Latest Tweets:
In his youth, Tefari Ezequiel Abel Casas made a film that imitated both life and art. (Ohhooooo!) Stay thirsty my friends.
Ask me anything | Submit | Archive | RSS
The “Who’s Coming the Dinner?” of Kung-Fu cinema, Heroes of the East is the story of a Chinese man, Ho To, who is arranged to marry Yumiko Koda, a Japanese woman. If this isn’t enough historical beef already, Yumiko and To disagree over which style of martial arts is better, Chinese or Japanese. In his anger, To writes a challenge letter to Yumiko, which incites a full on East meets more-Eastern island showdown. As one of the first films to showcase the Japanese martial arts and martial customs, this film is a definite classic on my list.
When I first heard about this film, I actually expected to bored out of my gourd. The film centers around a single mother living in Tuscany who meets a visiting British art lecturer and the day that they spend pretending to be a married couple. It sounds boring as hell, right?
The film isn’t a human story or plot-driven story; it’s an argument over very differing ideologies on individual change and objectivity. The perfect use of mise-en-scene (they really make use of every inch of screen-space and they definitely show the beauty of the Italian countryside. Damn, I’m fenna hit up Italy right NOW.) and long-take aesthetic definitely conveyed the underlying theme of “reality” that helps the argument between the two along, although it does become awkward at points. During a conversation with the audience, many suggested that these two “strangers” might actually be an estranged married couple trying to restart their marriage by playing ignorant. Hmmmm. Like Fight Club for the older folk. I fucks with it.
Wow. Herzog does it again. I would say that this film is essentially an investigation into the U.S. culture of murder rather than an overall meditation of life and death, as the logline suggests. Almost akin to the opening of Lord of War, the film highlights the intersecting lives of a murder victim, from the murderer himself to a former state employee charged with executing death row inmates. I enjoyed that the documentary didn’t attempt to shove an agenda or outlook down my throat (ahem…—>). The polar opposite of the Michael Moore school, Herzog keeps the story in the universe of the town and the surrounding communities which made me view the story as an experience rather than a general situation or issue. This movie is definitely not “The Corporation.”
No subject was a simple talking head; each had their own histories of violence laid out naked to the audience by the end of the film. And while some had years and others only had moments of violent thoughts, it evened the playing field. Finally, this is not a film about remorse or redemption (at all), but that’s what makes Herzog a sav. This man seriously knows how to pick interview subjects. And they’re always the cuttiest person you’d expect.
This film was well made and was paced cleanly enough that I was never bored by the movie, despite it going through three full and confusing stories. But the time spent transitioning through the various stories, and genres, (romance, crime, mystery) in such an already-cerebral movie took away from time they could have used for necessary character development. I actually went through most of the movie not caring if they lived, died or if it was all a dream. That was pretty much my only beef. Capotondi definitely flexed his suspense muscle in this movie and showed a knack for diversity in genre, but it didn’t work to put it in one film.
This movie was an interesting take on humanity and our culture of “othering,” though it beat me over the head with it a few too many times and was quickly lost Unfortunately, the smooth “documentary” feel that captivated me for the first 25 minutes was tossed aside for a traditional narrative and quickly became a corny “buddy movie” with lots of cool action (the aliens have a lighting gun. WTF. NICE.)
I think that if the director has settled on one form, this movie really would have shone. Instead, the change from first-season “Office”-esque documentary to current-season “Office” predictability didn’t do it for me. That said, props to the graphics team and the overall plot itself.
Easily one of the best films I’ve seen this year, Pariah caught my attention because of its realist aethetic, and more importantly, its solid character arcs.
The use of shallow depth of field alone was incredible, which means that the main subject would be in complete focus while the rest of the scene would be blurry. Primarily, it enhanced the isolation felt in every character, which helped the film avoid a simple “good guy/bad guy” dynamic, and on the other hand, it gave the audience a greater sense of connection when a character would let someone break into their world of clarity.
More than anything, I was very impressed with the character development. Every character was given a means to their end and their reasons weren’t simple epiphanies, but well-timed and subtle journeys to bittersweet revelations. Although all the time spent on the arc detracts from the potential complexities the film could have had, it was very much worth it. I’ll take a film with a unique and strong body and semi-Hollywood ending over a cookie-cutter movie with an pretentious and cliched “artsy-ambivalent” ending.
This movie is plain grimy. From the Dogme 95 school, this movie was made with a camcorder and featured no extra lighting other than the lights in the rooms. I enjoyed how the drama between the various family members didn’t follow a traditional rise-crescendo-fall pattern, but rather spiked and fell in an uncut, real-time fashion-no unnecessary pauses or melodramatic music. Sorta like a crazy, drunk Danish version of Arrested Development.
The use of Dutch shots incorporated into the unorthodox winding long takes was an amazing technique used frequently but, unlike the Bourne series, I could keep up with what was going on. The story unfolds very quickly, but that’s a plus because it allows for the rest of the movie to be spent on the character development and the interpersonal relationships of the household.
While this film has some of the most stunning cinematography I’ve seen since “The Tree of Life,” I was a bit disappointed in the film as a whole. Elizabeth Olson holds her own as the aloof and traumatized Martha, but the editing and use of stark depth of field definitely help the audience understand her darker, yet more confused nature. The enigmatic cult leader Patrick provides an enticing villain of the story. Like Dr. Lecter of Silence of the Lambs, Patrick is given very little screen time, but his manipulative nature remains as the driving antagonistic force. His sayings pepper the landscape of her mind and the editing places him nearly seamlessly in Martha’s get-away home in the Connecticut outdoors. Other than Martha and Patrick, the peripheral characters are hard to connect with and only serve to advance the plot in simple cause-effect ways. Overall, this film was beautiful and Olson shows great potential as an actress, but I think the film could have went deeper into the interpersonal relationships between Martha and the cult and Martha and her sister’s family. Props for aesthetically dividing the film into two worlds through contrasting low-exposed natural light with high-key artificial indoor lighting.
Essentially, this film is Douglas Sirk meets Raging Bull. At the core of the film is the theme of the powerless patriarch and his struggle to maintain control of his family against all odds. I saw this film as a critique of nuclear-family Middle-American living, specifically the old notion of “Daddy knows best.”
The narrative is very predictable, but the psychological deterioration of Shannon’s character isn’t overdone to the point of melodrama or stereotype so the film is still believable, even as it becomes more fantastic. And while the film is definitely longer than it needs to be, the dead time spent on characters expressions and reactions let Michael Shannon and the amazing(ly pough-jei) Jessica Chastain’s physical acting abilities shine. Personally, I think this movie could have ended 30 minutes (or 3 minutes) before it actually did and it would have made complete sense and probably would have been a better ending, but I suppose some producer didn’t want it that way. Oh well.
Nichols’ use of the 2.35:1 aspect ration establishes a quintessentially American aesthetic to the film, throwing it back to Old West films. And the bright, open cinematography mimics melodrama films of the 1960’s, but there is a subtle, yet constant darkness that reminds us not to get too comfortable.
First off, I think this film made my top ten GOAT (That’s right. GOAT) list simply because of the fact that it’s a completely different movie the second time you see it. Completely different. As a matter of fact, my mind struggled through most of the film to choose between which version to watch. (For those people saying I’ve messed up their experience, forget you. This came out years ago; you’re sleeping. Wakedatassup.) Various scholars have dubbed this film a neo-Noir and I completely agree. In addition to the overly-shadowed aesthetic that is native to Film Noir, Fight Club remixes the classic “whodunit?” narrative as well as incorporates a very modern analysis of consumerism and the perils of urban realities. The hella post-modern (is that the right word?) world of Fight Club is distopian and there are even eerily parallels to some of the ideologies of the Occupy Wall Street movement. At the end of one of Tyler Durden’s speeches, I almost expected him to say, “We are the 99%.” Overall, this film exposes and explores three of the most endemic and paradoxical social dilemmas of our time (and, arguably, the entirety of human history): consumerism, tribalism and individualism.
