The film could also be titled "I went to Columbia." There were promos for Columbia throughout the whole movie. And it really is just a college romp movie. I mean do we really need to be instructed about how to perform manual sex on a girl? Yet I liked some of the raunchiness of the film. I started to lose interest after the birthday party when the female protagonist starts to go out with the Tom Brady lawyer guy. I guess the writer felt like she had to get violent to save the script. Isn't it a little over the top? How likely would it be? Still, that was the best part of the film. The act of violence saved the movie from a boring, predictable ending. I didn't see the punch coming and I didn't see the two of them getting back together and getting married. Wasn't it sweet? A happy ending. Great.
Is this how relationships are? Do people sleep around while maintaining male-female friendships? It seems so. As a commentary on the dating scene in New York this film is right on point. When I lived in New York I had a terrible time meeting women. I went on a few dates, but never had as much fun as the male lead does in this film. Maybe I'm shy? Awkward? To hung up on old flames? Instead of Sex and the City, it was no Sex and the City.Of course that was back during the second term of the Bloomberg Administration. Perhaps things have changed? Perhaps not.
Anyway this film caused me to reflect back on a friend I had not too long ago. We did friend things, but it never evolved into a sexual relationship. She wanted to keep it platonic. I wanted more. Was I a pig for not being a friend without benefits? Maybe. I just didn't want to be the "guy friend." I wanted something more than just movie time and goodbye. We never talked about anything except movies or teaching. We were both grad students. She was in comparative lit and I was in screenwriting. We had things in common, but she just wasn't interested. Perhaps it's because she was German. I read somewhere that Germans aren't that interested in sex.
Anyway, after she told me she had a new boyfriend I told her I didn't want to keep being friends. This film got me thinking that maybe I gave up to easily. Maybe we should just be friends. Who knows? I haven't even tried tinder. I really should I hear it's a great hook up tool. But is that what I really want? What do I want? Am I obsessed with relationships and sex? No. I don't know what I'm obsessed with. It's not sex. I'm getting older. I'm 35. I'm not married and I don't have any kids. I'm still in school. Why do I put career first, then life? I think most people have to do that. This could go on forever. Just like this movie. I felt at a certain point that the film just went on and on. I wondered how it would end. Then the end came and I was happy it was over.
Great shots of New York. But not my favorite film.
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Thoughts on Flavor of Green Tea Over Rice by Ozu
As usual with Ozu films this was a simple, yet intense film about Japanese family strive. It wasn't one of Ozu better films. I've seen Tokyo Story many times and that is definitely a better film. As is Floating Weeds. Green Tea Over Rice just doesn't have the creative shots and intense story that Ozu's other films have. Yet the story is still compelling enough to watch. The conflict is between a man and his wife who were arranged to be married. It seems like they have never been in love. By the end of the film they realize that they love and need each other.
The young girl who refuses the arranged marriage is the deepest character. She really represents modernity which seems to always be creeping on traditional values in Ozu's films. I liked her because she stood up against her mother and aunt. Even at the very end of the film she is standing up to a man who doesn't treat her right. I thought it was somewhat comical how she keeps slapping his hand away as they walk down the street.
Another thing I noticed about Ozu films and other films I watch is that Ozu doesn't use montage. He uses mise en scene, but no montage. And his mise en scene is brilliant as many critics have said. The shots of hallways and rooms is always so unique every time I watch an Ozu film. His style is very much his own and has never been duplicated.
This is one of Ozu's lesser known films, but it's a good film.
The young girl who refuses the arranged marriage is the deepest character. She really represents modernity which seems to always be creeping on traditional values in Ozu's films. I liked her because she stood up against her mother and aunt. Even at the very end of the film she is standing up to a man who doesn't treat her right. I thought it was somewhat comical how she keeps slapping his hand away as they walk down the street.
Another thing I noticed about Ozu films and other films I watch is that Ozu doesn't use montage. He uses mise en scene, but no montage. And his mise en scene is brilliant as many critics have said. The shots of hallways and rooms is always so unique every time I watch an Ozu film. His style is very much his own and has never been duplicated.
This is one of Ozu's lesser known films, but it's a good film.
Sunday, October 25, 2015
The General by Buster Keaton
Recently I started reading World Cinema again. I returned to basics and watched DW Griffith's A Corner in Wheat which is critical of Capital. Something Cinema has lost in it's post-War era. I also watched Chaplin by Attenborough and stars Robert Downey, Jr. It's a great film. Epic, dramatic, great. Anyway I went to Cinemapolis to watch The General as part of their silent film month. The director of the film museum gave a short speech. As did a historian. The film was about an hour and half and it was very dated in some parts. One part was when Buster Keaton grabs the Confederate flag and waves it bravely in battle. I don't know why it was so popular to sympathize with the South in film. Keaton does it here. As does Griffith in Birth of a Nation. And, perhaps the greatest film that sympathizes with the Southj, Gone With the Wind. Are these the only ones? I don't know. Of course things changed in the 60s and films changed with the times.
The film is entertaining. Even by today's standards the story and the effects still resonate. Even if they come off as simplistic in some parts. There is one scene where a thunder bolt strikes a tree. It is places like here that the film shows it's age and lack of sophistication. On the other hand the sequence of scenes surround the demolition of the bridge weren't bad. The comedy is played up. As is the drama. Johnny Gray finally gets his enlistment.
The film is entertaining. Even by today's standards the story and the effects still resonate. Even if they come off as simplistic in some parts. There is one scene where a thunder bolt strikes a tree. It is places like here that the film shows it's age and lack of sophistication. On the other hand the sequence of scenes surround the demolition of the bridge weren't bad. The comedy is played up. As is the drama. Johnny Gray finally gets his enlistment.
On Coming Home by Zhang Yimou
This was a touching film. I was entranced by the affection between Gong Li and the male protagonist. I felt the film really starts after his re-arrest. Up to that point is backstory. Yet the pace and poignancy of the sequence before they reach the train station, then at the train station is superb. The film then slows down and deals with the aftermath of that one day. Coming Home is a deep rumination about memory and loss. What we lose due to time or age and cannot be brought back. Except in this film it is the subject of the Cultural Revolution. Yimou doesn't directly address the politics of the Cultural Revolution. But I detected that he shows the Cultural Revolution in a very negative light. The government is manipulative of the teenage age girl. Another man from the government rapes Gong Li. The professor was sent away for more than a decade. These scenes are shown but not gone into or talked about much. Perhaps not since Farewell My Concubine does a film address the Cultural Revolution. In Concubine it is addressed only at the end of the film. Here it is the setting and the defining historical setting for the entire film.
The performances are phenomenal. I thoroughly enjoyed Gong Li as a woman who can't remember. Her performance was heartfelt and emotionally gripping. Several scenes were memorable. The scene in the beginning where the husband has escaped from a prison camp and returned home is great. He is standing outside. Not sure if he can go in. His wife is standing there with a Mao statue on a mantle the door in front of her. Yet she doesn't open the door to see who is there. Tears come to her eyes, she looks at the police agent outside her window, yet she can't open the door for her husband. In the time of Maoist extremism I'm sure there were many of these kinds of stories. In fact Deng Xiaopeng's son was pushed out of a window and permanently disabled by red guards. If China is a World power now, it certainly wants to forget the Cultural Revolution. Which is the point of the film. To move forward memories must be dealt with. The hang over of Maoist excess has never been thoroughly addressed by the government. And until it is addressed people like Gong Li's character will remain afflicted with memory loss and deep psychosis.
The other great scene is the railway station where Li's character goes to pick up her husband every 5th of the month. I think the use of it repeatedly brings forth it's emotional aspect. People stream over the train railing, but her husband never comes. Instead he turns into a letter reader and becomes a very good friend of her's. It also shows how traumatic the events of her husband's escape from a camp was. She can't move forward from those memories. Yet they are so painful she can't recall them.
Great film from a great director.
The performances are phenomenal. I thoroughly enjoyed Gong Li as a woman who can't remember. Her performance was heartfelt and emotionally gripping. Several scenes were memorable. The scene in the beginning where the husband has escaped from a prison camp and returned home is great. He is standing outside. Not sure if he can go in. His wife is standing there with a Mao statue on a mantle the door in front of her. Yet she doesn't open the door to see who is there. Tears come to her eyes, she looks at the police agent outside her window, yet she can't open the door for her husband. In the time of Maoist extremism I'm sure there were many of these kinds of stories. In fact Deng Xiaopeng's son was pushed out of a window and permanently disabled by red guards. If China is a World power now, it certainly wants to forget the Cultural Revolution. Which is the point of the film. To move forward memories must be dealt with. The hang over of Maoist excess has never been thoroughly addressed by the government. And until it is addressed people like Gong Li's character will remain afflicted with memory loss and deep psychosis.
The other great scene is the railway station where Li's character goes to pick up her husband every 5th of the month. I think the use of it repeatedly brings forth it's emotional aspect. People stream over the train railing, but her husband never comes. Instead he turns into a letter reader and becomes a very good friend of her's. It also shows how traumatic the events of her husband's escape from a camp was. She can't move forward from those memories. Yet they are so painful she can't recall them.
Great film from a great director.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Thoughts on Time Out of Mind
I really enjoyed this film. I thought Richard Gere was very good. Do I think he should get an Oscar nom? I think so. From the scene where he is begging for change to sleeping on a park bench he really turns in an exceptional performance. When he was begging I couldn't even tell it was him. And his portrayal of his character's confusion and frustration are emotional and deeply felt.
I saw this film at the local Art House theater where I am group leader of Indie Movie night. It probably will not get much of a wide release which is sad. I even heard from the girl who runs the concessions and ticketing counter that the film wasn't doing so well even at the Art House venue. I don't know why it hasn't caught on to a wider audience. Perhaps it's the subject matter. Homelessness, addiction, a broken family, and mental illness are the subjects that surround Gere's character. As it does many homeless according to this film. I was amazed at what a homeless person has to do to get off the streets. So much buearucracy. So many things to put up with. It is a very real portrait of the homeless in New York.
I thought the film was great in every way. The performances were great, the sound was great, the cinematography was great, and, of course, the story was very strong. Particularly the sound. The film used diagetic sound through most of the film. All sound came from the film for the first hour and a half. Then Gere's character goes to the bar where his daughter works and songs from outside of the film's action start to play. It was interesting that the sound was presented in such a creative way. And the sound really sticks with you. The sound of sirens or homeless people arguing off screen really affect how an audience interacts with the film. The other unique part of the film is it's cinematography. There are many great shots in the film. From the opening shot of Manhattan from Queens, to the last one of a slow fade to black while George's daughter runs after him, the cinematography reflects the emotions of George and everyone else in the film. There are many askance shots. I was reminded of Ozu's films by many of the shots where it shows just part of Gere's face or head. Or from a longer view of Gere from inside of a cafe looking outward. Like an observer not part of the action. Or, perhaps, a person looking at homeless people. So many times I have looked at a homeless person in New York or Binghamton. And of course the thoughts come, why don't they get a job? Medical help? Why don't they get off drugs?
It is these questions that the film addresses. It shows that getting off the streets is not easy. There many obstacles to overcome to finally getting help and getting off the street. With rent prices so high in New York it's no wonder that there are so many homeless there. But, as the film shows, there are ways to getting off the street, ways to get medical help, and re-connect with family that you have become estranged to.
I felt the end of the film was hopeful. George is trying to re-connect with his estranged daughter. After a conflict, she runs after him. I was left feeling that they were going to work it out. Yet, his daughter also said they had tried several times before. Maybe this time will work out? I guess it is more important that they are trying and hopefully will get somewhere.
I saw this film at the local Art House theater where I am group leader of Indie Movie night. It probably will not get much of a wide release which is sad. I even heard from the girl who runs the concessions and ticketing counter that the film wasn't doing so well even at the Art House venue. I don't know why it hasn't caught on to a wider audience. Perhaps it's the subject matter. Homelessness, addiction, a broken family, and mental illness are the subjects that surround Gere's character. As it does many homeless according to this film. I was amazed at what a homeless person has to do to get off the streets. So much buearucracy. So many things to put up with. It is a very real portrait of the homeless in New York.
I thought the film was great in every way. The performances were great, the sound was great, the cinematography was great, and, of course, the story was very strong. Particularly the sound. The film used diagetic sound through most of the film. All sound came from the film for the first hour and a half. Then Gere's character goes to the bar where his daughter works and songs from outside of the film's action start to play. It was interesting that the sound was presented in such a creative way. And the sound really sticks with you. The sound of sirens or homeless people arguing off screen really affect how an audience interacts with the film. The other unique part of the film is it's cinematography. There are many great shots in the film. From the opening shot of Manhattan from Queens, to the last one of a slow fade to black while George's daughter runs after him, the cinematography reflects the emotions of George and everyone else in the film. There are many askance shots. I was reminded of Ozu's films by many of the shots where it shows just part of Gere's face or head. Or from a longer view of Gere from inside of a cafe looking outward. Like an observer not part of the action. Or, perhaps, a person looking at homeless people. So many times I have looked at a homeless person in New York or Binghamton. And of course the thoughts come, why don't they get a job? Medical help? Why don't they get off drugs?
It is these questions that the film addresses. It shows that getting off the streets is not easy. There many obstacles to overcome to finally getting help and getting off the street. With rent prices so high in New York it's no wonder that there are so many homeless there. But, as the film shows, there are ways to getting off the street, ways to get medical help, and re-connect with family that you have become estranged to.
I felt the end of the film was hopeful. George is trying to re-connect with his estranged daughter. After a conflict, she runs after him. I was left feeling that they were going to work it out. Yet, his daughter also said they had tried several times before. Maybe this time will work out? I guess it is more important that they are trying and hopefully will get somewhere.
Monday, October 19, 2015
World Cinema; Chapter 3, Notes
So, I started reading, or re-reading, World Cinema by Sklar. It is a general overview of Cinema from it's beginnings with the Lumieres and Edison. It brings up the earliest stars and artists of Cinema. I just read the chapter about the 1910 to 1920 period. D.W. Griffith features large in the story. As does Cabiria an epic Italian production which influenced Griffith to make his opus Intolerance. I've seen both films. I can't remember how many years ago it was, four or five. I originally read World Cinema while taking a summer course in Media Art at the state school I live by. It was a basic class. After it was over I read the book from the end of WWII to the end of the book which is in the early 2000s. I've taken it upon myself to read the book from the very beginning to the end. A companion piece is Mark Cousin's The Story of Film. I've seen that one twice and started to watch it again last month. I've fallen behind on my schedule to watch that one again. I even start to anticipate what happens next in the film. I also started to re-watch Martin Scorsese's Journey Through American Films. I've also watched his Voyage to Italy. It's great to learn about some of the filmmakers who have influenced Scorsese. Documentary films usually provide some detail and theoretical ideas, but books seem to be best for that. At least the two Sklar books I've read; World Cinema and another one about American Movies.
Reading the World Cinema book turns me on to early Cinema again. The book references Carl Theodor Dryer who I really like even if he is on the dark side. His film about Joan of Arc is incredible. And I watched Dreyers' Days of Wrath too, which was also great. Anyway the book mentions Dreyers Book of Satan. Dreyer was so influenced by DW Griffith's Intolerance that he made a film like Intolerance. According to the book it has three story lines all concerning aspects of religious tolerance. I'm going to give the film a look. I'm sure it won't disappoint.
The other direction the World Cinema book pulled me was to Charlie Chaplin. Now that I consider it Chaplin and Dreyer are about as different as night and day. Dreyer deals with the occult and human sufferering while Chaplin is comic and satirical. I've seen one or two Chaplin films. Regrettably I haven't seen The Great Dictator. Only parts of it. Looks funny though. I have seen Chaplin the Richard Attenborough film starring Robert Downey, Jr.. That film is great. If I were to teach an American Film class I would like to screen Chaplin. He was such a complicated person and his life story is so remarkable. It's too bad there isn't a more authoritative biography on Chaplin. I've come across a few books that were not bad, but nothing that is deserving of Chaplin's stature in World Cinema. He was the first mega star reaching continents and countries like no actor had done before.
There is a rather short book about Chaplin that I might read. I've decided that I'm going to read a biography of DW Griffith first. Then, I was thinking Orson Welles. I don't know where the World Cinema book will lead me, but I'm interested to find out.
Reading the World Cinema book turns me on to early Cinema again. The book references Carl Theodor Dryer who I really like even if he is on the dark side. His film about Joan of Arc is incredible. And I watched Dreyers' Days of Wrath too, which was also great. Anyway the book mentions Dreyers Book of Satan. Dreyer was so influenced by DW Griffith's Intolerance that he made a film like Intolerance. According to the book it has three story lines all concerning aspects of religious tolerance. I'm going to give the film a look. I'm sure it won't disappoint.
The other direction the World Cinema book pulled me was to Charlie Chaplin. Now that I consider it Chaplin and Dreyer are about as different as night and day. Dreyer deals with the occult and human sufferering while Chaplin is comic and satirical. I've seen one or two Chaplin films. Regrettably I haven't seen The Great Dictator. Only parts of it. Looks funny though. I have seen Chaplin the Richard Attenborough film starring Robert Downey, Jr.. That film is great. If I were to teach an American Film class I would like to screen Chaplin. He was such a complicated person and his life story is so remarkable. It's too bad there isn't a more authoritative biography on Chaplin. I've come across a few books that were not bad, but nothing that is deserving of Chaplin's stature in World Cinema. He was the first mega star reaching continents and countries like no actor had done before.
There is a rather short book about Chaplin that I might read. I've decided that I'm going to read a biography of DW Griffith first. Then, I was thinking Orson Welles. I don't know where the World Cinema book will lead me, but I'm interested to find out.
Monday, October 12, 2015
Thoughts on Truffaut Biography
This was a well written biography about Truffaut. It was so intimate I felt myself becoming Truffaut. As I read the passages about his tumultuous childhood I reflected on my own childhood and found it to be much different from his. What I remember most after reading the book is Truffaut's struggles. He had a difficult upbringing and he struggled all the way until The 400 Blows were released. After the enormous success of his first film things went better for him. Yet all was not settled. I found very interesting the passages about his relationship with Catherine Deneuve. I deeply sympathized with Truffaut after the couple's breakup. He was so distraught that he sought psychiatric help. This period of his life was also, perhaps, his best creatively. The late sixties and early seventies is when he was at the top of his game. The Soft Skin, Two English Girls, and Day for Night all were created during this period. Critical reception varied, but it was clear that Truffaut was a auteur filmmaker who would be remembered in film history books.
Of course there is the famous falling out with Jean Luc Godard. After reading a book about Godard, then this one about Truffaut, and seeing the film Two in the Wave, I should have an understanding of the rift which developed between the two filmmakers. Yet, I find myself wanting more. I have read excerpts or the entirety of the letters the two filmmakers exchanged and it became clear that they were bitterly divided. Godard's criticism were harsh and Truffaut's responses were equally harsh.
The details of how Truffaut made his films are probably the most interesting parts of the book. It took him years to get Fahrenheit 451 into production, then finish it. It's a film which Truffaut was never completely happy about. Like the other films he made in the early and mid sixties, Truffaut didn't like the results. I still think 451 isn't a bad film, but perhaps it was the difficulty in getting it made which caused Truffaut to not like it. There was also substantial discussion of Truffaut's flops. It seemed like he was always moving between success and failure. One film would do good box office and be well received. Then the next year it would be just the opposite. He would release a film that did minimal box office and wasn't well received by critics. For example Missisippi Mermaid was supposed to be a great success. It had stars Deneuve and Bel mondo and Truffaut directing it, but it failed to do much in terms of critical reception or box office. And this was the film where Deneuve ended her relationship with Francios. But then came his most prolific period where he turned his best work.
I suppose Truffaut's filmmaking career shows how the artist or filmmaker or writer seems to struggle personally while turning out his or her best work. Must we always struggle to produce good art? Or films in Truffaut's case? It would seem so. The hardest material often produces the best result. Steven Speilberg's Schindler's List deals with the Holocaust a terribly difficult time in human history. Yet it might be his best film. I'm sure there are other examples of artists struggling with personal crisis or the sinues of war and have produced excellent art.
Truffaut really did struggle, but he made some really great films. I am still mesmerized by Two English Girls. Especially the shot of the bed spread and it's red blood stain. I don't think I'll ever be able to forget that image, that scene.
It is too bad Francois didn't live longer. He seemed to be moving into another good period in his filmmaking until he came down with terminal brain cancer. He struggled with it for several months before it got the best of him. I almost cried when I knew he was going to die. Such a talent, such a story of struggle, failure, success. Truffaut should be remembered as man who overcame adversity many times to become a great success.
Of course there is the famous falling out with Jean Luc Godard. After reading a book about Godard, then this one about Truffaut, and seeing the film Two in the Wave, I should have an understanding of the rift which developed between the two filmmakers. Yet, I find myself wanting more. I have read excerpts or the entirety of the letters the two filmmakers exchanged and it became clear that they were bitterly divided. Godard's criticism were harsh and Truffaut's responses were equally harsh.
The details of how Truffaut made his films are probably the most interesting parts of the book. It took him years to get Fahrenheit 451 into production, then finish it. It's a film which Truffaut was never completely happy about. Like the other films he made in the early and mid sixties, Truffaut didn't like the results. I still think 451 isn't a bad film, but perhaps it was the difficulty in getting it made which caused Truffaut to not like it. There was also substantial discussion of Truffaut's flops. It seemed like he was always moving between success and failure. One film would do good box office and be well received. Then the next year it would be just the opposite. He would release a film that did minimal box office and wasn't well received by critics. For example Missisippi Mermaid was supposed to be a great success. It had stars Deneuve and Bel mondo and Truffaut directing it, but it failed to do much in terms of critical reception or box office. And this was the film where Deneuve ended her relationship with Francios. But then came his most prolific period where he turned his best work.
I suppose Truffaut's filmmaking career shows how the artist or filmmaker or writer seems to struggle personally while turning out his or her best work. Must we always struggle to produce good art? Or films in Truffaut's case? It would seem so. The hardest material often produces the best result. Steven Speilberg's Schindler's List deals with the Holocaust a terribly difficult time in human history. Yet it might be his best film. I'm sure there are other examples of artists struggling with personal crisis or the sinues of war and have produced excellent art.
Truffaut really did struggle, but he made some really great films. I am still mesmerized by Two English Girls. Especially the shot of the bed spread and it's red blood stain. I don't think I'll ever be able to forget that image, that scene.
It is too bad Francois didn't live longer. He seemed to be moving into another good period in his filmmaking until he came down with terminal brain cancer. He struggled with it for several months before it got the best of him. I almost cried when I knew he was going to die. Such a talent, such a story of struggle, failure, success. Truffaut should be remembered as man who overcame adversity many times to become a great success.
Sunday, October 4, 2015
Thoughts on Sicario
This was a very violent film. There were tons of guns and shooting and killing. It was entertaining, but I kept asking myself was it based on true events? Especially the scene where del Toro puts the gun to the police woman's chin and forces her to sign the paper. It was a tense scene which I enjoyed. I just didn't know how believable it was.
The beginning starts with a bang. I'll try not to go into spoilers, but the gruesome discovery at a suburban house in Arizona was appalling. So many dead bodies buried in the walls. A scene like this is believable. I've read about some really gruesome things that the cartel does in Mexico. It's too bad it is spreading North to the southwestern US.
The setup concerns the policewoman. She's some kind of SWAT member who is chosen for an assignment to take down leaders of a cartel. Josh Brolin plays the contact and turns out to be CIA. The lead character goes through a lot of moral quandaries which I found a bit too much. Wouldn't she think it was her duty? Perhaps she was already overwhelmed with the violence of the drug wars. In this film she was not. And it proves her undoing.
The story reaches it's climax when Del Toro confronts a police man who is a trafficker, then catches up to a middle man in the cartel hierarchy, and finally on to the cartel head. It turns out Del Toro's character is from Columbia and may, or may not have ties to cartels there. Whatever his past he is on the side of law enforcement in the US. The end of the film brings his legality as a law enforcement person into question. I don't think anyone thinks that Del Toro's character is anything but a mercenary out for justice for what was done to his family. Yet the murder scene of the cartel head and his family is no less gruesome. It is vigilante justice. And Brolin is nowhere to be found.
The film was going along very good until the bar scene. I thought it wasn't that great. She somehow hooks up with a guy who is corrupt and works for the cartel. I thought the female character would have been stronger. And the way she falls for the guy is a little unbelievable. Then Del Toro comes to save her. This is when I started to think of the film more of an action film with Del Toro at the center rather then a hard look at the reality of cartel land. As it plays out Brolin was just using her anyway and her character becomes very weak indeed. Yet, what can she do? What can anyone do in the drug wars? It seems so hopeless. The film does emphasize that aspect. What can the government of the US or Mexico do to stop the drug trade, the murders, the utter brutality of the cartels and the law enforcement authorities who enforce the laws every day? It's a tough question. Sicario is a film which pushes the issue. What will be done is less certain.
There were some great shots of landscapes in this film. I really liked the shots of Juarez. Good film.
The beginning starts with a bang. I'll try not to go into spoilers, but the gruesome discovery at a suburban house in Arizona was appalling. So many dead bodies buried in the walls. A scene like this is believable. I've read about some really gruesome things that the cartel does in Mexico. It's too bad it is spreading North to the southwestern US.
The setup concerns the policewoman. She's some kind of SWAT member who is chosen for an assignment to take down leaders of a cartel. Josh Brolin plays the contact and turns out to be CIA. The lead character goes through a lot of moral quandaries which I found a bit too much. Wouldn't she think it was her duty? Perhaps she was already overwhelmed with the violence of the drug wars. In this film she was not. And it proves her undoing.
The story reaches it's climax when Del Toro confronts a police man who is a trafficker, then catches up to a middle man in the cartel hierarchy, and finally on to the cartel head. It turns out Del Toro's character is from Columbia and may, or may not have ties to cartels there. Whatever his past he is on the side of law enforcement in the US. The end of the film brings his legality as a law enforcement person into question. I don't think anyone thinks that Del Toro's character is anything but a mercenary out for justice for what was done to his family. Yet the murder scene of the cartel head and his family is no less gruesome. It is vigilante justice. And Brolin is nowhere to be found.
The film was going along very good until the bar scene. I thought it wasn't that great. She somehow hooks up with a guy who is corrupt and works for the cartel. I thought the female character would have been stronger. And the way she falls for the guy is a little unbelievable. Then Del Toro comes to save her. This is when I started to think of the film more of an action film with Del Toro at the center rather then a hard look at the reality of cartel land. As it plays out Brolin was just using her anyway and her character becomes very weak indeed. Yet, what can she do? What can anyone do in the drug wars? It seems so hopeless. The film does emphasize that aspect. What can the government of the US or Mexico do to stop the drug trade, the murders, the utter brutality of the cartels and the law enforcement authorities who enforce the laws every day? It's a tough question. Sicario is a film which pushes the issue. What will be done is less certain.
There were some great shots of landscapes in this film. I really liked the shots of Juarez. Good film.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)