanese "new wave." He has been called the Jean luc Godard of Japan. After seeing this film I believe the comparison is justified. Night and Fog is a dense political film about student protesters in 50s Japan. There are is some really excellent writing. The dialogue is very sophisticated as well as the plot and characters.
The film centers on a group of students who are active members of protest groups, some of them are Socialist. They are united in their opposition to numerous laws that the Japanese Diet is going to pass during the movie. Through flashbacks, mostly, we see how the students suffer from the brutality of Japanese police. There is also a severe sense of paranoia which pervades the students activities. This becomes the central conflict of the film. Whether or not someone they caught trying to steal documents was a spy or not and whether or not one of their own was also a spy. The students suspect that Takao, one of their own, helped the spy escape and is really a government agent. It turns out in the end that they were wrong to suspect him and that no one spoke up because it would expose a pre-marital affair between two students. Takao committs suicide and several of the relationships within the group are badly damaged.
Oshima presents a distinct new way of making films. Ozu was from the same studio, Shochiku, as Oshima, but their films are very different. Oshima is much more confrontational. He calls into question Japanese alliance with the United States. He exposes the conflicts that young Japanese had in living their lives; not being sent off to war again, not living in poverty, not living in sin. To have young peoples issues portrayed in all their ugliness was something that Oshima does well. Rather than some film essay about Confucian values, the ills of modernization, or some such thing you would find in an Ozu film, Oshima presents a new era and he was not alone. Godard was doing it in France and Fellini was doing it in Italy. The New Wave broke in Japan with Oshima's three films all released in 1960.
Furthermore, I especially like some of the camera shots and lighting throughout the film. It gave it an avant-garde aspect. It was definitely new and unique; a break with tradition.
Oshima is, perhaps, the best director of the Japanese "new wave." He has been called the Jean luc Godard of Japan. After seeing this film I believe the comparison is justified. Night and Fog is a dense political film about student protesters in 50s Japan. There are is some really excellent writing. The dialogue is very sophisticated as well as the plot and characters.
The film centers on a group of students who are active members of protest groups, some of them are Socialist. They are united in their opposition to numerous laws that the Japanese Diet is going to pass during the movie. Through flashbacks, mostly, we see how the students suffer from the brutality of Japanese police. There is also a severe sense of paranoia which pervades the students activities. This becomes the central conflict of the film. Whether or not someone they caught trying to steal documents was a spy or not and whether or not one of their own was also a spy. The students suspect that Takao, one of their own, helped the spy escape and is really a government agent. It turns out in the end that they were wrong to suspect him and that no one spoke up because it would expose a pre-marital affair between two students. Takao committs suicide and several of the relationships within the group are badly damaged.
Oshima presents a distinct new way of making films. Ozu was from the same studio, Shochiku, as Oshima, but their films are very different. Oshima is much more confrontational. He calls into question Japanese alliance with the United States. He exposes the conflicts that young Japanese had in living their lives; not being sent off to war again, not living in poverty, not living in sin. To have young peoples issues portrayed in all their ugliness was something that Oshima does well. Rather than some film essay about Confucian values, the ills of modernization, or some such thing you would find in an Ozu film, Oshima presents a new era and he was not alone. Godard was doing it in France and Fellini was doing it in Italy. The New Wave broke in Japan with Oshima's three films all released in 1960.
Furthermore, I especially like some of the camera shots and lighting throughout the film. It gave it an avant-garde aspect. It was definitely new and unique; a break with tradition.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Review of Spike Jonze's Her
This was, perhaps, the most interesting film I've seen so far. I thought it was well written. There were two twists in the narrative; one I saw coming, the second I had an inkling, but didn't guess totally. I will provide numerous spoilers, so if you haven't seen the movies stop reading now. The on I guessed is where he has to decide whether he wants to keep dating the operating system or if he will leave her. This becomes the central conflict of the movie. Pheonix's character, well played as usual, is an awkward letter writer who is on the rebound from a broken marraige. He tries going out with an intuitive computer program that knows how he feels, has emtions herself, and is as much of a real person as one might expect. In the end all of the operating systems decide to leave their human companions. Which I thought was an unusual ending. One that I didn't see coming
The film is decidely for the "art house" "college age" crowd. Perhaps I'm over-analyzing but I thought the film really appeals to 20 or 30 somethings working, trying to achieve social success through marriage or relationships and having difficulty living with other people and the late night introspective sessions that ensue. There are several scenes where Pheonix is up late at night talking to someone online or, more so, the operating system.
I liked the melancholy of the film. I liked it's Art House pretensions. It was a cinematic experience that I would like to have every time I go to the movies. It left me sad, with questions about what I'm doing with my life? Whats important to me? Have I found love yet? If not, whats wrong with me? Is it better to be alone? These were questions, I'm sure, everyone at around a certain age thinks about. Everyone wants someone to love. But a computer software program? That's what makes the film very interesting. In the age of th iphone, of the facebook post, and the tweet, we wonder if technology can satisfy every need we have. Can a romantic interest be simulated? Is it as good as a human? Is it better?
After the big conflict is resolved, Phoenix chooses to have a relationship with the OS, the OS drops him because, apparently, she is too advanced for him to comprehend. I suppose this raises the question about the role of technology in our society. It plays with the theme of man vs. machine, this notion of techno-utopia as promulgated by Silicon Valley and others. I thought of Metropolis or Blade Runner as relevant comparisons. How much control do we have over machines? How much time do we have left before machines control our lives? Which causes me to consider 2001 by Kubrick and the evil computer. I suppose Her is the antithesis of that film. The evil computer is the very opposite of a OS designed to provide companionship to humans
A very well done film. Very satisfying.
The film is decidely for the "art house" "college age" crowd. Perhaps I'm over-analyzing but I thought the film really appeals to 20 or 30 somethings working, trying to achieve social success through marriage or relationships and having difficulty living with other people and the late night introspective sessions that ensue. There are several scenes where Pheonix is up late at night talking to someone online or, more so, the operating system.
I liked the melancholy of the film. I liked it's Art House pretensions. It was a cinematic experience that I would like to have every time I go to the movies. It left me sad, with questions about what I'm doing with my life? Whats important to me? Have I found love yet? If not, whats wrong with me? Is it better to be alone? These were questions, I'm sure, everyone at around a certain age thinks about. Everyone wants someone to love. But a computer software program? That's what makes the film very interesting. In the age of th iphone, of the facebook post, and the tweet, we wonder if technology can satisfy every need we have. Can a romantic interest be simulated? Is it as good as a human? Is it better?
After the big conflict is resolved, Phoenix chooses to have a relationship with the OS, the OS drops him because, apparently, she is too advanced for him to comprehend. I suppose this raises the question about the role of technology in our society. It plays with the theme of man vs. machine, this notion of techno-utopia as promulgated by Silicon Valley and others. I thought of Metropolis or Blade Runner as relevant comparisons. How much control do we have over machines? How much time do we have left before machines control our lives? Which causes me to consider 2001 by Kubrick and the evil computer. I suppose Her is the antithesis of that film. The evil computer is the very opposite of a OS designed to provide companionship to humans
A very well done film. Very satisfying.
Review of Inside Llewyn Davis by the Coen Brothers
This was one of the best films I've seen so far this year. It has been critically praised, lauded for it's cinematography and writing and directing. As a former resident of New York City, a reader of beat literature in my adolescence, and an enthusiastic, perhaps a bit unquestioning, fan of anything from Greenwich Village, I found the movie a journey back to a time that I wished I had experienced first-hand. I am in total agreement with the reviewer from the New Yorker.com that for those that lived through those years it is an endless track back to those times and a constant re-telling of stories from that period; and for those, like myself, it is an endless interest in what it was like back then. And on those terms; re-living a time, going back in time, a period piece, an emotional experience of things gone, this film did not disappoint.
Perhaps I'm alreay saying what is obvious. It's a Coen Brothers film so of course it's one of the best films of the year. Sadly, I don't have an adequate knowledge to make a comparison of Coen Brothers films. Yet, I think this film should be one of their best. The story told is part legend, part de-mystificiation, part depiction of the life of a muscian, a folk singer. The lead actor is especially good. He makes you feel his desolation, his desperation of trying to find somewhere to live, someway to make a living without sacrificing his art. These are the pre-Dylan days of Folk music, so a purist orthodoxy reigns in Folk Music. I felt this idea was adequately portrayed in the scene where the fok trio sings. They look very conservative, they all sing perfectly in unison. It reminded me of Peter, Paul, and Mary. Juxtapose that against Oscar Davis' Llewyn and it really shows the ferment in the Folk Scene. It also shows Llewyn's struggle to reach stardom as well as keeping his integrity as a singer-songwriter.
Aside from great performances by the actors, I was particularly taken with Cary Mulligan's performance as the ascerbic, scorned woman. The rest of the characters are all peripheral to Davis' journey which, we are led to believe, ends in, what could be worse, obscurity.
The New York Film Critics Circle awarded Inside... for best cinematography which was well deserved. I noticed it a little during the film and upon deeper reflection, the cinematography was very well shot. It really made you feel like it was Winter. You felt the cold on the streets. And those shots of the doors of the apartments which were so close together were great.
The ending was the subject of a discussion in a New Yorker blog post. It talks about the meaning of the end. It's circular structure revealing that the journey Llewyn was on was in whole or in part a flashback and, furthermore, is a meditation on Llewyn's career as a Folk muscian. When he is punched, knocked, down, and can't get up while Bob Dylan plays on stage, means that Llewyn's career is over. He has been knocked down for the last time. Dylan would revolutionize Folk music in such a way as to wipe out Llewyn's career and many like him. I suppose that is true. Perhaps it is his last performance, his last heckle.
To me the movie brought the music industry into perspective. I suppose there was Pop back then. Some form of uncritical, superficially expressive musical form which is so popular and antisceptic today. Which is dominated by white, religious, and optimistic singers and narratives. Inside Llewyn Davis goes back to a time when music was becoming an important venue to criticize society at large, to use it as a forum for open criticism of social injustices like racism, sexism, poverty, global conflict, and corruption. The music of Bob Dylan is, perhaps the clearest result of the tumult of the Folk scene at the time when Inside Llewyn is set. I feel like it's meaning is nostalgic as well as a message. Nostalgic for the Greenwich Village of the 1950's and early 60's. A message about how music can influence society. Perhaps I' interpreting too much about the politics of the film. Yet with most of the music that is produced today a testament about how it was previously produced should remind us of the serious song writers that were a voice to many people.
Perhaps I'm alreay saying what is obvious. It's a Coen Brothers film so of course it's one of the best films of the year. Sadly, I don't have an adequate knowledge to make a comparison of Coen Brothers films. Yet, I think this film should be one of their best. The story told is part legend, part de-mystificiation, part depiction of the life of a muscian, a folk singer. The lead actor is especially good. He makes you feel his desolation, his desperation of trying to find somewhere to live, someway to make a living without sacrificing his art. These are the pre-Dylan days of Folk music, so a purist orthodoxy reigns in Folk Music. I felt this idea was adequately portrayed in the scene where the fok trio sings. They look very conservative, they all sing perfectly in unison. It reminded me of Peter, Paul, and Mary. Juxtapose that against Oscar Davis' Llewyn and it really shows the ferment in the Folk Scene. It also shows Llewyn's struggle to reach stardom as well as keeping his integrity as a singer-songwriter.
Aside from great performances by the actors, I was particularly taken with Cary Mulligan's performance as the ascerbic, scorned woman. The rest of the characters are all peripheral to Davis' journey which, we are led to believe, ends in, what could be worse, obscurity.
The New York Film Critics Circle awarded Inside... for best cinematography which was well deserved. I noticed it a little during the film and upon deeper reflection, the cinematography was very well shot. It really made you feel like it was Winter. You felt the cold on the streets. And those shots of the doors of the apartments which were so close together were great.
The ending was the subject of a discussion in a New Yorker blog post. It talks about the meaning of the end. It's circular structure revealing that the journey Llewyn was on was in whole or in part a flashback and, furthermore, is a meditation on Llewyn's career as a Folk muscian. When he is punched, knocked, down, and can't get up while Bob Dylan plays on stage, means that Llewyn's career is over. He has been knocked down for the last time. Dylan would revolutionize Folk music in such a way as to wipe out Llewyn's career and many like him. I suppose that is true. Perhaps it is his last performance, his last heckle.
To me the movie brought the music industry into perspective. I suppose there was Pop back then. Some form of uncritical, superficially expressive musical form which is so popular and antisceptic today. Which is dominated by white, religious, and optimistic singers and narratives. Inside Llewyn Davis goes back to a time when music was becoming an important venue to criticize society at large, to use it as a forum for open criticism of social injustices like racism, sexism, poverty, global conflict, and corruption. The music of Bob Dylan is, perhaps the clearest result of the tumult of the Folk scene at the time when Inside Llewyn is set. I feel like it's meaning is nostalgic as well as a message. Nostalgic for the Greenwich Village of the 1950's and early 60's. A message about how music can influence society. Perhaps I' interpreting too much about the politics of the film. Yet with most of the music that is produced today a testament about how it was previously produced should remind us of the serious song writers that were a voice to many people.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Review of Beware of a Holy Whore by Fassbinder
Another European film? Another Fassbinder film? Why? Why not study only American film? I don't know I guess I'm a europhile. Perhaps it's because I've been going to the movies a lot with my friend from Berlin. Maybe it's because Criterion recently came out with a collection of early Fassbinder films. Anyway, I like this film better than Ali Fear Eats the Soul, but just as much as Fassbinder's BRD trilogy.
This film has the visceral emotional struggle so inherent in the best of Fassbinder's work. It's in the Marriage of Maria Braun, it's in Veronica Voss, and it is definitely in this film. Before there was Brokeback Mountain or Milk, dare I say, there was Beware of a Holy Whore. Male homosexual love is given ample screen time, in fact it may prove to be the central conflict in the film. The thing which everyone knows is going on, but no one talks about.
Compared to other films? I, because I know Italian Cinema, thought of Fellini's 8 1/2 more than other contemporary films like, for example from Godard or Truffaut, or from other New German directors. Vincent Canby writes in his review from the 1970s that the film isn't just about filmmaking. What it's really about is the Director himself, Werner Fassbinder. And looking back in hindsight Canby is correct. Without knowing anything about Fassbinder, I think, a viewer would be lost about all the plot twists and turns, about his bisexuality, his love affairs with men and women, and his manic working style. Those parts of the film are best. When the director yells at everyone, telling everyone to do something, that is when you see the point of the whole film, which is a self reflexive narrative about Fassbinder's life.
Perhaps it is less pent up in theological debates then Fellini's film, which film to make? Perhaps I shall consult a priest? Fassbinder doesn't deal with any moral dillemnas here. Perhaps Fassbinder's indecision about his sexuality is his moral dilemna, Anyway, he merely presents himself on camera for everyone to see which is why it is a very good film.
I don't think it has as much substance as the films in the BRD trilogy. Yet, it is, to date, the most personal film from Fassbinder, I have seen.
This film has the visceral emotional struggle so inherent in the best of Fassbinder's work. It's in the Marriage of Maria Braun, it's in Veronica Voss, and it is definitely in this film. Before there was Brokeback Mountain or Milk, dare I say, there was Beware of a Holy Whore. Male homosexual love is given ample screen time, in fact it may prove to be the central conflict in the film. The thing which everyone knows is going on, but no one talks about.
Compared to other films? I, because I know Italian Cinema, thought of Fellini's 8 1/2 more than other contemporary films like, for example from Godard or Truffaut, or from other New German directors. Vincent Canby writes in his review from the 1970s that the film isn't just about filmmaking. What it's really about is the Director himself, Werner Fassbinder. And looking back in hindsight Canby is correct. Without knowing anything about Fassbinder, I think, a viewer would be lost about all the plot twists and turns, about his bisexuality, his love affairs with men and women, and his manic working style. Those parts of the film are best. When the director yells at everyone, telling everyone to do something, that is when you see the point of the whole film, which is a self reflexive narrative about Fassbinder's life.
Perhaps it is less pent up in theological debates then Fellini's film, which film to make? Perhaps I shall consult a priest? Fassbinder doesn't deal with any moral dillemnas here. Perhaps Fassbinder's indecision about his sexuality is his moral dilemna, Anyway, he merely presents himself on camera for everyone to see which is why it is a very good film.
I don't think it has as much substance as the films in the BRD trilogy. Yet, it is, to date, the most personal film from Fassbinder, I have seen.
Review of Wolf of Wall Street by Scorsese
There is a word that I have come to understand more deeply by watching Scorsese's latest picture Wolf of Wall Street. It was brought to my attention this past Summer when my Professor described the shirt I was wearing as "tacky." After watching Wolf I now know the meaning of "tacky." The whole movie could be described, from a sociological standpoint, as a study in "tackyness." The characters, the settings, the plot, the action, everything about it, tacky, tacky, tacky. So much tacky that I found myself shaking my head in disgust. The level of tackyness will not be surpassed by another film for quite some time. Yet, it is also a depiction of what a tacky person, with tacky ambitions, can become in a world so full of tackyness, that his tackyness is rendered inoccuous.
Yes the movie is funny on a level. In fact during the screening there were many laughs. I even laughed at some of the drug induced scenes. Mostly though I sat in disgust at the utter depravity with which Belfort and his colleagues lived. So much drugs and drinking, and sex, and an unhealthy obsession with money which was only used to do more drugs, drinking, and more sex which proved hilarious at times, on another level it portrays the worst part of Capitalist culture that has become so ingrained in how stockbrokers behave and conduct themselves. It's almost as if Scorsese is throwing up sex, drugs, and money to an audience that thinks it's funny, rather than disgusting. I must say that the American public, at least in the Northeast and Pacific Coast where the film was expected to do robust business, is as obsessed with those things as the characters in Wolf. Whoever said Europeans are obsessed with sex more so than Americans, clearly has not seen Wolf of Wall Street.
This film will surely rise to cult status in the Financial industry. Furthermore, it is a shining example of the deep divide in this country between the Liberal Northeast which tacitly accepts this behavior and it's depiction on the big screen against the more conservative South and Mid-west. In fact it was said that this movie would have trouble playing in the heartland. Luckily, I don't live in the heartland. I saw the movie at my local multiplex
If we are to analyze this film in comparison to other, shall I say, "stockbroker" films, than Stone's Wall Street is clearly an exercise in restraint by the standards of Wolf. Leonardo's character in Wolf is far more libidinous than Bud Fox or any of the crowd from Boiler Room. I think Wolf takes the gloves off. What is presented is an unsparing look at the under belly of Wall Street. It is almost like an investigative report done within a narrative structure of just under 3 hours. And how could it be more? The characters are all too shallow. There is no remorse for sleeping with prostitutes or bilking clients out of money. There is only more prostitutes, more bilking, and, for a short time frame, white collar jail. That's what these characters are all about. Infused with the gospel of capitalism all their deeds are deemed acceptable, in fact DiCaprio's character never gives off a hint of shame. And after it all comes down, he still lands on his feet being a sales coach.
Belfort, Leonardo's character, is so many young stockbrokers wet dream. He does so much drugs, so many women, he leads such a life of excess. He has everything; a big house, a ferrari, a yacht, but it's all fake. It's all very tacky. Nevertheless, whether it makes you disgusted or delirious, it's entertaining.
Yes the movie is funny on a level. In fact during the screening there were many laughs. I even laughed at some of the drug induced scenes. Mostly though I sat in disgust at the utter depravity with which Belfort and his colleagues lived. So much drugs and drinking, and sex, and an unhealthy obsession with money which was only used to do more drugs, drinking, and more sex which proved hilarious at times, on another level it portrays the worst part of Capitalist culture that has become so ingrained in how stockbrokers behave and conduct themselves. It's almost as if Scorsese is throwing up sex, drugs, and money to an audience that thinks it's funny, rather than disgusting. I must say that the American public, at least in the Northeast and Pacific Coast where the film was expected to do robust business, is as obsessed with those things as the characters in Wolf. Whoever said Europeans are obsessed with sex more so than Americans, clearly has not seen Wolf of Wall Street.
This film will surely rise to cult status in the Financial industry. Furthermore, it is a shining example of the deep divide in this country between the Liberal Northeast which tacitly accepts this behavior and it's depiction on the big screen against the more conservative South and Mid-west. In fact it was said that this movie would have trouble playing in the heartland. Luckily, I don't live in the heartland. I saw the movie at my local multiplex
If we are to analyze this film in comparison to other, shall I say, "stockbroker" films, than Stone's Wall Street is clearly an exercise in restraint by the standards of Wolf. Leonardo's character in Wolf is far more libidinous than Bud Fox or any of the crowd from Boiler Room. I think Wolf takes the gloves off. What is presented is an unsparing look at the under belly of Wall Street. It is almost like an investigative report done within a narrative structure of just under 3 hours. And how could it be more? The characters are all too shallow. There is no remorse for sleeping with prostitutes or bilking clients out of money. There is only more prostitutes, more bilking, and, for a short time frame, white collar jail. That's what these characters are all about. Infused with the gospel of capitalism all their deeds are deemed acceptable, in fact DiCaprio's character never gives off a hint of shame. And after it all comes down, he still lands on his feet being a sales coach.
Belfort, Leonardo's character, is so many young stockbrokers wet dream. He does so much drugs, so many women, he leads such a life of excess. He has everything; a big house, a ferrari, a yacht, but it's all fake. It's all very tacky. Nevertheless, whether it makes you disgusted or delirious, it's entertaining.
Review of 47 Ronin
I thought this movie was slow and difficult. The subject matter is what enticed me to see it in the first place. A band of samurai out to avenge someone or some cause; to find justice in Medieval Japan. At first the story was intriguing. But after the first twenty minutes or so, it just seemed to go on and on, with everything predetermined. I can honestly say I was not surprised by anything that happened at the concluding sequence. The giant samurai was done away with all too easily I thought. And Keanu Reeves, in a rather awkward performance, does away with the witch in an all too expedient fashion.
The movie tries to be big, classical, epic, like Seven Samurai by Kurosawa. Instead it comes off as a Lord of the Rings wannabe without half the story or fight sequences. Especially the last part. It was somewhat interesting to see how the rebel samurai infiltrate the bad Lord's palace. But, I think it was cliche to have it be a "sneak attack" just like Pearl Harbor. Perhaps I'm over analyzing, perhaps that's what really happened, but I think the writers on this film were simplistic and worst of all cliche. I didn't like how the giant samurai was so simplistically written out of the script when, afterall, he played such a menacing character at first.
I liked the mass suppolku. I thought it really portrayed how deeply that act was ingrained in Medieval Japanese culture. I don't know if it is an exaggeration to have so many Samurai kill themselves, but that scene, at the end, where all of the rebel Samurai commit suicide does have an affect on the viewer. However, it is at the very end of the movie. Perhaps restructuring the narrative away from the classical structure would bring more interest to the movie. Perhaps you could have had the mass suicide at the beginning and create a circular narrative. This picture was a linear narrative that shows little creativity in structure or action. At one point I thought I was watching the same movie as this past Summer's Wolverine. A lot more could have been done to make this picture better.
Yet, I get the feeling that the producers of this picture wanted it to be simple, easily digestible by the mostly male, fanboy crowd. Perhaps seeking some business along the lines of the Hobbitt or Lord of the Rings, etc segment. This movie was not multi-layered. The characters had little to no nuance. A clear sign that the over 25 crowd was not in the picture when this movie was being made. Lastly, with it's epic-style narrative, wouldn't it have been wiser to release it in the Summer? With all the other shallow films that aspire to be blockbusters?
The movie tries to be big, classical, epic, like Seven Samurai by Kurosawa. Instead it comes off as a Lord of the Rings wannabe without half the story or fight sequences. Especially the last part. It was somewhat interesting to see how the rebel samurai infiltrate the bad Lord's palace. But, I think it was cliche to have it be a "sneak attack" just like Pearl Harbor. Perhaps I'm over analyzing, perhaps that's what really happened, but I think the writers on this film were simplistic and worst of all cliche. I didn't like how the giant samurai was so simplistically written out of the script when, afterall, he played such a menacing character at first.
I liked the mass suppolku. I thought it really portrayed how deeply that act was ingrained in Medieval Japanese culture. I don't know if it is an exaggeration to have so many Samurai kill themselves, but that scene, at the end, where all of the rebel Samurai commit suicide does have an affect on the viewer. However, it is at the very end of the movie. Perhaps restructuring the narrative away from the classical structure would bring more interest to the movie. Perhaps you could have had the mass suicide at the beginning and create a circular narrative. This picture was a linear narrative that shows little creativity in structure or action. At one point I thought I was watching the same movie as this past Summer's Wolverine. A lot more could have been done to make this picture better.
Yet, I get the feeling that the producers of this picture wanted it to be simple, easily digestible by the mostly male, fanboy crowd. Perhaps seeking some business along the lines of the Hobbitt or Lord of the Rings, etc segment. This movie was not multi-layered. The characters had little to no nuance. A clear sign that the over 25 crowd was not in the picture when this movie was being made. Lastly, with it's epic-style narrative, wouldn't it have been wiser to release it in the Summer? With all the other shallow films that aspire to be blockbusters?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)