Expanding Horizons (1 Viewer)

[Ted Lee]

That also happens with the final scene in 25th Hour and I know not many others have the same reaction.

i didn't! :b

 

[Rob Tomlin]

i didn't!

Cold hearted S.O.B!












:p)

 

[Brook K]

And I was doing my eye-rolling all through Eternal Sunshine and I Heart Huckabees as well. But I agree with you on 25th Hour, though I was already gone long before the ending. The scene where Norton asks Barry Pepper to beat him up is the one that really tears me up.

I think my Asian cinema comments were with regard to the last 10 years or so and you guys are bringing up Kurosawa and Ozu as your examples? Anywho, I know what you meant. But Kurosawa to me, is the director, along with Bunuel, who understood humanity best. Far from cynical, he was a humanist who truly understood the hearts and emotions of people. He could be cynical about the ways and institutions of the world, to be sure, but many of his films are filled with moments of humanity and empathy.

Maybe if you are sticking purely to the Samurai films I can see where you would get your view of Kurosawa, but the more I learn about him, the more interested I am in his non-samurai work. Watch Drunken Angels, Stray Dog, Ikiru, Red Beard, and Madadayo and you will see this is not a cold, cynical director, but one who celebrates life and the capacity for goodness within people.

If you watch some of the modern directors I was speaking of at the time, like Takeshi Kitano, Zhang Yimou, Tsai Ming-Liang, Wong Kar Wai, Hirokazu Kore-Ida, or Edward Yang you won't find cold filmmakers either, but an embracing of life. Kar Wai and Kitano in particular have created some of the best romantic films of the modern era.

I haven't really tapped into more recent trends, like the work of Takashi Miike who has taken on a Fassbinder-esque moviemaking pace or the vast amounts of acclaimed cinema coming out of Korea. In the last couple of years I just haven't managed to see much Asian film so I might be less inclined to such claims, especially given that my current top 10 list for the past year includes 2 films from Denmark, 3 from France and 1 from Russia, with Almodovar's latest still to see (his last 3 films have all made my yearly top 10's).

I'm a big Almodovar fan, Lars Von Trier is probably my favorite current director, Michael Haneke an Austrian working mostly in France is another favorite, Alexander Sokurov in Russia, Patrice Leconte and Francois Ozon in France have put out some excellent films; Tykwer too, and a number of others from all over Europe I could name.

There's lots of quality out there, I probably wouldn't give either region and advantage over the other now based on what I've been watching.

 

[Adam_S]

wow I wish I had steady internet access so I could respond more fully.
I've worked on developing a major scifi project script while I interned last summer, I Robot is a lot like what we have now, but we want to achieve much better (I think the second draft we had was fantastic but the third draft with studio added suggestions destoryed the films opening impact in an 'explanatory' and completely unnecessary insulting introduction). Here's whats going for I Robot's script: dialog sounds like it is spoken by actual people, always a plus. There are little touches like his Grandmother and sweet potato pie that I enjoyed. The scenes explaining whats going on with robots and the society/mileau walk you through it carefully but they don't treat you as though they're delivering essential, boring expository information to a listless audience--these scenes develop as extensions of the dialog and investigations that go on.
It is absolutely Hollywood, and I'm amazed they got the script as finely crafted as they did for a big budget action entertainment piece. I felt it wanted to be more than mere entertainment, there were hints of that throughout, but it never did reach, or expectect its audience to reach to difficult ideas or conclusions, but the possibility was there if you want to ponder the issues of what makes someone human.
It was more interesting sci fi than Independence Day, an empty bit of entertainment I quite enjoy, it doesn't openly mock the intelligence of the audience like Armageddon (a guilty pleasure, but the height of 'hollywood kitsch'), and it avoids the sappyness of say Deep Impact. What's more, about the only loose end in the script is Shea LeBouf's role as the kid who can't cuss, it's a set up for an action set piece that sticks out as pretty unnecessary. I felt the script did a damn fine job navigating the treacherous abyss of Hollywood nonsense and scifi intellectualism to produce a solid piece of entertainment. I've not read the books, so I can't comment on whether or not its a good adaptation, but I thought there were a lot of potentially interesting issues raised by many aspects of the story, and I would attribute those more to the source material than to an original addition.
I mean it's not Kaufman, but its a solid piece of scifi that's a departure from recent trends.
Would you say that Edward Scissorhands has bad cinematography because the first time we see the interior of the mansion we can see everything in the diffused daylight instead of keeping us literally in the dark to establish a 'creepy' mood with harsh noirish shadows, shapes, and angles?
heh, just a bit of a nonsequiter there.
As to Minority Report, I enjoyed the film, it's immensely entertaining, it also poses a lot interesting questions and has incredible cinematography. However the story itself is so convoluted that it sometimes feels a bit like a mess. Still I would rank it higher than I robot, I think I did rank it at about 3.5 stars.
A.I. is a masterpiece, one of my favorite movies of all time and my favorite scifi film ever. It's deep, layered textured piece that improves with time and each return to the text, something I've often felt with the best scifi books, but A.I. is the very rare scifi film to create the same response. The ending is so complex and rich that I could go on for a long time about how its not just a cloying copout from the requisite pomo/modernist death ending. Instead of just saying "David wanted to be a real boy but he died, you can never achieve your dreams so be a good person and don't challenge anything or you'll die too for stepping out of line" it instead explores what death signifies and means to our culture or even our species. In many ways David is the cultural super-founder--an Aeneas figure--of the metal mecha at the end of the film, he even looks like the 'gods' they worship "human beings in all their splendor must hold the key to existence," he represents all their desires, and after they've taken his memories they put him in a world where he's suddenly real (note the dramatic change in cinematography when David awakens in the house, very distinct from the softer approach used in the house at the films start, he's also capable of crying and blowing out candles in this section) David is subject now to the necessity of becoming human so that the mecha have something to exist for, their own ideal to strive for. And in becoming human David must also accept death, he dies for the other mecha. And of course the extension of this is, why do the mecha, or (of course) humans need to have something to believe in, why do we need faith and hope? Why can we only achieve these through the death and suffering of others, why is that important to us?
I don't know about you all, but that sort of ending that addresses death head on and explores how its an extension of life that is integrally and deeply bound up in how we define ourselves as human in ways we would prefer not to think about or question to be vastly more interesting than, "David lay on the borrom of the sea for ever and ever amen."
One invites you to think, the other makes you feel depressed that the world is a rather shitty place. I think I prefer the ending that is much more complex, and I won't just blindly and numbly see stereotypes of a happy ending and rant on and on about how crappy it was when they could have had a very simple, boring, and "acceptable acceptable acceptable good job for staying in the box of what is the critically delineated correct way of telling this story, good job for making art exactly like the guidelines for 'good art' that a five year old could follow paint by numbers, including the requisite depressing ending."
Ouch that was a bit harsh, don't feel too insulted anyone, I'm not attacking specific people, just venting some built up pet peeve energy, since the subject of A.I.'s ending is one of my biggest ones.
As for Asian cinema, I find some of the Korean films I've seen to be stunning and fascinating. Gojitmal (Lies) deeply bothered me when I watched it, it's easy to see it as just fairly empty film about sex, but it's a pretty damned scathing critique of Korean society ina whole host of ways when you start to think about it. Failan tells a story that moves around in an odd sort of ellipse that slams into you hard when it finally comes together near the end of the film. It's hard to express just how damned good the film is after its over, it feels average throughout, but when it is complete it lets you realize that it was never average for a single moment. Sort of like Fellini's phenomenal last scenes. Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is a seriously powerful films that completes a Psycho esque inversion somewhere in the middle of the film almost without you realizing it. IT is somewhat sadistic, but I never found it cold, and think it's one of the best films I've seen this year. I've only seen one Takashi Miike, I wasn't terribly impressed but I found it interesting how his work is deeply influenced by a video game aesthetic that permeates some recent asian cinema, which is an interesting new avenue that will probably become more important in the coming years. Battle Royale is my favorite, because it's a simple story that manages to do one hell of a lot with a single high concept approach--its the sort of genre transcension that Hitchcock did in creating his masterpieces--a phenomenally great film, perfect in both the original and directors cuts.
And count me amongst those that love Eternal Sunshine, I had the same reaction John did in that moment, the film left me and all of my three companions openly sobbing through the entire credits, with the two girls not completely recovered until we got to the car in the parking lot. Easily my pick for best of the year, and probably the best recent film since Almost Famous, one of the all time great films in my opinion. I can't wait to go pick up the DVD on an exchange tomorrow of a christmas gift duplicate.
Fwiw, I love It's a Wonderful Life as well.
Adam

 

[Adam_S]

Oh and I rewatched Edward Scissorhands tonight. The film has a few moments that feel out of place in such a delicately handled work, such as the over the top, "I'm a high school jackass/jock and I'm MEAN" villain. But other than that, this is a wonderful film. Not quite as haunting as I remember, and much shorter. It moves very very fast, I felt, because I remembered a rather elegiac pace. Beautiful main theme. The whole film is made great by the beauty and perfection of the dance in the snow, damn!

Adam

 

[Brian Kissinger]

I've been rather busy with work and things that I've missed quite a few of the wonderful films to come out recently. Hearing all your great thoughts on these possibly overlooked films got me in the mood to "challenge" myself with something a bit more "highbrow" that I might otherwise overlook. I dug around the my local video store, and came up with something that was truly an experience.
House of the Dead (2003)
directed by Uwe Boll
The dead walk.....You run
Now I had heard a rumor or two that this film might not be the best, but I decided to give it a go anyway. A lot of great films get misinterpreted and end up with a bad reputation. I'm proud to say this film falls directly into that category. If you have seen the film and felt it lacked things most good films do (like plot, characterization, coherent story, plausibility, something new to the genre, etc.) I urge you to listen to what I have to say. Then perhaps give her another shot.
Let's address these nitpicks one at a time shall we. PLOT: Every good movie should have some sort of story that it wants to tell. And another "unwritten rule" of zombie films is every zombie film should be some type of allegory. House delivers a hard one-two combination right here. As far a story goes, we have some cool college kids out to have a good time, who unwittingly throw a giant party on the Island of the Dead. Of course, much mayhem and gore ensue. That's a damn fine story. They could have left it at that, but our creative team went a bit farther. We also have the "Spanish priests, who are willing to commit unspeakable acts of heinous torture in effort to further their research on immortality, are bad" story. At least that's what I think the average movie-goer got out of this most interesting sub-plot. I think there's a whole nights worth of conversation over coffee and doughnuts on whether said Spanish Priest is bad. He just wanted to live forever. So he did some research and achieved his goal. It's basically what modern doctors do with tragic illnesses, but we don't label them as bad. No, we give them Nobel prizes. But apparently, older Spanish civilization didn't look at it this way, and our poor Spanish Priest was ridiculed and sentenced to jail. So he had to kill a whole boats worth of people and escape. I think he's just misunderstood.
Next up we have CHARACTERIZATION: Now I admit I had trouble distinguishing one character from another. I look at this two different ways. ONE, Mr. Boll knew this kind of film would be worshiped for some time (just like all Romero's stuff) and multiple viewings would clear up just who is Simon and who is Greg. TWO, it isn't poor Mr. Boll's fault that the average movie audience wants only to commit 90 minutes of their precious time to a film experience. And I think it would be mighty inconsiderate of him to run the picture longer just to help everyone identify with a character or two. These people have jobs, kids, and stuff. It's unfair to ask for more than 90 minutes of their time. Just because you and I have perhaps up to 360 minutes to spend at the theater, it doesn't mean everyone does. And with a cast as large as a film of this magnitude deserves, Mr. Boll could just rely on our instincts as to who to root for but, he also took the liberty of telling us right up front who was going to live. That is generous film-making. He suffered the suspense of the film just for us.
That brings us to a COHERENT STORY: Some films like to spell everything out for you. Nice and tidy like your grandma's package wrapping skills at Christmas time. And that's fine for them. But the packages that aren't wrapped so nicely, you have no clue what they are. And that's more exciting. Same goes for movies as far as I'm concerned. Sure they could explain why Captain Kirk would accept $100 less money for more risk to take some kids to the Island of the Dead, but why not let that play around in our heads. Let us figure out why. I bet it had something to do with why he would also have illegal guns on his ship the same day he knew they were going to do a boat inspection. I believe they do this so we know what kind of a man this is. Reckless, care-free and fearless. Basically, a man you don't want to fuck with. Same goes with our zombies. You might wonder why some just lumber around, others are masters of the high jump, some have the ability to spit acid, and some die with a single handgun bullet to the arm but others still roam around after a shotgun blast to the chest. Open your mind and feel for the answer. It's so much more rewarding.
Then comes PLAUSIBILITY: We are dealing with zombies here. There are no such thing. I know we have Romero's bible of movies that says just what they can and can't do, but that doesn't change the fact that they are made up. If you want them to spit acid and leap 70 yards through the air, why can't they? Each made up entity need only apply to the rules set forth of the film they are in. If you are unwilling to accept anything else, I believe the fault lies in you, not the creative team who has worked their asses off to give you something fresh and awesome just for you to spit on it. We can throw this nitpick right out the window.
And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we have BRING SOMETHING NEW TO THE TABLE: I could get a camera and remake Night of the Living Dead. Hell, didn't Van Sant do that with Psycho. Guess what? Nobody wants that. We want something new. I don't want to get the same presents every year for Christmas, and I don't want to see the same thing everytime I go to the movies. House delivers in spades here. I've already touched on the many attributes our fearsome zombies have, but there's also so much more. I bet you've never seen that awesome spinning camera angle (let alone like 50 of them) before in any other zombie film. Ever seen Clint Howard play the Gordon Fisherman before....I don't think so. What about a sweet Highlander type climatic sword-battle between an evil, undead Spanish Priest and a jiggly hero? A magic gun that manages to reload itself (even when there are no bullets) everytime our cop-friend puts it back in her holster? A movie that so badly wants us to remember it is based on a video game, that it constantly flashes small clips from the game? House of the Dead is as fresh as they come.
So, if you've seen the movie and felt it less than stellar, try it again. And if you've been avoiding it due to the poor word of mouth surrounding it, fear not and go in with an open mind.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

You made up for a lot of your absence with that one post Kissinger. Well done!

 

[SteveGon]

 

[Nick Sievers]

Great review for a truly awful film.

 

[Brian Kissinger]

That's what happens when you have hit your limit of shit movies in two days. For some damn reason, I decided to torture myself over the last two days. I sat down and watched:
Predator vs Alien...I wanted so bad to like this film. I wanted so bad to find something in here that all the naysayers somehow missed. But alas, I ended the film in a big discussion with my son as to why I felt the movie sucked. For the record, he (age 13) thought the movie was awesome. Well done execs.
Jeepers Creepers 2 I saw the first one and didn't think it was all that bad. I didn't love it, but for what it was....it was ok. So, since I get free older releases with a new release rental, I gave this one a go. Not much to say really. It is what it is, a quick payday. It did raise an interesting question for me. Knowing the director's past, I noticed many scenes with young men without their shirts for no apparent reason. Would I have noticed otherwise, and would it have seemed so wrong (as in for no apparent reason) if it was women instead? I'll never know for sure, but it certainly makes me wonder.
Open Water Now I've heard so many great things about this film, that I had to see it. Now I don't know if it was just because I didn't really know anything about it and it wasn't quite what I was expecting, but this film seemed long and boring. It wasn't bad, but I never really felt any connection with the main characters. I never got the sense that they were in any kind of real danger.
***Giant Spoiler Here***
And even when they died, I really didn't care.
Perhaps I'll give it another go someday, but on this day I was seriously underwhelmed.
Then I capped it all off with House of the Dead. I still have Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and hopefully it will save the day. Here's to hope.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Eternal Sunshine is a great movie Brian.

 

[JohnRice]

Yes it is....

 

[SteveGon]

That's what happens when you have hit your limit of shit movies in two days.

Crap movies make your brain rot. Geez, have you even watched Proof yet? Damn good movie, I'm tellin' ya.

 

[Zen Butler]

House of Flying Daggers dir. Zhang Yimou

Ever since my viewing of Bride with White Hair, a friend's laser disc nay years ago, I've been intrigued with these Wu Xia (wuxia) genre of films. Now this term, is about as far as my knowledge goes, technically, historically etc. I must always ask, or start a thread on "what to watch next" by true scholars of this fantastical genre, after I've viewed films such as BWWH, Dragon Inn, Hero, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Here, is no exception..tell me please, what do I see next....?
House of Flying Daggers is a visually stunning film. The whole cast is phenomenal and every frame oozes with color and the stroke of art. The fairly loose plot revolves around two officers who follow the blind Mei(Ziyi Zhang) to induce confrontation with the rebel "House." Sound familiar? a thousand times over, I'm sure. It's Yimou's vision though that keeps me so buried within every frame, that I excuse the flimsy plot. Like a crack binge, I couldn't take my eyes off the screen and found myself a fiend for more when the credits started rolling. How long though, will I and others fall for this though? Or is "this" typical of this style of film? Paper-thin plot and dazzling, almost trance-like visuals. Truth is, this Wu Xia genre transports me to another place every single time, without having to score a tab of LSD. And every time I try and review one, I find myself locked in a circular prison of babble. It is not to be "explained" it must be experienced. I've "experienced" so much lately, with Chinatown so close to me, that I just may need rehab. "My name is Zen, and I'm a plotless-flying kung-fu-a-holic"
A-

 

[Adam_S]

Bride with White Hair is great fun. still need to see House of Flying Daggers though.
Abandoned Field: Free Fire Zone - :star::star:½
02/08/2005
Projected VHS
There aren't many Vietnamese films made during the Vietnam conflict, even fewer that reached the US and got an english subtitle translation. So it was a nice oppurtunity to get to watch this film. And by and large it's darn good. It's often repetitive, but there is a nice tension running throughout the film. The main actress is stunningly beautiful and the photography is very accomplished. It's also an interesting switch to see American's portrayed exactly how we portrayed the VietCong in films like Deer Hunter or First Blood.
Worth a watch, but not a great film, recommended to cineastes for it's historical position.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Standing in the Shadows of Motown
Score: A+
I purchased this film from the 5.50 bin at Wal-Mart, and I would've gladly paid 25+ for it. A friend of mine recommended this to me, and I'm glad I listened (pun intended).
Standing in the Shadows of Motown chronicles the unsung heroes of Hitsville, U.S.A., the Funk Brothers. They were responsible for the music and beats of Motown's greatest hits, yet they went wholly unrecognized until a book by the same name (and this film) were released.
I can honestly say there isn't anything artistically or technically "great" about this film. But for sheer emotional impact and getting a chance to listen to some good tunes is probably what makes the film work for me. And yes, it does answer a question we've all had since high school: Does Montell Jordan have something beyond "This Is How We Do It". The answer: no. But damn he and Chaka Kan do a great job with "Ain't No Mountain High Enough".

 

[Brian Kissinger]

King Kong (2005)
There are lots of times when remakes come around, everyone groans and says "Why bother?" This evoked a lot of that sentiment. Here we have Peter Jackson on top of the world, able to do just about anything he wanted, and he chose this. I was in the "Why" camp a bit myself. He proved (at least to me) than he can do anything he put his mind to. From over the top gorefests, to the touchingly horrific, I've enjoyed all his films. So I was disappointed when I heard this. Not that I wouldn't watch, just that I wished he do something fresh. I wanted to catch this in the theaters, but just never managed to make it. So when it hit DVD, I picked it up.
I found an entertaining film, but nothing all that special. But at the same time, I found pure magic, tragedy, heartache, and that special moment when a film manages to move you to tears.
I viewed this film with my eight year old daughter. When we put the movie in, it was ten or a little after at night. I figured with what should prove to be a "slow" opening, she'd lose interest and either crash out, or just plain leave Kong for Nickelodeon. And even though we did experience bouts of slight boredom through the first hour, she hung in there. And then slowly became lost in the story.
What I never expected, was just how deeply she would connect with the movie. When Kong rescued Ann from the T-Rexs, she jumped up and cheered. She laughed as he "played it cool" with Ann later, and started to cry at his capture.
As the final act played out, I became less interested in the film, and more in just how much she was enjoying it. And the dread of knowing what was coming and what it would do to my little girl. And as the film ended, she just broke into tears...which made me cry as well.
It's been many, many years since I was so involved in a film that it actually moved me to tears. Sure there have been times when a film has connected me to a private grief and evoked emotion, but that has more to do with my own demons than anything the film was able to do for me. I fear the hardships of life have robbed me of the sensation my daughter was moved to. But to see her moved so much, moved me. And if even only for a brief, artificial moment, I was able to find a tiny piece of that.
And all this came from an unnecessary remake that while not bad, not all that great either. But this film will hold so much more than the original ever will for me. So perhaps I'll be a little more forgiving of remakes in the future.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Holy Mother of Revived Threads, Batman!

Nice review Kissinger.

 

[JohnRice]

It Is Alive!!!

 

[SteveGon]

Yep, nice review buddy!
While I don't have any kids myself, I do enjoy picking out quality (don't laugh!) movies for my nephews. The older one is a bit of an over-achiever so I figured he'd enjoy Rushmore and he did (to the point of noticing how well made it is). We also watched Land of the Dead (he loves zombie flicks) and I got to kid him when he jumped on several occasions (of course he denied this!).