Sweet Salty Corn

minor trekker on star trek

2009-05-12T21:40:00.001-07:00

omgponies!! star trek. star trek.
if I could have a young picard... drool will fall from my mouth. different crew. understood.

I can't even form the words. besides, yes, I liked it. a lot.

one criticism- with all ST movies though, I'm not that preturbed with the villain. nero was not a 'bad guy,' in fact he was a sympathetic character. I wanted eric bana to be a bad, bad man. kahn will be baddest man in all the universe I guess. even the borg can't top him.

the fact that this was filmed like an action movie rather than a large scale tv show. the difference is palapable. so shiny, so fresh and clean. great lines and angles. great use of space- actual outer space. inertion of planets from a black hole. totally believable. INERT!

the cast then, the cast. no complaints. I loved chekov. same bad accent! ha. and yelchin is actually russian too. john cho, even though he is not japanese, the fighting! ah, the fighting. loved it! simon pegg, adorable. who else, who else? the green alien, ha. cheeky! of course karl urban as bones-- perfection. absolute perfection.

I know this isn't a good review. seriously. I liked it a lot so I have no words.......... no. words. I'll see it again to form better thoughts. promise.

I have habits

2009-04-26T21:01:00.000-07:00

there are few movies that I can watch again and again and again. by that I mean, back to back watch it again right after I saw it. 'the prestige' is one of these. the first time I saw it, I rented it, I watched it three times in one day. just today I watched 'grosse point blank' twice.
another one these movies is 'brick.' has any one else seen this? I feel like I'm the only who has seen it.... it is beautiful, washed in blue. has the amazing joseph gordon levitt and it has this great old timey gangster language. which is why the first time I saw it, again rented, I watched it back to back. first to see it, then again to understand it. I love it. rival gangs. cute boys. beautiful girls. money. drugs. teenagers acting like adults. any one else seen this?
some great angles and movement. nice transitions and natural lighting. the camera placement through out our journey with brendon as he searches for emily leaves the viewer cold and nervous. (or maybe just me.) trying to get there... what happened to her?

eta. link the av club did a write up about it recently. our brain waves musta been in sync. not nsync. again I ask, any body seen this? I really think you should.

anticipation

2009-04-20T15:11:00.000-07:00

movies I am most excited to see this summer:
STAR TREK
500 Days of Summer
Rudo y Cursi
Harry Potter 6
Moon
GI Joe
The Hangover
All Good Things
eta:
Public Enemies
The Brothers Bloom
ben convinced me of:
Inglourius Basterds
and who am I kidding, I will see this:
X Men Origins: Wolverine

this is kind of like, may through september.... a long stretch of summer.
lets all go to the lobby, lets all go the looobbby, and get ourselves a snack!

You people don't understand - I'm not locked in here with you - you're locked in here with me!

2009-03-07T15:30:00.000-08:00

Watchmen was ridiculously faithful to its source material, something required for a work that means so much to so many. Which made it a bit like reading the graphic novel for me. And I think that's the point. It was an incredible movie based on an incredible graphic novel. But it didn't really add or change anything with its change to a new medium. Which is probably fine. But I find myself asking what the point was, exactly. Kind of like remaking Psycho. If you don't make any real choices, are you really making a separate work of art? Having said that, I thought the very few divergent choices that were made seemed to be made at random and for no reason (take the "practical joke" at the end, for instance. A claim has been made by Brock Sampson that it would take too long in a movie to explain the ending from the book, but I don't buy that. I think that they take the same amount of time to explain. So it was just random for me, but, maybe, this is exactly the sort of choice I want to make it a different work. The movie, on some level, makes more sense and a better point than the book does because of this change to the ending. So.). On the other hand, the choices that had to be made, like with the soundtrack, were made extremely well, in my opinion. Am I thinking too much about this?

Perhaps I'm too harsh to a movie that I thoroughly enjoyed (and saw twice yesterday in IMAX). I thought this movie was great. The casting was excellent and even the one I didn't like (Veidt) got better upon a second viewing. It was well-acted and well-shot. Just good.

To speak to both the book and the movie, I believe that what makes this not only good, but important, is that it takes as its subject the unimaginable horror that men are capable of and it shows that, on the other side, even the men who fight this horror are often engulfed in it and imperfect (to say the least) in their pursuit of better things. It tells a human story - horrible, dark and troubling, but with incredible meaning and great hope brought about from the most Faustian decisions possible. I still don't know what I think about the events of the story and I've read it once and seen the movie twice.

And Melissa, to answer your question: these superheros are like the new Batman - good technology plus good workout routines and training make you stronger and better than your opponents. But these are still men and women, mostly (even the blue guy used to be human). Apparently, properly motivated and trained human beings can kick the ass of a whole string of villains in a dark alley or a prison. Also, it doesn't hurt to be a sociopath, like Rorschach.

who watches the watchmen?

2009-03-07T12:49:00.001-08:00

I watched the 'watchmen', and I liked it.
I didn't expect to. all the reviews have been very negative and harsh. I'm only less than a quarter of the way through the novel and I could hear line by line direct quotes so I'm making as ass of myself and assuming that most of it was a true interpretation with the novel. isn't that what the fanboys wanted? I don't understand the backlash.
the one thing I didn't understand maybe because I'm dense, I don't know. these aren't super heroes. they don't have magic powers- well one. they're ordinary men and women who decided to better themselves to better their city. but I was confused at how strong they were fighting wise... just one man and woman who apparently has some training can take down a street gang in a dark alley? I just wanted an explanation of their talents. as a movie watcher I am to suspend my disbelief and accept that they are stronger, faster, better, smarter than any of us regular folk. thats okay. I can accept that.
my favorite part, hands down was rorschach- jackie earl haley. and in my opinion, if heath ledger can win an oscar for playing the joker, it would be a shame if this performance were to be overlooked. thats how I felt with michael shannon in 'revolutionary road,' too- I was so happy he was nominated. JEH stole the movie for me and made it so intense and just exciting to watch. and during trailers I was disappointed in malin ackerman but they didn't do her justice. I was fine with all the actors.
and the look of it- the gritty, dark 80s. theres nothing to complain about here either.
it was a fine story. if not a little long....

matt?

2009-02-07T22:52:00.001-08:00

also. these bunnies are funny. every time I see their disapproving faces I laugh. oh bunnies. you're so judgemental!

fanboys

2009-02-07T22:50:00.000-08:00

just a reccomendation- go see 'fanboys' its pretty awesome.

Twilight

2008-12-08T17:30:00.000-08:00

another disapproval. this time of 'twilight.' BORING says the bunny. so very boring. I giggled at inappropriate, cheesy times. I shook my head at the staring, the minutes of staring that went on between the two leads. and I sighed heavily at the lack of anything happening.
I am reading the book currently. I made plans to see it before someone lent me the book, so I am only 100 pages from the end. 100 pages from the book getting anywhere. the book is boring so the movie is boring. I get it. at least the movie doesn't shy away from the book too much. there are some liberties with the timeline but the point gets across. she smells wonderful and he loves her for it. and he is smoldering hot and she loves him for it. and they stare at eachother for hours. yep. in a meadow. in class. while driving. just stare, carebear stare.
they are all pretty people, in a pretty locale, with pretty cars and pretty skills. I'm not saying its not pretty or good to look at. just underwhelming.

but the plus side to all this is I saw the new trailer for harry potter. exciting stuff. and the trailer for the unborn! OH NOES! I have severe obsession and disgust about vanished twin syndrome! and parasitic twins! and chimerism is facinating and scary. so the unborn looks so neat and frightening!

choke

2008-10-08T22:46:00.000-07:00

I know we don't really update this. but I just wanted to say I was slightly disapointed in choke. I love, love, love the book. so I have a natural bias. but I love sam rockwell. and I see it, he is victor mancini.
but... I kept waiting for the film to be more--- MORE. there was something lacking. to me it was slow, not very evenly paced. and it looked like a 'rom com'. as in, no exciting colors, or chemical treatments, no exciting shots or angles. no fx. the best shot was the lingering shot at the end with the couple totally making out in the airplane bathroom. the way it lingered, it made the audience uncomfortable voyeurs. nothing else in the movie was like that. no dynamism, nothing exciting to watch.
I do not want to compare this film with fight club. but in this case I must. they treatment they gave the look of that film-- SO fit the book.
this book was not a boring 'rom com'. so why make it look that way?
I love sam, kelly, angelica. they were great actors. I can't argue with any of the liberties taken with the book to script. I liked the story. my main complaint is how it looked. I'm not saying every movie should have fx. not every movie should be made to look like it was created and treated in a computer. but some stories, call for it. some stories call for an exciting, forward moving look. and I thought this book, this script needed that.

Never Back Down

2008-03-27T00:53:00.000-07:00

"This has gotta end with you looking like a bitch". That's exactly how I feel about you and your movie, Chad Wadlow.

Sketches of Frank Gehry

2008-03-05T22:17:00.000-08:00

What would it be like to have art all around? As I watch the film, I wonder what it would be like if art was actively encouraged as a part of the work of society at large, what change that might make. What if every building you saw was provocative in some way? How would that influence your understanding of the world? How would you see things on a daily basis?

I don't love every building Frank Gehry has done. But I believe him to be a serious artist and he has the popularity and talent to bring designs of whimsy to realization. For that, I have the utmost respect. His work is often outrageously beautiful and consuming in scale. He makes monoliths that add to the surrounding environment. They are signposts for the community. But I dream of a world where Gehry has multitude competitors who all compete for attention, so that our world and our public spaces and even our private spaces are wonderlands of artistic vision and creation. How difficult would it be to make this dream a reality? I believe that Gehry, in the film, is right. Most architects are bound by a code of rules, of structure. Gehry always felt closer to the artists of the day, and I believe that one tidbit of his existence tells everything. I have respect for him because I don't want a world where architecture's major emphasis is blending in. I want the provocative. Like he delivers.

2008-03-02T00:49:00.000-08:00

Robert Evans is a massive douchebag. I'm half-way through The Kid Stays In The Picture and I'm not sure how anyone was able to stand this dumbass and his hard-boiled bullshit, let alone give him the opportunity to be a movie star, producer and Senior Vice-President of Paramount. Not to mention the fact that Ali McGraw allowed herself to get knocked up by this guy. I want to slap the shit out of him.

Stacey Peralta is not. He's turning into an impressive filmmaker, if only for board-related movies. Riding Giants is an excellent movie about remarkable thrill-seeking, but more than that, it explains the heart and mythology of surfing, something grossly misrepresented, largely misunderstood, and enduringly interesting.

cannibal holocaust

2008-02-10T21:55:00.000-08:00

this bunny does not approve of the movie, 'cannibal holocaust'.
hahahahahhaha......

okay. green! overwhelmingly green. its shot in columbia, and half of it is real time, half the past which is shown in real time as untouched film, so the flares and un color corrected parts make sense. which I appreciate in thanks of the director. good job! but the bunny still does disapprove.
holy rape scenes! too many to count. and gruesome and disturbing. the whole thing was disturbing which is the point of this movie. to provoke. I beleive this was a big precursor to 'blair witch project' specifically the ending shot of the lost groups footage when the director falls down bleeding from his head and the camera falls too, and ends its shot on his face, just like the end shot in 'bwp.' also the whole lost in the jungle theme.
the lost group deserves every bad thing that happens to it. and this is where matt will disagree as I sort of beleive in eye for eye justice and he doesn't. it was satisfying to me as a viewer to see them die at the hands of the docile natives that they took extreme advantage of. but then, it was also good to show the extremism that the media has for dangerous material. the other half of the movie is about the anthropologist who found the film in the jungle thanks to the natives, and his better dealing with them, with respect! and nakedness! so many penises. many. my friend lin asked me if we were watching porn. kind of lin, kind of. so the guy gets back to new york and a media group wants to show the lost crews footage which is disturbing becuase of all the tricks and evil things the crew did to the native tribes to make an 'interesting' documentary.

I think this movie was groundbreaking. not only because of the disturbing images, real animals dying. bunny does not approve of killing real animals on film even if its okay in latin america. its groundbreaking because of the stir it caused around the world. banned. in almost every country. the director had to bring the lost crew actors onto a news show to prove they were actors and did not perform those evil deeds and that they did not die on film.

bunny and I can not see this movie again for a while. but while bunny will never see it again, I can eventually and I did appreciate what I was seeing, in context of 'I wonder who the real cannibals are?'

Persepolis

2008-01-28T00:08:00.000-08:00

This is really incredible storytelling. It's funny, it's tragic. It's sometimes unbearable to consider the content of the story, and yet the narrator, the main character, maybe even the writer/director (these could all be the same person) is so unflinching, so committed to telling the story as it happened that no punches are pulled. And there is no embarrassment here. And so horror and anguish find a kind of beauty in the overarch of the story as a whole. It doesn't end. Nor does life. Nor do any stories. Not really. There is always more to be told.

And animation, as it should in all great film, does what live action cannot. It performs the functions of creating a world in which things can exist apart from reality. And makes it possible to tell a story that cannot otherwise be told. I like the black-and-white. I like the characters. I am curious now. I want to know the stories others have locked inside them. I want to know what others feel.

And finally, this is important. Please, make this required watching. Iranians are people. Not crazed religious fanatics who deny the holocaust. They're people, just like Americans in many, many ways. Just like all people, at the base. Is their world different? Yes. But that is something we should be fascinated by. Instead of hating and fearing. And potentially bombing.

this holiday season '07

2008-01-07T20:43:00.000-08:00

new post new post. after a year and a half....

enchanted: not as candy colored as I would have wanted it. such a cute story, and could amy adams be any more amazing? did she sing? I have to look that up. I loved the way she held her hands and her delicate posture and stance during the move. but as far as the look goes, I know they went for a real movie look. but I wanted more pop in my colors. the best scene, visually, was the musical number in the park. all those people and the dancing and singing, that must have taken time to stage.

lars and the real girl: I loved the bleak colors. so washed out. then all these splashes of pink. the way the camera held on lars when he was dancing at the party, his meekness but joy in that one moment, was my favorite part of the movie. I melted. I really melted. he made me cringe and laugh and want to cry. but the best piece was when he gave mouth to mouth to the teddy bear, again, I melted. ryan gosling did such a good job of protraying someone so detatched, yet so caring. I also appreciated the coldness, with the color palate and at times odd angles you could feel the chill of living in the north.

beowulf 3d: yeah, I saw that. in 3d. what I hated. the yelling! the movie was so fucking loud! it hurt. it hurt my ears. I loved the gold in color palate. the golds and reds. so rich. I liked the 3d. I was very wary about seeing things coming at me. I get lost in imax movies and ovewhelmed. I didn't want to be overwhelmed. and I wasn't. I liked it. I did.

gold compass: so so pretty! so pretty! the animation! daniel craig! golds and silvers. so very cold looking. the green and gold of the college lyra was at. the sets. the kids. the animals!! I'm a sucker for animals. maybe I'm not the most unbiased. I liked. I really did. I was intrigued. I didn't get bored. I didn't thing it was teaching me to be an atheist. I appreciated the fantasy and new worlds. the accents. snow :)

irreversible

2006-10-18T17:31:00.000-07:00

gosh its been so long. see I didn't feel like I should post about 'jackass 2' and I really haven't seen anything worth mentioning in a while. and then I saw a movie this past weekend that jarred me to the bones. it frieghtened me more than anything. ever. ever. it disturbed me more than any movie. it has changed my perception about tranquil life. forever. it has convinced me that monica bellucci is one of the greatest actresses of our time.

irreversible is shown in reverse, the ending to the begining. in a day in the life of a beautiful french woman and her boyfriend, who end up going to a party with her ex boyfriend who she is friends with but who obviously is still in love with her, and the ramifications of leaving a party early without the men at her side.

this movie has been talked about a lot, because of the hard to watch, hard to stomach rape scene. what is disturbing about it is also what is smart about it, it is all one long shot. you have to watch it all. it consumes you. there is no music, just him grunting and her crying, her forceful desparate crying. it gave me chills. I twice almost got up from my friends couch and walked out. I told him to turn it down. my other friend and I closed our eyes and plugged our ears. it was the most horrible thing to see. because in the hand held camera style, the voyeristic style of this movie, we were there. witnessing it. and we couldn't do a thing about it. it was so brutal. and heartbreaking. this scene gave me nightmares for days; I slept with a chair pushed against my door all weekend long. it made me check under my bed for strange men, named la tenia.
that underground tunnel was long and dark. the only visible light source was from overhead hanging lamps that cast eerie shadows. her bright red dress all ripped up was so shocking on the dirty walkway. the part where he beats her up. and the camera never looks away. so. hard. to. watch.
what I liked was how it started, very disorineted, very topsy turvy, loud screeching music. what you don't know yet, is the two men are looking for the man who beat and raped their girl. they are actually drunk and high. the camera work is lopsided and dioriented to give the effect of anger, adrenaline and alcohol pumping through you. they run through a dirty, dark, gay men's club searching for a man called la tenia. they find this person, OR its been debated that its not him, but you cannot tell because its so dark. and they beat the living shit out of this guy. culminating in smashing his face in with a fire extinguisher. you are appalled. then you see the event leading up to that. all the while working backwards....

I liked they way the story played out. I loved the camera work. I really liked the story. I just am forever messed up. because its a year later, and I still sleep with a chair under my bed. but I remember everything about that movie. everything. it sticks with you.

children of men

2006-08-01T09:03:00.000-07:00

saw this last night as a trailer before miami vice.
I almost peed myself I was so excited and overwhelmed.
how is it I can know I am so in love with something after seeing just a snippet of it?
director alfonso cuaron could take a shit and I would think it was gold. he is brilliant. bloody brilliant!
and to make it even better my most favorite cinematographer photographed it, emmanuel lubezki. everything he does is so gorgeous. I just get lost in his delicate way of showing me light...
he works so well with alfonso- their collaborations result in timeless masterpieces.

to say I am really looking forward to this, is an understatement.

High School Musical

2006-07-17T23:34:00.000-07:00

I am live-blogging from the most amazing movie ever. EVER! High School Musical. And I quote: "Creme Brulee". Need I say more? Thank you, Kenny Ortega. You're my hero.

heck yes!

2006-07-11T16:44:00.000-07:00

nothing to say. just that I am SO looking forward to seeing this. I know its juvenille but it makes me laugh. and that means its worth seeing!

I can remember LOTS of things

2006-07-03T09:26:00.000-07:00

ah, sixteen candles. my favorite. favorite. I can quote the whole thing. not sure if thats a talent or just annoying. I'll pretend its cute. I saw it yesterday for fun with a friend at an awesome little theater here that plays nothing but oldies. and its fabulous. for seven dollars you get a nice little double feature. yesterdays was 'the breakfast club' and 'sixteen candles.' I only wanted to see the latter. I have a guitar, I named it jake ryan. the best name ever, hottest guy ever! so maybe my little review will be a bit biased. I un abash-edly love this film!

on to the pictures: pretty straightforward comedy style. nothing groundbreaking in the shots or camera movement. although, the signature john hughes/kid looks at camera breaks fourth wall move happened first here, when ted looks at the camera and speaks to the audience and says 'this is getting interesting,' (I'm not sure of that line...) john hughes then took that move to 'ferris bueller...' and 'weird science.'
what I like about the opening scene with the credits is the presentation of high school life. many many shots of different kids, with different styles, so we get many slices of life. its a very nice opening since the movie is all about high school life (in the eighties... now it would be all about kids cutting them selves bc life is just so hard, and don't get me started....) moving on. the dialogue so important! they talk like kids talk. not like that super lame show we all know of... dawson's creek. these kids are kids and not afraid of that. plus there are so many quotable lines! 'oh sexy girlfriend...' you know you know it!
the color palate was pretty simple. lots of pinks, purples and blues. which flattered all the stars. the only time there was a soft filter was at the end, when they are on the table with the birthday cake to give it that super romantic vibe. and the awesome thompson twins song is playing. it gets me every time. when sam walks out of the church and everyone has left and there he is. awww!!! chills. and the song!
I think the party scene was a bit excessive. just like the party scene is in weird science, its a little much, but weird science is supposed to be goofy, this one is supposed to be like any other high school, any other day, but the party was too much. first off, was it really that easy for underage kids to buy beer back in the eighties? so much alcohol. and the wrecking of jake ryan's house upsets me. wheres the respect?! not just because I am in love with him and want to protect his house oh no, thats just rude. I guess kids do get crazy but I would have been the girl saying, dont put the pizza on the record player, his parents paid good money for that. and I would have totally helped clean up, and perhaps fallen asleep accidently in his room (yes, I'm weird, but I love that character!).... on to the movie. what else is good...what else. well, the characters. they were so relatable. not like in his 'the breakfast club' when they all played stereotypes these were typical kids. wallflower girl, handsome senior, nerdy freshman. oh and john cusack!! the storyline was simple enough, yet so profound and romantic. I want to make out with jake ryan on a glass table.
in conclusion, may I say I believe this to be one the all time best eighties high school movies. I say number one. it has the best romance, the best funny lines, the best stars, the best soundtrack- hands down!! you may fight me on that. fine. but I will never give in. it is number one!

Lord of War

2006-06-06T23:51:00.000-07:00

Okay, so it's not timely, but here it is anyway.

This movie is brilliant in precisely the way Thank You For Smoking is not. No cheeky in-joke pretense, no "look at me, I'm making fun!" setups for the camera. Just satire, unapologetic and raw and leaving the viewer with that feeling of absolute, utter, tragic helplessness. There is a huge moral problem here. The main character is reprehensible. Beyond measure. But he is also absolutely right. If he quit, someone else would do it. It's the way the world works. People kill other people for a variety of reasons. It will continue always. There is no real way to stop it. I am not without hope, but let's be reasonable here. We're not all just gonna hold hands and sing "we are the world" together while swaying back and forth. It's just not going to happen.

There is a need for this. Just as there is a need for cigarettes. Because there is a market. Find something people care about more than money, and you will find a way to change the world. But, and forgive me for the stereotype, this is exactly how base most people are. Money makes the world go 'round.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that all of life is worth the fight and there is more of me in Uri's brother (see the movie) than there is in any of the characterizations of Uri. But it is brilliant satire precisely because there is no real answer to the questions the film raises. The worst of them all are the ones in charge. As we always knew....

Well, that's all I have. Well played, Lord of War, well played.

the men and women of the X, tres

2006-06-01T17:10:00.000-07:00

did you see xmen 3 yet? I did. twice. just again last night. and the same things that bothered me the first time bothered me even more last night. and the things I loved, I loved even more.
first let me say I loved the effects. they were good. real good. done incredibly well by just about every lab in canada and the u.s. my favorite, besides, phoenix's awesomeness was the water at the very end in the san francisco everything falling apart due to phoenix... did you see the water!! that shit was crazy! I loved her eyes- the way her eyes changed color when she got angry. my mom always says she can tell what kind of mood I'm in because my eyes get lighter when I'm really happy and turn black when I am angry. well same thing with jean/phoenix. holy crap- her eyes turn gold when you piss her off! plus she's hot. that just adds to it. anyway, enough of my girl crush.
I wished it were longer. even more so this time. I wanted to see more of everyone fighting. I wanted more of the beast. so much potential...I felt it went so quick! which is evidence of good entertaining movie, but I was left feeling needy.
I hated hated hated the film stock. what the hell was that crappy grainy horrible color monstrosity?? what?! I had better stock in my first STUDENT FILM!! jesus. that pissed me off. I was actually kind of angry about it. and the lighting... looked so artificial. except for the scenes in the forest. otherwise I felt the gels...lights, were a little off. wait a second- did hackner (I totally made that up!) hire students to be his cinematographers? that explains it. they might want to take a class first next time. the close up were really pretty. other than that, it was off. and the obsession with these incredibly long and disorienting crane shots- that never ended. so hard to get into the story and FOCUS when it never gives me something to watch.
I'm not the story guy, but I liked the story- I loved magneto and mystique. I felt so bad for her! and I'm saying this, not because I love this franchise, bc I was prepared to hate it. believe me. but that story. the love stories were interesting to watch. the deaths. the fighting. ben foster. ah. more ben foster!! the only thing, the dialogue was a bit...corny. well. kinda really corny. again- did he hire students? see, again, maybe they should have taken a class FIRST. other than that, I loved it.

Thank You For Smoking

2006-05-11T12:22:00.000-07:00

Sometimes it takes me a little while to think about a film before I write about it. For this one, I liked it. I just couldn't put my finger on why until just now. I like it for the same reason I take a bit of pleasure when the camera briefly glances over the cheerleaders at a sporting event. It's a cheap thrill of the lowest caliber. It's not biting satire. The jokes, though probably new, have the feeling of being very, very old. The cast is good, but wooden. It's a fun film to sit there and say, "yeah, smoking's bad. but it can be so much fun too". Exactly like slinging bullshit. I should know.

So, the subject matter, in the land of public discourse has already been "dealt" with and if it weren't for the stupid fucking "Truth" commercials run ad nauseum, probably everyone would've forgot you even could smoke anywhere in this country these days. But at least the subject matter didn't get all gooey on us. The main character, who remains sympathetic in spite of his work on behalf of an industry that would likely proudly liken itself to Satan, never gets to that point in the story where he's seen the fuckin' light. I hate that shit. He knows that he's full of shit and that what he does makes one of the worst possible legal consumer products in this country seem, well, maybe just not-so-awful. But not-terrible is a great image boost for a cigarette. But damn, that boy can talk. And there's nothing we love more in this country than a truly great bullshitter. Shit, we'd do just about anything for a snake-oil salesman and there's no one better at that than a PR man (if we aren't counting lobbyists and image-brokers, like advertisers.

It gets me a little riled up. And that's why I like it. Because a little is fun. Just not too much.

Volver

2006-03-14T01:42:00.000-08:00

June 23 (LA and NYC) -- New Almodovar.

Cache

2006-01-29T01:55:00.000-08:00

I could pretend that I understand this film. But I don't. I have some thoughts anyway.

You know me -- this is a spoiler. But keep this in mind -- there are many films, including this one, where I could post the screenplay and give in-depth commentary the size of a novel and it would still be nothing like experiencing the film. Let's take, oh, I don't know, um... Persona as an example of this. I could tell you everything about it and you would still know nothing. This is like that.

The most striking thing to me is the unblinking, stationary, fixed-perspective view of the camera. There is mystery piled upon mystery in this film and nothing, I mean nothing, is resolved in any way.

First, the camera -- like in Psycho with Norman Bates, the spectator assumes the position of the aggressor and this is never resolved. The audience is the aggressor. I am the answer to the mysteries of the film. Who knew? This camera, which I use to torture the main character into torturing himself, I use also to provide the exposure which is torturous in itself. No matter how horrifying the images, I will not look away. I, of course, as the spectator, am as completely held captive as any harm done to the characters via my position within the world of the film. The director here has created an indictment, more than a film. I'm not sure what the thrust of the indictment is (I could expand this to be some grand theme, like racism, but I think such an interpretation would be limiting, not expository), but I know that everyone is at fault. There are victims involved, but the victims are true victims. No one involved in the film (the main character, the audience, the filmmaker) is free from what can only be called the burden of being exposed to the process of watching the film. It's weird and I describe it poorly, but it's very apparent that you are involved in watching a film while you are at this film. And, in some way, you feel some sort of, I don't know exactly... responsibility. I'd love some help on this one.

The theme of this film, as I've said could be quite loosely a white man's burden. But, specifically, it is only one white man's burden. And it's really the story of a man driving himself made with the realization that his life is now prone to some exposure. Where does the exposure come from? What does the exposure mean? How does the exposer know so much about this man's life? Is the main character right in his assumptions about this story, even though it makes him seem unsympathetic to the point of cruelty and horror? The answer to these questions, as far as I can tell is that this movie is about movies. Is about the process of recording the world in a way that exposes what is there. Another film could've made this into a padded-room insanity drama as a man, given some strange turns of events, forces his own hand to such an extent that he drives himself mad. But this man is incapable of that depth of emotion. He merely is not capable of processing the horror of what an asshole he is. Superficiality is the enemy of real horror. So he leaves a sick pit in your stomach, but it's not interesting, it's just boring, in a way. Like the camera. It lingers, like a peeping tom on the street, just hoping for something like action. You're lulled into this feeling with the camera until... well.... I don't want to tell you. But the way this is constructed makes a certain scene especially, um... traumatic to watch. But you're so used to watching in this way that you remain absorbed when you might want to turn away. And that alone makes this experience worthwhile. Meaning may be lost, but the psychological response that the film can evoke from you points to some extent to what the film is really about: what does it mean to watch and to see and what does it mean to be watched.

There is something about the children in this film. They are absent, in some sense. There are scenes about children, but they are ignored in a way. It seems to be about them, but only in a veiled way, like the film wants to be about their stories, but it has so much else to do and just doesn't have the time. A mimicry of bad parenting. I can't put my finger on anything here, except that the film is constantly suggestive of growth and education and a total lack. And the main character cannot help but ruin the lives of everyone he touches. A reverse goldfinger.

If I think of more, I'll revise this. Let's discuss this, though, because I continue to be fascinated by this film.

apology to the man

2005-12-12T15:14:00.000-08:00

sorry matt. I never counter pointed. I will. its just I've been sick. you saw/heard me. on the verge of death. not quite though. I lie. I am a liar. I like to lie. but I have medicine and am getting better. its mindblowing how well anti biotics work.

to be honest I have nothing to add to 'just friends.' I just really wanted to see it. because I don't believe in the title. there is no such thing, and never will be. I just wanted to laugh. and watch ryan reynolds. and secondly because, theres nothing for me to say as far as 'great use of soft filters.' that was a great action sequence though. the destruction of christmas. the fire and wreckage that was decorations. that was funny, and easy to follow. I hate action sequences that just blur and I can't follow whats happening. I might as well close my eyes and just listen to the ruccus. but actually being able to tell that that is santa falling off the roof of the house on fire, the lights all popping out one by one in quick succession. thats fun.

so. walk the line. give me a day or two. gotta feel better.

the year end favorites

2005-12-12T13:03:00.000-08:00

So I was thinking I would list all my favorite movies this year and why. Then I realized I loved them all. Well, not all...Fantastic Four wasn't exactly great but I did enjoy it. I did enjoy every movie I saw this year for very different reasons. This list is just my favorites. Absolute hands down favorites of 2005.

1. 40 Year Old Virgin. The most heartfelt, honest and funny movie I saw all year. I laughed, I cried, I related.
2. The Squid and The Whale. Tough to watch. But so very poignant. And so very funny at times. Any kid who has ever lived through a divorce knows those feelings. And this movie conveyed them so very well.
3. Everything is Illuminated. If you read what I said about it, yeah I hated it at first. But the more I thought about it, and remembered the images, the more it became this beautiful beautiful art piece to me. quirky, heavy, resonates. it was just good.
4. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. ah, the colors. I love colors. I loved the lines, the shots, the effects, the story- the right on with the book story, the acting and that adorable kid. such a good family film. exactly what I was hoping it would be and more.
5. Shopgirl. I can't even explain how this film affected me. definetly touching. it wasn't too cute, it wasn't too edgy. it wasn't pretentious or horribly lame. it was just right. just perfectly right.

I spent a lot of money on movies this year. one could say roughly a hundred dollars. more even, a lot more. thats at least two days work. but it was all worth it. even having to endure katie holmes talking out the side of her face with her twisted mouth to see christian bale as a superb batman in 'batman begins.' even the short comings in story for a very pretty and visually stunning 'the island.' the underrated hitchhikers guide.... and most fun was 'harry potter and the goblet of fire,' because hello, its harry potter! the five I mentioned up top were just so amazing, to me. that they are now on my list. my forever growing favorite movies ever list.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

2005-12-10T22:10:00.000-08:00

I haven't read the book in probably a decade, but I was still excited to see the film. And I can't say I feel unpleasantly about it now, but I wish I could see the movie with no religious pretext. That's my one wish and I tried to shut out the symbolism of everything as I watched, but to no avail. What was produced, then, was a recognition of the absolute hodge-podge of religious and mythological creatures and symbols and this made the film almost laughable. There, of course, is Aslan, the lion, an obvious nod to Christ ("The Lion of Judah"). And the white witch -- the source of all that is bad; let's call her the devil. Father Christmas gives the children tools with which to fight the white witch -- these are almost exactly lifted from the New Testament in an image-laden text talking about being equipped with the metaphorical armor necessary to fight the devil. Okay, so those are the obvious symbols. Then there are the dogs -- dogs are often associated with evil, probably from their relationship to the beast of Revelations -- the antichrist is borne of a dog it is believed. Then, it seems proper that the white witch should surround herself with dogs. But what of the cyclops who carry the white witch's throne? Or the unicorn that the oldest child rides into battle (a symbol of loss of innocence)? Are these minor details part of the book or are they a reflection of a certain laziness on the part of the creators of the movie? We couldn't think of good mythical creatures, so we borrowed heavily, they might say. Either way, I'm confused.

And though this is a minor point (but a major continuity error): When they pour the potion that will heal any wound into Edmond's mouth after his major injury at the hands of the white witch, why does his lip not heal? Is this some topical potion that only works on major injuries? If so, why not pour it on the wound? I think it's not for me to understand.

Having said all this, the movie works in the way it was meant to. I was drawn into a rather ridiculous (when you think about it) mythology rather quickly, due mainly to the little girl and her relationship with the unbelievably sympathetic fawn. Minus the bullshit marketing strategies of the business of religion, this is a story that is constructed with the same devotion of The Lord of the Rings, though not with the same need to construct a fully complete other-world. The world is meant as a symbol. And I guess I need to resign myself to that. A movie less derivative of a certain subtext would be less interesting to watch.

But let's keep the marketing campaign responsible for selling The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre out of this. You're making things worse for those of us who have opinions not given us.

Walk the Line

2005-12-10T21:57:00.000-08:00

This is the story we love -- this is the cinematic American dream full force. A boy who is abused, who feels abandoned by the death of his "better" brother, who came from nothing and pinned his dreams to song makes good in a way that transcends the mere title "good". Johnny Cash is not merely good. Johnny Cash is an icon.

But a lot of people wouldn't say that Cash, even as he is characterized in this sympathetic film, deserves the title good. He left his wife and kids to chase after a pretty girl with a lot of personality he met on tour. That's hardly the mark of a good man. But it's the stuff of a real life and Walk the Line is a story of redemption more than anything. Cash is redeemed from a relationship with a girl he barely knew who didn't understand his love of music. Cash is redeemed from the pills he discovered on tour with music icons before he deserved the title. Cash finds a way to help others who are touched by his music by doing something that really matters -- something truly Christian -- singing for prisoners. Cash is redeemed, ultimately, and most importantly (from the film's perspective) from the shadows of his horrifying relationship with his father. By being the "man in black", Cash turns the tables on what kind of a man deserves the distinction of goodness. Those who condemn him ultimately end up condemning themselves.

The story is more than feel-good. It may have accuracy problems -- there always seems to be someone to complain about the content of a biopic -- but it tells the story it tries to tell from beginning to end. No punches are pulled. The movie is brutal and harsh, as is John at times, but he is always sympathetic. The sympathy is never quite reduced to pity. The feeling one gets watching the story is akin to a boxing film. The boxer who needs to win to feed his family, who has lost all luck lately and has pinned all his hopes to his right-cross and, miraculously, pulls it off. This is the story of Johnny Cash. And the man's story is an inspiration with no embellishment. In this way, the biopic is honest and that's all that a film with claims to the truth can hope for.

And Johnny's album of cover songs is among the coolest things I've ever heard. For what that's worth.

Just Friends

2005-12-04T20:20:00.000-08:00

This film tells the not-so-sweet little lies we'd all really love to believe, and for no good reason. You can't really go home again, not ever. Not even when the girl you loved seems to have not changed at all and you've returned a much slimmer, much assholier version of yourself. The title character, the stereotypical "fat kid" who is best friends with the girl every asshole in town is in "love" with, gets his heart broken when his great romantic stand is discovered by a jock and becomes fodder to make him the laughing stock of the entire school. The girl claims that she loves him too -- as a brother. He rides away in tears. We're whisked away to LA -- the place where everyone with a dream becomes exactly the same in the quest to stand out. It's ten years later and our fat kid has dropped the fat and become a lady's man by learning to be aloof; he treats girls like shit and knows all the "rules", but he is clearly just responding to the pain he experienced ten years ago. We know how this will end; we know that deep down inside he's still this big fat dork who just wants the prettiest girl in the small town to love him. And there's something rather charming about that.

Okay, so this is a spoiler. That's what happens. With the comic relief of a little brother who he constantly fights, a mom from Airplane, and a Paris Hilton knock-off wannabe psychotic girlfriend comic foil (Anna Feris), what we expect is exactly what we are given. And there is satisfaction in that. But think for a moment about the way this is constructed. Do we really want to be in a world where the threshold for being loved is to be thin and to learn to be an asshole so that you can ultimately reject that? Are all rich, succesful people in LA really empty inside? Okay, probably. But that doesn't mean that the solution is as simple as moving back to the small town with the girl you once loved and living happily ever after. Being loved for having muscles when you weren't loved for who you are makes bitterness, not happily ever after.

RENT

2005-12-03T18:56:00.000-08:00

When you are trying to adapt a work into another medium, special care should be taken that whatever you do in the new medium is actually better for that medium than merely filming the old medium would be. Let me make that clearer -- if you're going to make a beloved theatrical work into a film, your film choices should be always better than merely filming a production of the theater work. This would be my major criticism of the film version of RENT -- the first half of the film would've been better served by a camcorder a dozen rows back at the local theater. The other criticisms I have of the film come from this, most notably that it is uneven: the first half, to put it bluntly, sucks and the second half is not good enough to make me forget about the first part.

I'm willing to overlook many things about RENT, mostly because I love the music and I love the message of the work. Overshadowing both of these things, I love the actual story of how RENT came to be. This means that the rather shoddy storyline, the deus ex machina curtain-closing and the crappy song that is built up to throughout the work are all things I'm willing to let slide. What I cannot overlook are choices made in the film merely to make the work more "cinematic" or to allude to some theme that is inconsistent with the story. Let me take the beginning of the film, for instance. Why would you show the entire "cast" on stage singing "Seasons of Love" to an empty theater that appears nowhere else in the film? Are you telling a story within a story (a play within a play), which is what this kind of scene usually points to? And yet, there is no framing devise in this story. So why would you show the reverse shot of the empty theater? What does that theater have to do with anything? Are you giving a nod to those who love the stage production? Is this a way of bridging the two mediums? If so, that should be actually done and not suggested. Are you pointing out that the entire work is about performance? But this undercuts the reality of the story. Are you suggesting that even the "performances" of those in the life-support meeting are somehow faked? This would make your production of a movie worse than frivolous to the point of active stupidity. To sum up, I don't get it. And, during the singing of RENT (thanks to Anna for this point), why would the trash can they have just filled with lit posters and screenplays (an attempt to stay warm after their power is turned off) be emptied down into the street where Benny and the entire world of the production is waiting, angrily. The best explanation I can come up with is precisely what should not be done in a film with any pretense to seriousness of any kind -- this shot was made merely to look good. And so, with an opening that makes it very clear that it will not take any of the issues in the production seriously and a director whose decisions seem specially-prepared to stretch the level of credibility the audience is willing to withstand, the film begins.

The first half is rocky precisely because it seems to be constructed in the same way porn is constructed. We're just waiting for everyone to take their clothes off or, in this case, we're just aching to hear the next song. To put it mildly, the story (the strongest part of which is at the beginning of the story, in my opinion) suffers. A lot.

And so, without meaning to, I called bullshit (audibly) at precisely the moment this piece of crap actually became a film. When Roger leaves, I thought Mimi would be singing about how she's dead when he's not around (this is a good 2 seconds after he exits), which I wasn't prepared to accept. Instead, the director chose to show the long path of their separation due to Mimi's addiction and Roger's emotional, erm, instability. That's a film decision -- to make the song a kind of voiceover. From here, there were several scenes that I loved. The life-support meeting where people are seemingly happy and healthy, then literally disappearing from their chairs. I loved Angel's funeral -- it was touching to the point of tears. And the subway-dreaming-of-a-restaurant in Santa Fe bit was well-done too.

But the end, which I consider weak even in the stage version, suffered. The best parts of the musical -- the little joyous way that characters give their little bits of "normal" dialogue in little songs -- were gone in the film. And Mimi's death was undercharacterized because the choice was made to eliminate the music. Additionally, I just didn't care that much since the importance of Mimi to Roger was virually eliminated from the first part of the film. Roger is a mopey, depressed guy with a guitar who thinks he is unworthy of love because he got AIDS and never wants to leave the house and only thinks about creating this one song -- this one thing to give him the glory he feels has been stolen from him. This Roger is angry and motivated and runs around and does stuff. When Mimi tries to take him out, he chases her into the street. That's not depression -- that's far too active. Roger's change is therefore made less and Mimi's death -- yes, even this, is minimized in the process.

And I have no good way of ending this. It's a bitch-session because I love the musical -- I know every word by heart. The words mean something to me and it would've been the greatest pleasure to have something as transportable as a film to show those who don't know RENT. But I guess the experience -- like all really worthwhile experiences -- will have to remain in our memories and in the occasional revival.

shopgirl

2005-11-21T12:11:00.000-08:00

its the reign of melissa. who is this matt guy, anyway?

shopgirl was beautiful. this is why I love l.a. the traffic. the pompousness. the money. the have nots. the artists. the people trying to get by. the way that life just moves. it didn't present l.a. as this hell hole that everyone seems to think it is. rather this land, of people, trying to connect. and how hard it is. and I am so totally in love with jason schwartzman. before it was just this lusting crush. now. its love. for sure. and claire danes wardrobe was awesome. I want all those dresses.
I loved this movie, because I hate to use this term, it was so real. I told brandi, its like jesus christo came down himself and said melissa you need to see this.

each shot had this dreamy look to it. not like this awful nineteen forties soft filter dreaminess to it, but carefully crafted to look very much voyeuristic, yet it wasn't handheld- the preferred method of 'peeking in on life.' I particularly loved the lighting in mirabelle's apartment. stark, dramatic. fitting for her. whereas in ray's house everything was so warm and inviting, even though his character was the opposite of that. ah. lighting.
I liked that there wasn't mindless dialogue. talking for talkings sake. a lot of it was quiet little scenes. these moments. we feel mirabelles loneliness. her boredome. it was very tangible.
this film was not what the trailers made it out to be. this quirky who's gonna choose(I choo-choo-choose you!) flick. granted it came down to her ending one relationship. and just moving on. then the other one just happened. where it left off. is this a spoiler? sorry. just go see it.
I was happy with the way they portrayed her depression. because as those of us who's struggled with the pills and taking them and not taking them, we know how difficult it is. and it just seemed so real. she did a good job at seeming so breakable.
mirabelles and jeremy's 'chemistry' was just so right. like you'd think they don't fit, but actually its perfect. even the scenes between mirabelle and ray were believable. at least they didn't show any super sexy scenes with them, because that would have been a little difficult to see. not that he's ancient. but the guy is older than my dad. so. thats old.
favorite scene: when mirabelle gets to the art show, and jeremy is there getting out of his car and sees her and after a small chit chat, he says, "I'm not really prepared to see you right now." that just happens to be the sweetest thing I've ever seen. I am living for my moment. if life were like the movies.

we totally saw lisa from top model there too, while we had a quick drink beforehand. where I found a vodka drink I didn't love. shes shorter than I thought she'd be. but, she didn't pee her pants. so all is good.

jesus is magic

2005-11-14T15:22:00.000-08:00

indeed.
so, this isn't the kind of thing I can really write about. again. mia matt couldn't even write about it. its a concert piece. I can say that a place I used to work at did work on the piece. and I could totally tell. the close up parts. its called a 'mask.' taking away wrinkles, making cheeks cheekier and rosy, softening. masking. during most of the musical numbers and the standup parts when they were c.u. which was disctracting because when they would pull away, it was this weird shock, oh lord she is white- the light is severly bright on her, then bam c.u. and it looked too perfect all over again.
seriously funny though. ya'll should see it. and thats that. plus she sings with her vagina. and nothing is more awesome than that. 'what is this amateur hour?!' ah.

the squid and the whale

2005-10-16T18:48:00.000-07:00

I saw the squid and the whale on saturday night. and I loved it. such a great movie. the acting. superb. the story. superb.
plus. a celebrity sighting.
I literally ran into zach braff (...of 'scrubs' I know you know who he is). I was walking into the theater and then turned around to see if mike was there behind me and there was zach who ran into me. and I just said, 'hey' and did a head nod like it was his fault this guy ran into me. then I was all. that looks like...in my head, and then mike walked in. we sat, and I was all, dude I literally ran into zach braff, and then mandy moore walks by to go get something from concessions I guess. nice. in my just over one year my second 'celebrity sighting.' woohoo, sunset five. love that place.
alright. thats my story.
as far as the movie goes, this was a matt movie. you need to see this matt. the lighting, shots, everything, pacing... just like any other regular movie. did a good job making it look and feel like eighty six. the interiors of houses and cars and clothes, very authentic. the whole look of the film though, nothing spectacular for me to write about. it was really well lit. it felt like fall to me. the colors and cool light. I really liked this movie.

update: I didn't send this in, but its the same sighting. funny thing is. I thought he was shorter in person.

everything is illuminated

2005-10-03T20:37:00.000-07:00

I loved it. at first I thought schreiber was being a little...show offish..trying too hard to be quirky, without just letting the movie progress, but eventually I let go of my thinking and just rode with the story and beauty that is eastern europe. the cold. I love how you watch film and you can tell how warm or cold it is. just the look of cold. its breathtaking. no one can deny that elijah wood has the face of an angel. just these eyes. like windows. and the comic glasses that he wore throughout the film just magnified them beyond words. big sad yet expressive eyes. what I was a bit put off about in the begining were the shots, always a little off center yet close up. and these really long shots. kind of stagnant. not moving. not moving the story. just stuck. it kind of explains how jonathan (the protaganist) was stuck, looking for something to look forward to, to explain his past. I loved all the deep shots. there was little to no limited space. the lighting always had a visible, natural source. it was so minimal. I never thought, thats a little off. like I do EVERY episode of THE OC. the lighting on that show is horrendous. I could do better and I only had one semester of cinematograhpy- with digital cameras bc the film camera, an arris sr2, for that semester was broken. yeah. I just told you oc- your lighting sucks. I really loved the flashbacks. they were bleached out. no color, super unsaturated. almost a sepia tone, yet not at all. the eyes were so crystal in these flashbacks. it was so beautiful. I could take that one piece of film and have the most breathtaking poster. I love it when a film does that. where its just so beautiful to watch. its such a pleasure.
I have to say that eugene hutz, who played alex, the tourguide, totally made this movie. he made it so much more exciting to watch. he was funny, sensitive, he just took over every scene without being oppressive. I loved it. I wish I could give him some award. for being so wonderful. did anyone see this and agree with me about him?
one of the best scenes to watch was the sunflower field scene. I thought to myself- I want to live in the middle of that. just these endless yellow sunflowers. so high. the way the photographer captured them- it was so perfect. like this little piece of heaven in the middle of no where. the tones of yellow and green. I can't say enough about it.
so yeah, at the begining I thought it was a little too much, but now I think, the movie was so perfect. so beautiful. such a good story. and wonderfully acted. I want to see it again.

constant gartener

2005-09-21T13:35:00.000-07:00

sorry I havent' posted about this yet, but I'm not going to. what matt said was right on the money, so I really have nothing more to say.

*well, except this. I loved the colors!! I saw hot pink in the lake, at the crash site, with all the crazy teals and greens. it was awesome. I believe to achieve these blown colors they did a cross process. it wasn't too bleached out, just super vibrant. like matt said, to show these people have vibrant full lives- in spite of what we may think.

I like saying garten instead of garden.

The Constant Gardener

2005-09-11T20:53:00.000-07:00

Horror of the first class. Most would not attribute the film to this genre, preferring instead “thriller” or “drama”, but I like the term, which hangs very near to “science fiction”. From my understanding, and (obviously), in my opinion, both science fiction and horror need to have some context in actual reality to be truly effective. I believe that the closer they come to something plausible, the better they work.

Having said that, this story lays out a chilling “fiction” about the machinations of big business and its dealings in the lives of people in the third world. The job is done as effectively, in my opinion, as that of Fight Club. The main character of Fight Club is employed by a major auto manufacturer who makes decisions on whether or not to recall faulty cars based on the cost of a recall vs. the cost of settling lawsuits with no recall done. If the decision is made to not do a recall of a car that is defective, the obvious consequences are more deaths. This movie plays like that. In the game of business, with profit in mind, how easy would it be to get a drug approved and distributed if you knew that it might cause a small percentage of takers to drop dead? Who needs to be greased and how much? As the movie makes clear, a $50K handshake could make possible billions and billions of dollars of potential profit. Is this based on a true story? Well, not officially, but it’s no major stretch of the imagination to believe that it could be. Hell, it could actually be, verbatim, a true story.

And that’s why it’s chilling. And that’s why, in my opinion, it belongs in the horror genre.

Not to step on Melissa’s toes (or to do so very lightly), but I feel that I must speak a bit about the use of the camera and the way the actual film is captured. The director and cinematographer do a splendid job of subtly manipulating the images (especially the images) and, to a lesser extent, the story to make the point vividly clear. How much is a child’s life worth? No one ever asks this question and no one beats you over the head with the implications. But this message is conveyed in a way that is brilliantly clear and it is done in a way that is exactly opposite of Sally Struther’s commercials for feeding little children with distended bellies. We are shown children who are alive, who are happy; men and women who are living in the way they do and struggling, yes, in the way so many do, but being fully alive. The other uses reserved for the camera are the very long takes of the natural beauty of Africa. We are not told, but the images tell us a few things: 1. Africa is a real place. 2. Africa and its people are immensely beautiful in the way that all of humanity is beautiful when it lets itself be. Having made these “claims”, the story can be effectively emotionally manipulative by staging plot points that destroy these very ideas. We are not only affected; we are outraged. How dare they do this? How can this happen? The movie is effective because it works more effectively than a documentary would, given the same material.

But humanity is humanity. Personal greed drives the story and, in a way that is quite effective, the front lines of the horror need the least money. A tycoon in Britain may need billions to sway him into making a hard decision, but a poor government official in a third world nation needs much, much less. And the best in the movie sacrifice the most. It’s appealing and horrifying. And it could be happening right now. In fact, this question IS being asked right now. Would you sacrifice a few lives in Africa to stave off a worldwide epidemic? Would you torture a few innocents who live in a certain area of the world in order to save American lives? How far will a man go to protect himself and his interests? Will you sacrifice yourself for the good of many or will you sacrifice many to save yourself?

2005-08-31T08:22:00.000-07:00

so we need to see something new. soon. I want to see "2046." what do you want? and by you I mean matt. sorry ben. its a westcoast thing.

charlie

2005-07-18T11:45:00.000-07:00

it was a visual masterpiece. absolutely a marvel to watch. the colors. the lighting. the style. the choices made with angles and views. and that glass elevator! and the squirrels! the visual effects! the puppet burn center!
so, you may be thinking I was walking into this movie already predetermined to like it. I thought about that, and then it worried me that I was not going to judge it solely on its merit of being a great picture but being what I was projecting as a great picture. and then I got worried that I was hyping it up too much in my head...that I was going to be disappointed. so with that, I got to the theater late, friends even later...every seat was taken. except for the FRONT ROW. there I sat and secured three more seats. and a really bad angle, slouched down and turned to the right I watched Charlie and The Chocolate Factory. and it was joy! I was smiling the entire movie. I don't do that. the entire movie in my contorted front row pose, I was beaming at the screen.
(first...did you see the trailer for Harry Potter? I'm ever so excited!)
the colors. the style. the big faces. those big purple eyes. the costumes. everthing was just a marvel to look at. I loved how the cars pulled out of the factory in the beginning, when willy is shipping his candy, and they all follow the same path through the snow. it was like a dance from this arial shot.
the chocolate river looked just like how I imagine a chocolate river would look. nothing looked fake to me. EXCEPT the kids faces. too much of a photoshoped masked look. they were too round, too innocent, cheeks too pink. except for charlie. he looked so imperfect. it was great. thats his charm you see.
I was impressed with the one oompa loompa being copied in the picture so much. it didn't look too bad. there were one or two shots were I felt it could've been masked in better but overall, burton was working on two movies at the post stage at the same time. it was just so awesome. I have to say I loved the glass elevator best. when you read something as a kid, and your child like imagination runs amok with images of flying glass elevators THIS IS the elevator you think of. how it runs, this way and that, the buttons. it was so awesome to see what I thought I knew up on the screen. maybe I just feel like burton got into my head and made a movie of images I have seen since I was seven, and maybe thats why I loved it so much. I guess I am completely biased.

my count down begins

2005-07-14T11:57:00.000-07:00

one day.

I will buy ticket(s) today.

The Island: Ad Hominem Horror

2005-07-10T16:30:00.000-07:00

Michael Bay makes good movies. Well, maybe not good, more like explosion-and-car-chase-porn, really. "Okay, I want to blow some shit up, have some special effects, work some stunt men pretty hard. I want this car chase better and faster and crazier. I want every car to blow up and random people to just be involved in gratuitous carnage. Can someone think of a story where I could do all this?" That's what I imagine he says to people. And for a reason I can't understand, someone pitched him a good premise. They hired great actors and got an amazing cinematographer. They put together all this just to lend some creedence to this obvious attempt to do scenes requiring stuntmen and explosives. And that annoys me a lot.

Why am I annoyed? I knew what was coming. Putting Michael Bay's name on something implies a certain thing. He makes this kind of a movie. That's what he does. But I watch movies for the stories. Even if it's to be expected, you might figure that a well-developed story could be hatched among all the explosions (and shameless product-positioning, but I'll get to that). But no, this man is out to make this one movie, this Hollywood formula, no matter the cost to it's own integrity. Like the director character in the movie Boogie Nights, no matter how "high class" the story is, it's still porn. No matter how intriguing the idea is, he fills the seats because of his sweet special effects. Like Lucas. But Lucas makes movies that are obviously bad. In fact, they aren't supposed to be deep or thoughtful. Neither are Bay's films and they're usually not. Pearl Harbor -- okay, this movie can be dismissed completely, but the shit blowing up was still pretty cool. What's wrong with this movie is not that it's formulaic crap, but that it doesn't have to be formulaic crap and is anyway. Like they went out of their way to make it worse than it could've been. Dude, Where's My Car is supposed to be a certain way and it delivers. The Island promises an intriguing take on the world that both fails and bores at the same time.

But my problems with the story should be explained. The beginning is this horrifying examination of an entire society that has been constructed basically as a way to keep human beings feeling human until it is their time to be used for their intended purpose. The villain has constructed what might be considered a farm of human beings that will be harvested when necessary by their counterparts in the real world. They are created as a vanity project for the rich and famous who want to live forever. And, eerily, it could be happening right now. That is the fundamental horror of the premise. It's really, really good, in my opinion. What happens from here, from the escape into the real world and the recognition within the main characters that they are the equivalent of pigs who have escaped a slaughter-house is... nothing. Some shit blows up as they run away from people and it's basically all blamed on this guy who runs the place. What an asshole.

Little examination of the characters who created the market for this vanity project. No examination of how simple and easy it is to manipulate human life; that he has basically had enormous success convincing people of things that are entirely untrue. No second-guessing within the client's mind as to the extent of his vanity and the morality of making such a decision. There's not even a connection drawn between Bay's obvious nods to Aquafina, Cadillac, Puma, MSN, Michelob Lite, etc. and the fact that he is creating a movie about a society that has placed such a high priority on product-ownership that there is a thriving market for human beings themselves, who will simply be destroyed at the client's whim. Nope. It's all that one guy's fault. What an asshole. He has a god-complex.

This is the opposite of one of my favorite movies of all time -- Minority Report. At first glance, they both look like action films with serious premises, but Speilberg succeeds spectacularly while Bay triumphs only in making an action film with a pasted-on "thoughtful" story. Speilberg's story is about justice and the human condition and what a human being will do to survive. Bay's movie appears to be about these things. Speilberg indicts us all, Bay encourages us to continue just up to the point where we want to murder people. And that might not be so bad, except they're real pretty and seem to have some resemblence to ourselves. And I almost laughed out loud at the tacked-on triumph-of-the-human-spirit bit.

And let's not even get into the fact that the premise centered on some pseudo-scientific nonsense that actually undermined itself and the key to the movie -- that they were killing humans. Ewan McGregor's character has dreams and rememberances that belong to the client he was cloned from. This is straight-up bullshit -- exactly the sort of thing that fuels this idiotic debate about stem-cell research and human cloning. A clone is a genetic copy. Twins look alike, but they don't know the names of each other's boats without having any experience of the other person. Or maybe they do, but I think it's shit for this reason -- if the clone needs to be motivated by the dreams of his counterpart in the real world, then he is, in fact, not human. Or, at the very least, his humanity is borrowed. To make this a story about the actual triumph of the human spirit, one would have to have the premise that certain aspects of the human condition include wanting to be touched by others and wanting to be curious about many other things. This is where this movie fails where others have succeeded. If you were able to convince little boys and girls that they would die if they had sex with each other, it would still happen. It's biology. It is human to test one's boundaries, as Truman did when he sailed to the edge of the ocean in The Truman Show. But if you have to be motivated by the fact that you share the brain patterns of the guy who you were created for, then you are nothing more than exactly what the story is trying to say you are not. You're a good copy that can be used for whatever purposes your creator intended. Hell, you're so good you even have his thoughts. That's quality work, not cause to make anyone feel that the business itself is a hellish nightmare.

We are building a religion
We are building it bigger
We are widening the corridors
And adding more lanes

We are building a religion
A limited edition
We are now accepting callers
for the pendant key chains

To resist it is useless
It is useless to resist it
-John McCrea

a prayer

2005-07-06T15:52:00.000-07:00

dear lord, tell me it isn't so. that my book, the most important book I ever read is NOT being made into a movie. and definetly not by 'leo' di caprio. please tell me this is all a big lie. a lie, a lie. a horrible lie. I just can't grasp it. and if it is so. please tell me he won't be in it. please.

ps. god, even if they say aronofsky will direct and richard kelly is set to adapt, I am still cautious. and not happy. you hear me. I am not happy about this.

more on batman

2005-07-05T17:47:00.000-07:00

I earned my bragging rights.

first of all, ben. I write for you, our only reader...where the hell are your comments? you think matt and I are one hundred per cent accurate in our babblings about batman?

and to my point, which matt has already heard but I love being right. we recieved our copy of 'millimeter' last week and I read through the article on 'batman' and I was right. it was kodak film which the cinematographer loves- you can push it a whole stop and it still has next to no grain. there were no filters, all tricks were to be made, or made to look as in camera tricks. the used yellow and sometimes red/gold gels to make it look like it was bathed in city lights. no completely cg sets or filming against a fake city. it was models. the train, the cool airstream looking train, that was cg, built to look the high freeways in tokyo. that overbuilt crowded city. the buildings were not to be cartoonish and gigantic but look like old chicago. I didn't mention that, but I thought it so I claim once again I was right. oh melissa, you're prideful, you must be thinking.

*when I have time I will start writing down some lingo and the definitions as in 'push,' until then you will have to guess what I mean. ha.

Dances With Bats: Batman Begins

2005-06-26T14:51:00.000-07:00

Superhero movies are a lot like organized religion. Batman Begins is a lot like a progressive look at the genre and the way it mimics our deepest hopes and fears.

What I never liked or understood about comics and comic-book heroes is that they always seem to do the same thing over and over. This issue: Guy in cape called in when bad shit goes down, but don’t worry, he’ll be sure to solve the problem by the end (unless it’s a special two-parter, then you’ll have to wait an issue for the stunning conclusion. But this criticism is unfair on several levels – first, this is mostly the nature of storytelling. What I have just described in rather crude terms is what an English teacher in high school might call the “plot arc” of the story. Setting, build to climax, resolution. This is a form that satisfies something deep within us in terms of relaying information. If I had to guess a cause to this, I would guess that the most successful oral histories of humanity followed this pattern because the story is clear set and we get the pleasure of relaxing at the end when things work out, after we had built up tension previously. But I digress. Secondly, my analysis of comics must surely be somewhat in error (though I don’t think I’ve read a “real” comic book ever in my life) because what I’ve seen come out of the comic book world in terms of film adaptations, especially in the most recent releases, I have loved. Spiderman is a brilliant movie, in my opinion. And not only because Kirsten Dunst is in it. I loved Sin City. And Batman Begins is exactly what I personally want from a movie about superheroes. He is a man who is made great by his conviction.

Real or imagined figures in history both tend to gain their significance in the same way. What is respected of men and myths alike is the courage to voice an opinion or act in a way that may be in direct opposition to the view of every other person in that person’s world. There is something innately noble about standing out from a crowd, but there has to be something more to make that person truly great. Sacrifice seems to play a big part as well. What is sacrificed in movies, almost uniformly, is the happiness and security borne of love, intimacy, and home life. Heros are not secure, ever, but they are great. When a story is framed in such a way (I’m sure this way of looking at a real man’s life is infinitely unfair to him), it makes this gap between greatness and love necessary, though I’m not sure that a man’s life needs to be framed in such a way. Why won’t Kirsten Dunst love Tobey McGuire or Katie Holmes love Christian Bale (other than the fact that she’s already in love with a psychopath)? Because the heros won’t have the time to build a life with them. They are out saving the world. The world and its problems are their mistresses.

Which brings me to organized religion. Arguably the greatest superhero in the history of religion is Jesus Christ. He selflessly tried to spread truth to people who mostly didn’t care. At the end, the cared so little (or so much for the other side) that they killed him. The Jesus of mainstream Christianity (not the crazies, like the JWs or the Mormons) is a man of almost pure myth. He is of flesh and blood, but his actions are always perfectly measured and always following some overriding moral precept. He is powerful enough, personally, to help others without being destroyed by them. He is unwaveringly good. He never has any thought of himself. And he is totally sexless. The only emotion that he shows that is really relatable to most of humanity is that he is totally terrified on the eve of his death. For a world of men who are terrified to do almost anything in life, a terror of only brutal death is something otherworldly.

But here’s the progressive part. Batman Begins (not the first film to do this, but it’s the only one I’m really talking about here) does to the genre what science sometimes does for religion. It says, yes, these events are true, but not in the overly-mysterious way you had first thought. Batman is a man. A man who became something more, who used the tools he had at his disposal to make himself amazing. To make himself a myth. The beauty of this film is that it acknowledges this very principle throughout the film. We love these movies because they make us feel as though we could do the same as the hero. They make us feel that we are capable of being heroes ourselves. What Batman Begins does, though, is to show how Bruce Wayne learned to be Batman. We are given the same instruction as the title character and it does nothing but heighten this sense of relationship with him. We see him as a destitute, angry prisoner. We see him learn to control his anger and to come to terms with his fear. And we see the most important thing in the mythology – that his personal code of ethics does not stem from even the teachings of his mentor. He is just and compassionate because his father was so. The fact that the movie centers largely around his motivations makes the film utterly compelling for me. I like the fact that he is rather childishly optimistic about how the world should be and that this stems from his disproportionate memories of his father, who died before he became a man in Bruce’s mind. I like the story of salvation because of an ideal. That a man who has run himself ragged at the end of the earth can return to his home to make things right after he has learned to make things right with himself. And that he will fight, through hopelessness, through the sheer enormity of it all, every day, just to make the world a little better. He is the western ideal of the man, all alone in the world, but striving always to save it, always to better it. Hardened to the realities of the world and untouched by them, but unendingly compassionate to the weak. He cannot find what most men believe to be happiness, but he embodies something more, something nobler than all that. His presence is greater than the sum of its parts. He is a myth. A legend. Exposed for us to see, but made no less great in the process.

wham! splat! its the new batman

2005-06-22T17:06:00.000-07:00

loved this movie. loved batman. loved it. will see it again. only setback: katie holmes talking out the side of her head...thats weird. could be cute but she does it ALL the time. surprised shes not deformed from it. that said lets move on.
you could have told me there were no special/digital effects in this and I would have believed you. the city was perfect. as in star wars where it was good, but totally digital, this time I thought, did they really build a city? with wood and paint. I loved that train system. l.a. needs that stat! not underground and spooky, but above ground like we are flying. and all old school airstream motorhome looking.
the look of this was fabulous. even though it is a dark action movie, it was surrounded by warm lights, the whole movie had a glow to it. nothing was stark, or eerie or the total opposite- all cartoonish. I love tim burton, but I have to say I really like this movie...but they're on a whole different playing field: that one as a real action comic/cartoon, this one as a real/real time action/drama piece. so they are separate movies with different approaches, only the main title character is the 'same.' but even christian bale played bruce wayne different. he wasn't cold or stiff. I liked him here.
what didn't I like? well, the fight scenes for one. I love violence in movies, but I need to be able to understand whats going on. when theres too much of a shaky hand held camera going on, with really fast fighting and punching I just totally zone out. I might as well close my eyes because thats what I see, just a blur with two outcomes, my hero wins or loses the fight. I'm sure directors think this adds to the urgency of the scene, the craziness that is going on but all it does is confuse me. I don't need a beautiful 'hero' ballet fight, but maybe just a little smoother. the first fight on the ice- that was good, the one at the end when batman is just going around kicking ass, I was left unfulfilled. I wanted to take part in it too. but if I don't know who we are punching or don't understand where we physically are and the camera movement is just too shaky and unpredictable then I can't get my jollies fighting too, do you understand me director of photography?! the fighting is for me too! luckily this only happened the last part of the movie, and yes I had my glasses on. back to film stock, guessing I would say it was a kodak film- I didn't notice what it was. that is just a guess though. it could have been the new fuji everyone is raving about- 'excellent skin tone' and so forth. but the colors in this were very rich and saturated- very warm. so thats what leads me to my kodak conclusion. if it was that fuji film, then oh my gosh, that film rocks.
I have nothing else to add. I wrote this a few days ago, thinking I would come back to it with new insight...but I don't have any.

so?

2005-06-10T10:21:00.000-07:00

what are we going to see next? when? where? whats going on?

general grievous

2005-06-06T17:42:00.000-07:00

for ben: as pointed out by josh, the most likely answer for his wheezing and cough would be from the clone wars (cartoon), in the last episode, mace windu crushes his stomach area- from there he started coughing and seemed hurt. good job josh. I thought maybe it was because he was created by the emperor, half alien half machine, kind of what darth vader turns out to be. but he is right. watch the cartoon again and it makes sense.

Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith

2005-06-03T17:50:00.000-07:00

Sorry I'm late to the party, but, oh well.

Finally, I can stop hating George Lucas. I want to love him, really I do, with his oversimplified narratives and his polar morality and his epic tales. But the first two films seemed, in the following order, racist and stupid. Lucas, you are not a man of subtlety. At all. You need to have good guys and bad guys and the good guys have to be facing insurmountable odds. Not some mysterious creeping evil that may or may not be what it seems. I guess what I felt from the first two was a sense of alienation from the characters, and this was not because the characters were ridiculously annoying (Jar-Jar), but because the omniscience of the audience separated me from characters blindly doing things and thinking things that are obviously wrong. It was clear who the Sith Lord was a long, long time ago. In that respect, I'm just watching the characters go through the motions. And to some extent, as both the back and "front" story of the third episode is known, there is that element to this film as well. But the satisfaction came from understanding how things got from the tragically stupid puppy dogs and sunshine story of love in the second film to the brutal and all-encompassing evil of the fourth.

So, here it is. This movie kicked ass. The few things that annoyed me have annoyed me througout the films, like the fact that he apparently uses PowerPoint to edit his films and the fact that the movies have dialogue that is so bad that even great actors seem like schmucks trying to make sense of them. But those are minor. And that's not even what this great series of films is about. It's melodrama in the most classic sense, with characters that are mostly two-dimensional, overwhelmingly simple emotional content, and epic adventure of true heroes. He makes trashy romance novels for dorky little boys. And dorky little boys-at-heart. Like me.

Despite the obvious anti-intellectualism of the story, it is great for what it is. This is not great art, in my estimation. The way the images are constructed may be, as Melissa has pointed out, but the structure of the narrative is rather simple and wonderful. Good always triumphs, especially against remarkable odds and in the face of certain death, those we hold up as heroes will stand firm in their convictions and not sway, not disappoint. The beauty of this is that Lucas has created a modern-day fairy tale, complete with current stars playing the roles and updates dialogue. The original fairy tale was so well-constructed, in fact, that this film plays like a nostalgic period piece, where we get a glimpse of what life was like back before the original movies. This is not Tolkien's world of tirelessly constructing backstory in order for the story to stand as well as it can on its own. That is largely unneccesary as Lucas understands. It is the video game feel of the action and the story that is most deeply appealing. Tolkien appeals to the head as much as the heart, but Lucas comes at the genre from a realm of pure emotion. And that's why we love it. Because he wants us to. Because he doesn't care if you respect the films, so long as you love them. Technically, they have become brilliant, in terms of technological advancement, but that is somewhat of a sidenote. Technical brilliance doesn't create a cult and doesn't sell absurd amounts of tickets. Lucas has tapped into that other thing that we all want from his stories. And we get what we want.

most anticipated movie of the summer. says me.

2005-06-02T16:02:00.000-07:00

another trailer for charlie and the chocolate factory. had to put it up.

a small rant

2005-05-23T16:39:00.000-07:00

I know this is a little premature but I am really excited to see charlie and the chocolate factory. I have a friend who claims this is ruining the original. well, I beg your pardon friend, but aside from having the same title and characters your 'original' movie was nothing like the book! I said angrily. this is supposed to be nothing like that 'original.' I love roald dahl. his books frightened and delighted me as a kid, and still as an adult I get chills when remembering the witches, or how grisly the fantastic mr fox got. this 'original' charlie and the chocolate factory was NOTHING like the book. james and the giant peach, although disney and claymation, had more sinister and deep story like the book than that version of charlie and the chocolate factory. don't get me wrong, I liked that movie, but it never was the top for me. they took a widly imaginative and crazy and dark story and made it fun, with little lessons learned, and fun songs. I'll never forget the performance gene wilder gave, or how important that golden ticket really is. but that movie was not the book. however, my complaints aside, burton is a creepy and fun and dark guy who seems to really get this book. his stylistic approach that I've seen in the trailer (that I watched again and again) amazes me, and makes me even more anxious to see what he did with my book. yes my book. and johnny depp as the maniac willy wonka. you can tell me that this is nothing like that movie. obviously. they were not trying to remake that movie. that movie took on a very good book and didn't do the book justice but made a decent movie. this movie however will take the book and give it life. whereas that movie used it for plot and characters and a title. thats it. so thats why I get a little hostile when she sits there and tells me johnny depp is no gene wilder. he is not supposed to be gene wilder. he is supposed to be the real willy wonka. sorry. I just had to say it. july 15th you know where I'll be. thanks for listening.

STAR WARS

2005-05-23T10:12:00.000-07:00

wow. cg. close ups. after watching the first two in this trilogy I was excited to see it all come together. its amazing how much these stories rely on cg. thats all it is. maybe acting to a green screen is super tough and thats why the acting sucks. I dont know. I'm not an actor. but wasn't natalie portman nominated for a golden globe? she didn't even try to play it over the top... she just said her lines. and cried. oh well. I don't talk about this stuff though. I really liked how the landscapes turned out. maybe they didn't phase you. and thats why they are so awesome, nothing was out of proportion. it had perfect detailing. the city, the wookie planet (sorry dont know its name). to build a city is time consuming and tedious. the artists did a great job. how colors were used, as they have been through out the entire saga, red for bad, yellows and oranges for fighting, blues and purples for the city. overall from a technical and visual only standpoint it was perfect. what I thought got kind of old was the use of extreme closeups! sorry I have to say extreme closeups! with an exclamation point. it gave a comic book feel. especially during the fighting. half way through a light saber fight, we cut to extememe closeup of them pushing hard against one another. anger in the eyes. oh, we get it. they're fighting. I guess I wouldn't be so annoyed with it if it wasn't used so much. it was almost the 'go to' shot. well maybe this is based on opinion, but I prefered the wide shots where I could see all the action, the fighting. how yoda jumped around. that scene in the senate, must have taken so long to conform and map out. it was maybe my favorite fight. the hovering moving senate boxes, the duel between yoda and the emperor. it was exciting and yoda didn't look too much like a video game character. he had weight to him, and looked solid, not like a bouncing cartoon. they had so much to show us, that going to an ecu several times during a fight was kind of annoying. I guess its just me. overall, lucas has perfected the art of cg. it was seamless. I was wondering how they would make general greivous- how that was gonna pan out, but he was awesome. big, intimidating and more robotic looking than cartoon/character generated looking. there were no blurry lines, nothing felt fake to me. and in a movie that is all cg...well, thats a awesome feat. good job artists. you should be proud. this, your final work in this series, was your best.

2005-05-03T14:48:00.000-07:00

Coachella

nominations

2005-04-20T18:02:00.000-07:00

I nominate hitchhikers... as our next movie. and kung fu hustle. what d'ya say?

amityville horror -- a reason for ryan reynolds' abs

2005-04-19T17:51:00.000-07:00

seriously. if he was coming at me with an axe I'd be temporarily in a zone...the 'staring at his frickin' body' zone...then I'd be like...get the hell away from me and my kids and then I'd run on the roof in the rain. or not. this is why I prefer japanese horror to the traditional american horror movie. fast editing, super fast paced story, giggling demonic little girls, tons of fake blood, indian gravesite/burial grounds, rain- they must have rain, and all the frickin' sound cues. my word. big noises to make you jump. I admit it, I jump. its really loud. the teddy bear falls to the ground right as someone takes a step and "THUMP!!!" 'ah' its frightening for that split second. this is all typical american horror movie stuff. and it gets me every time. its the heightened anxiety. at least I know I'm being fooled.
it started off with this 'old news reel' all black and white, with dirt and grain, trying to make the viewer believe this was indeed a true story. (like he did with chainsaw masacre.) and on to present day...well, it did have a look to it. a very cold look. blues and greens...and kind of an aged look, like it was straight out of the seventies, since it was based on a true story, you know. it had a grainy look to it, it was subtle but you could feel it. I appreciate how the art direction and costumes stayed true to the seventies, but as far as casting goes, I don't believe a high school babysitter would have been able to afford a boob job back then (and I don't really know, were they widely available back then?)...now every teenager has 'em, but that kind of pulled me out of the story for a moment; 'my god, those are totally fake,' me, 'totally,' brandi.
as far as fx shots, obviously for the little girl in the closet haunting the babysitter scene. I kept my eyes open for that just momentarily. that sort of stuff (they take you virtually through the bullet wound), now that its widely done, it makes me appreciate the simpler times when the head turning 360 in the exorcist was the scariest thing ever seen. if they redid that scene now using character generation (cg) it just wouldn't be the same. the demon he sees jumping out at him like the dog and in the water by his boat house, that all was cg. remember the olden times, when that was done with fake bodies, make up artists made foam people and caricatures? I think their line of work is being quietly replaced with cg artists. they have to pray for epics like the chronicles of narnia and lotr. its sad really. we are losing a great art. its just that fx is so affordable and just so easy... enough of that.
if I had earplugs in, I still would have been frightened by images on the screen. the giggling demon girl with the bullet hole wound in her head, the evil reverend who used to own the house...and those tortured indians who jumped out at you, just like someone shouting 'boo.' they were scary images. well done, mgm well done. matt ripped the story apart. yes, it was kind of lame. but judging solely of the images on the screen...it was good. yes. I said good.

amityville horror oh the horror

2005-04-11T14:49:00.000-07:00

(are there two m's in amityville?) dude, it was scary. I screamed. I was one of those lame girls that screams. but it was fun because brandi, loni and I were all huddled and grasping hands giggling whenever the music got scary...ooohh...scary. matt on the other hand didn't jump once. whatever matt. I guess you're just too cool. and to top it off...indian graveyards! I think I'm psychic. and my mom never fails to remind me that she was reading this book when she went into labor. creepy. gross.
so heres the thing. I'm gonna see this again. mainly bc I wasn't thinking about shot selection. angles. color. when watching it. I was too girly and creeped out, except when ryan reynolds had his shirt off...then I was momentarily consoled from the freakiness of the scary 'indian killer pastor' who cursed the house to begin with. I'll see it again this week. with free popcorn and soda, bitch! mgm hookin' me up big time. this time, I promise to keep my eyes open. the. whole. time. (and if circumstances lead me to not attend the screening, I will make up stuff and finish my post.)

more more more. sin city gone wild

2005-04-05T14:18:00.000-07:00

so I found out that it was shot in color (hd) and then they just did a crazy color pass on it first, to boost the colors and make them pop, then they did a black and white pass to cover it then with either combustion, flame or inferno cut out with a mask what colors he wanted to show through. neat. on this film, even though he likes to do it all himself he sent some of the pieces to two other vfx studios to work on, besides just his ranch. as a whole you couldn't tell. they did a great job. ah. technology. I love it. I hate it.

The Amityville Horror (2005) -- Out Damned Alarm Clock

2005-04-03T17:45:00.000-07:00

"I hope there's an Indian burial ground involved," she said. And there was. No, seriously.

If you click the title link on this post, you'll be directed to a skeptics website on the events that actually took place concerning the story of The Amityville Horror. For someone that thinks that horror films "based on a true story" are mostly B.S. and conjecture, this was a nice read. Now on to the film.

It was fun in the way that scary movies are fun. Take your best girl. Watch her scream and throw the popcorn. Slyly put your arm around her and hold her tight. She'll let you get to second base later. But only because she was scared. What I love the most about scary movies of this variety is that the soundtrack is designed to cue you in. When you hear it getting more tense, you're about to see some crazy shit appear somewhere, some gory ghost just behind a character. Arms from nowhere trying to drown your sorry family-abusing ass.

I liked the first one better, I think, but it's been a while. I don't really remember. What bothered me about this one is that it seemed like the alarm clock was whispering things to the protagonist. "Your Honor, the alarm clock, when it was 3:15am, told me to 'Katch 'Em, Kill 'Em. I haven't had much sleep lately and I've been chopping a lot of wood, so it seemed like a good idea." And let's not even bother with the fact that the ghosts can't spell (I'm being unfair -- there is an explanation).

Why is it that it was the dog who had to get axed to death and not the annoying over-acting stupid little boy? Or the pain-in-the-ass girl who kept trying to do a swan-dive off the top of the house? You wanna know why I liked Sin City so much? Because everyone I wanted to die, did. This is the nice thing about most scary movies (at least slasher films) -- because they are Shakespearean-tragic, eveyone dies at the end, so you don't have to be perpetually annoyed.

Just a few more questions: how far away from the house does the man have to be in order to be back to his old, nice, jeewhiz self? He's crazy between the boathouse and the house. He's crazy chopping wood in the front-yard during bonding-time with his wife's boy. He's crazy in the house (obviously). Do you just have to get off the property? A hundred-yards (like a restraining order)? What? I'm really trying to understand here because I think psychic phenomena should be taken very seriously. Also, if a woman falls in the water just next to a speed-boat's moving rotor-blade, what is the likelihood that, one, her hair will be the only part to get caught in the blade, two, her hair is strong enough to stop the moving blade without it being ripped from her scalp, and three, for her to continue to live after this incident, with a full head of beautiful hair and face that remains quite attractive? Anyone?

Okay, it's ghosts. It's not for me to understand. And if the premise was that an asshole who tortured Indians (feather, not the dot) in the name of God had killed himself on the property to make the spirit live on after his death, how many innocents need to die to balance things out? Apparently, six (or seven, if you're counting the dog that may or many not have died). The family that lives there now has reported no strange behavior at all.

Sin City -- I Love You 'Cause I Have To

2005-04-03T16:07:00.000-07:00

This one was for Melissa. The film IS the way it was created, the way it looks, the beauty of the way color and black and white come in and out of the film. The story, like the "graphic novels" on which they are based is quite two-dimensional. The thing plays out like an extended male fantasy but, being male, I didn't think that as bad as maybe a woman would. In spite of all the attractive girls walking around with nothing on and the very warped sense of chivalry, there is something deeply romantic about this film. If you can get that far past the violence. It's absurd that the things happen the way they do, but who doesn't see some romance in a man who will kill whoever he needs to in order to avenge the death of the one woman who was willing to pay him the complement of being close to him? The film is satisying for the same reason that, say, The Sopranos is satisfying. It's nice to believe that the sort of justice we feel right about should be administered swiftly and from an agent that is morally justified. The problem with real life is that there is no sure way to know if an agent is morally justified in administering punishments as severe as death. So, in short, the story is basically one long fantasy of life the way it should be if you lived in one of the worst places imaginable. Characters act swiftly and purposefully with no change in character, no deep moral questioning. The cop that cannot help but always do the right thing, even at the ultimate cost to himself. The girl who loves him forever because of a single night where he acted in a way that was noble. The prostitutes reigning down "justice" on the corrupt "system". It'd be Alice in Wonderland if there was no implication of a freaks' nuts being ripped off to keep him from his desire for rape.

And on to the violence. It's a character in this film. There is something deeply satisfying about the idea of "street justice" as long as that justice is administered as though God himself were involved. What doesn't sit well is a character that is violent for what we believe to be "the wrong reasons." The worst reason, of course, being that there is no reason. Murdering prostitutes and eating them because no one cares about them anyway. Or worse, creating a monster out of a disturbed child for the purpose just described. Raping little girls (like 8 years old) because you want to. Shooting your partner in the back to prevent him from doing the moral thing. Etc. The answer to these actions, especially in a world where there is no reliable justice within the system (usually, and in this, the system is the most corrupt and horrible part of the world), there need to be these larger-than-life vigilante heros to counteract the horror. And they need to be superhumanly empowered to fight fire with fire. They are the answer to the horror film antagonist who cannot be fully killed. Except they cannot be killed because there is still "work to be done." It's a wonderful construct because it appeals to us at the deepest level. Like porn for the soul.

sin city....welcome to the afterworld

2005-04-01T11:14:00.000-08:00

I felt like I should reference 'lets go crazy' the theme of this movie.

I loved it and was annoyed by it at the same time. without me reading much about this techincally- only that jessica alba was gonna be practically naked...wow, totally news worthy, I have to say I like what they did. kevin, elijah woods character was my favorite. mainly because of that bright stripe on his shirt and his kung fun wire moves all in converse sneakers. hot. that and the 'lighting' (I use that mockingly since it was digitally added) on his face was always striking. I love color...the use of color in a movie, how purples prelude a death or murder, how red is seductive... in this film robert rodriguez used color sparingly only to denote 'this is significant right here what is colored is really important, pay attention.' because it was a black and white film. of course it worked, but it wasn't like the old time photos or early 'coloring' on film it was more pronounced and deeply saturated on this black and white that looked like portrait photography film. I was asked what kind of film was it, because I do love to speculate on that. I don't know. knowing the director, I wouldn't be surprised if it was just hd digital photography, no film actually used. bc with all the visual effects and now after working in a visual effects place I have a greater knowledge of all that they can do, as far as make love out of nothing at all. just kidding. but they can make lighting and shadows almost flawlessly. I still hate it. I want the real thing. I want the work and time and sweat it took to get that shot perfect...in actual filming, not afterwards. I'm a purist that way. in conclusion I have no idea what it was shot on. either way I wouldn't be surprised. back to the movie...what else did I like, I liked how the shots were some times at these crazy angles, to get a comic book- excuse me 'graphic novel' feel, edgy and sharp. there weren't too many long shots, to lead your eye. a lot of it was flat even though the buildings and cars and everything made had to be three dimensional, does that make sense? a flat scene is basically where action is going on in front but there is some sort of wall in the background. unlike the scenes in princess bride where it takes place in the country side with a million places for your eyes to wander. but the scenes where they did lead your eye in sin city, you were shown a digital world a fake city. we had that in the very first scene- the rooftops. and that was about it. the rest was specified locations that weren't very detailed oriented. overall it was a visual masterpiece. and I say that like painter smurf...'mastapessa.' (that and clive owen was really hot...booyah!!)

constantine, comedy or horror flick? you pick

2005-02-21T11:37:00.000-08:00

yeah, yeah, I'm the visual girl but I have to say I loved the story. in the cheesy sort of way that was this movie. it was hillarious. I was laughing almost the whole time, then catching myself- am I supposed to be laughing? it took itself so seriously that I think it ending up making fun of itself being so serious. does that make sense? well, the movie doesn't so my explanation shouldn't either. I get a kick out of the angel/demon mythology. how angels are perfect to us, but not perfect to god and we are the better creatures, free will and all. so a rouge angel -did I ruin that for you. you weren't gonna watch it anyway so back off... this rouge angel brings the final battle to earth to see who really loves and will stand up for god. gabriel is a girl??
on to the scenes. I loved the visual effects though. it looked straight out of after effects, the demons cg animation was a little cartoony. I would have liked them scarier. the makeup of the girl in the begining all possessed- that was scarier to me than the demon that came out of her. thats how I imagine 'birth' to be like. all sweaty and gross and I expect to be hideous but in other peoples eyes 'glowing' and then the pain and this demon/baby escaping from me crying. like in this movie.
honestly though, I did enjoy it in that it was free way. it really was fun and stupid and a good waste of time. and this was intended to be the worst movie review of all. I hope I didn't give you any insight as to what really is happening under all the layers.
'welcome to my world.'

Constantine (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Demons)

2005-02-19T02:25:00.000-08:00

I hate Keanu Reeves.

This message was paid for by Phillip Morris as part of their settlement with the states. As is typical with anti-smoking campaigns, the main character spends a good two hours smoking constantly, and it is only after two suicide attempts, a redemption from eternal damnation and finding true love that the smoker finally decides to chew gum instead. Now we just have to worry about his teeth rotting. Stupid sugar.

Constantine is Hellboy without a sympathetic protagonist. Oh, and without the nobility associated with a fallen hero’s drive to save the innocent. An unapologetic story of one man’s drive to deliver what must be some of the most poorly written lines in even big-budget films this year (I know it’s only February), the faux-seriousness and melodramatic delivery from Keanu forces the spectator into the only response possible – snickering. One of the few films I’ve seen, in fact, where the guffaws of my fellow patrons actually added to my enjoyment of the film.

All the elements of a really decent story are here. There is a serious religious backbone that could show more of the true role of religion in human life – religion paints a self-portrait for all of us of what we would be if there were no limits. The stories of religion are stories of human potential. At least, in my estimation. Having said this, the entire story hinges on a rather weak dogmatic turn of specifically Catholicism – the main character cannot be redeemed because he has killed himself. Now, medical science was able to save his life, but they could not save his soul. So Keanu spends all the rest of his days using his “gift” to save people in an attempt to earn his way back into the good graces of God. This cannot be done, though, because of that one mistake. I find this a rather weak turn of events on which to hinge an entire story, because it seems to me that suicide is unforgivable specifically because one does not live through it. No one can go to confession and say, “Forgive me father for I have sinned; It has been three weeks since my last confession. Two days ago I committed suicide.” Instead of exploring humanity via religion, it attempts to explore a religion of spooks and video-game inspired enemies in a smattering of pseudo-religious bullshit and events convenient to the progression of an already-weak storyline. The writers are like pathological liars who, once they have lied, need to lie repeatedly and in increasingly bigger ways merely to cover the tracks of that one unconfessed and unresolved fib.

It’s seldom that I actually wish a bad movie were longer, but in cases where a backstory is as complicated as religion itself, a little more explanation seems necessary. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy was well-done specifically because the creators took a dozen hours to tell the story. I have a feeling that Constantine would not be redeemed, exactly, but maybe a little more sympathetic, if there was more to the story. This was true for me of The Matrix Trilogy and, based on the comic-book-type storyline and the name of the distributor (Vertigo), I assume that this was not a story that was created out of nowhere. I expect there is some series of comics out there that maybe doesn’t suck quite as hard as a two-hour half-assed recreation.

For what it’s worth, Rachel Weisz is beautiful in that way that makes every single guy in the theatre believe they could be with her – if only they had a chance to meet, and that will sell a few tickets all by itself.

But when one of the most terrible voice-overs in memory finally strangled the last dying gasps of a story, I found myself wishing that I had done as many of my fellow patrons had done and walked out ten minutes before it was over. The fact that I had consumed an entire bottle of water before the movie started played no part in this sentiment, I’m sure.

naughty prep school for boys. or 'bad education'

2005-02-01T13:32:00.000-08:00

which ever one you prefer. I saw it again to gain a clearer view of what I wanted to say. I forgot my notebook. heck yeah I was gonna take notes. gosh. alas my short term memory got me, and I will never be able to write like matt. so here I go:

my favorite part of this movie, or one of them, is the opening titles. I was so captured and put in the mood by that sequence. with the heavy orchestrated violin music, filled with drama and the slashing and ripping of 'pages' on the screen I was put in the state of mind for a film noir psycho mystery. some films downplay the opening sequence, case and point 'sideways', but it really serves a purpose and here it was specatcular. one thing I noticed the first time, and saw again this time was the centering of the jaun/ignacio/angel character. when a character is centered, I feel, the audience feels that this is his movie. and so it was, but only in certain parts, creating the mystery of who's movie is this? who is this guy really? it was beautifully shot. nothing was really a flat two dimensional picture. there were angles and lines and grids, a lot for our eyes to see. the dp was really loving that long lens. these lines create energy and it correspondes with the energy of the film. when he was ignacio, in the movie being made, he was centered with his dialouge with the priest. his close up, his big green eyes filling the screen. it was such a great shot. the priest was centered as well, but it was from a slightly different angle, almost like it was looking down on him, the bad character. ah, the colors of spain. the office, the directors office from the first scene, was full of warm and cool colors. I was thinking of film stock. it was a warm kodak. had to be. the green were warm not cool. another cool part, that I had thought he was going to use throughout the film, was when enrique met ignacio at the door. the camera was far away, we were watching this meeting from the other side of the room, a little voyeristic, and I thought there would be more of that kind of stand offish feeling for us, the viewer, but that was it. I guess that was just to show us the reunion of old friends and how we were intruding on that. and everything was even, not too overpowered with shadows. except for one scene in the boys school, at night in the bathroom. light gently coming through the windows shone on the boys crying face and preist was in the dark. it was kind of creepy and angelic at the same time. ooh, speaking of creepy the most disturbing scene was the birthday scene. it was the priests birthday and the boy was to come into the room and sing him a song in front of the other priests. he never looked at the boy like he was attracted to him, he was in love with boy. and the way he cried while the boy was singing to him, all tortured and in pain, it will forever be stamped in my mind, such a hard to watch image, one of those things you can't pull your eyes away from. because I secretly want to be a dp I pay close attention to special lighting arrangements.

you're a bad education!

2005-01-07T11:05:00.000-08:00

I was going to bring in my books, yes film school books, to help me write what I want to say. you know, a little more eloquent. I forgot them. long story.
so, all I want to say right now is that the film was good. it was really really good. in fact it was fabulous and great.
matt- stop talking about color, that's my bit
UPDATE: I am finishing this tonight. have patience. like my views on how his use of diagonal lines and grids and centering are worth slitting your wrists or worse, mine.

La Mala Educacion (Bad Education)

2005-01-06T13:49:00.000-08:00

Wow, our second movie and we're already up to porn. At least by the MPAA's estimation.

As always, I'll ruin it if you read this, so don't be surprised.

Implication of anal and oral sex -- NC-17. Guy walking into a giant vagina -- R. I must admit I'm a little confused.

I have much to say, but I'm not sure where to begin.

I had a professor in college who studied Almodovar and he proposed that his films were as much about Spain as they were about the subject of the film. His name, for credit purposes, is Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz. This is an interesting theory when one explores Almodovar's entire catalog, and especially interesting in a film like Bad Education, which takes as it's subject a filmmaker making a film based on his own life. I couldn't help but think back to Pepi, Luci, Bom as I watched the film and remembering the actual life of Almodovar's work in relation to the films he makes now. It's interesting that he was on the forefront of the changes occurring in Spain following Franco's death. He actually helped create the society which he now looks back upon as an older, wiser man and comments on the change in that society.

All the elements of an Almodovar film are here in this. Bright, gaudy colors. Commentary on the church, especially with an element of transexuality. Men becoming women and over-expressed melodrama. Memories. And performance.

There is a biopic quality to this film that is not quite as apparent in his other films. Beginning with All About My Mother, there seemed to be a shift in the way Almodovar explored the filmmaking process. Not only did he explore the same issues for which he has been made famous (or infamous), but he began to look back on Spain and Spanish culture as it progressed throughout his life. The complexity of interpersonal relationships became symblomatic of larger cultural issues. For instance, in Bad Education, Almodovar's portrayal of Franco's Spain is a specific condemnation of the moral disparity between the Catholic Church's teachings and the actuality of its practice in the face of natural human sexuality and desire. In my estimation, Almodovar is in no way condemning faith or religion in his films, he merely turns a humanistic eye to its dogma and paints a picture of religion that is contradictory at best. The characters that find themselves in churches in his films are almost never brazenly against the content of the beliefs of the congregation, rather the feelings the characters show are more related to the experiences they have had with the actual people inside the church. For Almodovar, there are grand ideas and theories and dogma, but these are all merely extensions of people. People may badly want to be a certain way, but this is usually a means of Almodovar to find that which is truly human within them.

Almodovar's work has been (wrongly, in my estimation) labeled "queer cinema". I think that the name of his company makes a stronger statement about his work -- El Deseo. Desire. His films are about men and women and men who become women and women who dress like men figuring out what they want, what they need, who they are. In relationship to others, in relationship to their pasts, in relationship to their sexuality. Almodovar does not make films that show how wonderful it is to be gay, or how persecuted gay people are, or how they're fighting a battle to find expression. All of these elements are there, of course, but the films are about the characters. He evades any sweeping statements defining a large number of people, because each person is unique and each character is unique. Bad Education could be seen by some to run counter to how some in the "queer community" would like to characterize themselves. It seems to give "reasons" for their desire that could be construed as claiming that homosexuality comes from "nurture" rather than nature. But this would be a limiting way of looking at things. Almodovar understands how people function and operate. There is simple desire, but desire does not exist in a vacuum. Other people are the object, the cause, the influence of all desire. If one did not know of things to desire, one would not desire. And, as the great artist he is, his films are about showing the desire, not categorizing it or judging it.

The film is about old relationships and bad memories from the past brought up by the strength of genuine human connection. There were once two boys in love. But they were taken away from each other because a priest, who happened to be their literature teacher, was in love with one of them. So they were separated. One, who got out of the school, went on to be a succesful filmmaker. The other, who stayed -- the one who was loved -- was ruined. He became a junkie. But he wrote a story. A story that closely paralleled the lives of these boys as they grew. Later, this story was brought to the filmmaker and a film was made. There is a performance here accomplished by one of the primaries in the film within a film that really will ruin your experience of the film if you havent' seen it already, so I won't go into much detail here. Let me just say that a character commits an act of selfishness and desire that has so much impact on him that he feels the only way he can find penance is to really understand the person he wronged. And the only way for him to do that is to perform, flawlessly and continuously.

The framing device of the film within a film mirroring the lives of the characters creating the film allows much more to be expressed than would be believable within the context of the film. We forgive long emotional speeches and performances of rather canned and campy songs because the singing really is beautiful and they are part of a performance. They are meant to be fake, so they are forgiven. The colors play a similar part in the film. The filmmaker's life is full of vibrant color whilst the lives of the characters who find doom in the film are darker and harsher. This is forgiven by the viewer, because Almodovar reminds us that what we watch is not real. Art is a lie that tells the truth, though, as Picasso once said.

This is a unique and fascinating characteristic of melodrama -- that it is able to explore the unbelievable and, in so doing, make it more real than just showing reality. This is the world of emotion and emotional connection. Though the songs and colors and speeches may be campy and outdated, the emotions are true and the emotions are visible. I liken this effect to an Impressionist painter, who painted a true vision of the world as seen through his own eyes (as are all things seen by everyone). Stars, as we see them, are not mere swirls in the sky, but this is a very believable way to have the experience of being out on a starry night. Almodovar does not show us the world, he shows us the way his characters experience the world and each other. And he does it magnificently well. Is it believable that a priest is really in love with a young boy? His singing is so incredibly beautiful, that, yes, it is conceivable. Am I saying that it's justifiable. Not exactly. I'm saying that love and emotional connections are largely about how a person makes you feel, even if you force that person to be the way they are. If a boy singing sweetly is what you desire, then you will be fulfilled in that desire even if you create that boy singing. Is it logical to love a boy because of the way his singing makes you feel? No, not at all. But that's not the point. Almodovar does not care about logic, because logic has a coldness to it that removes humanity. It is emotionally justifiable, and that is all that is necessary for his purposes. We may despise the priest and think him abominable, but we cannot say he is not more or less human than we are. We connect with even the horrible characters because we understand them on some level. We understand the junkie because of the way his life has been. We may not understand why he so badly wants "tits" but we understand improving ourselves to feel better, even if the ways we make that improvement are counterintuitive and illogical. We understand the performer, though we do not like his deception. We may hate the priest for preying on the innocent, but there is a part in all of us that finds a twisted joy in robbing the intellectual, emotional, or physical innocence of those who do not know what we know. And there is a forgiveness in the fact that he is merely the person he is -- there is the suggestion always that people are the way they are for reasons that, if you knew them, you would surely be more understanding of them. Could you murder someone? Of course not. What if you were in the same position as those in Almodovar's films who commit murder? You wouldn't be. Yes, but what if your desperation was the same. You wouldn't let it be.

The wonderful thing about Almodovar is that he lets you see the world as others do, if you let him. You may not be a cross-dressing pre-op stand-up act or a pregnant nun, but you understand each of them and forgive them because they are human, they are you, with problems that are more visible and less justifiable in society. But make no mistake, you are not "better" than they are. His characters are stronger, in the face of harsher odds, than seems possible. Can you really say you would act differently, more valiantly, than they do, under the same circumstances? And here is the hope of Almodovar films. We may all be fucked up, sometimes in extreme ways. We may all do unforgivably bad things, but there is refuge in understanding. We may not all desire the same things, but we all desire something. Understand what a person desires and you understand everything about that person.

A Very Long Engagement part 2

2004-12-21T16:08:00.000-08:00

such colors. beautiful shot selection. lighting perfection. if anything "A Very Long Engagment" was a visual masterpiece. my favorite kind of film, where you can turn off the dialouge and get caught up in its beauty, where you can watch without noise and sound cues and still know what is going on. I admit it, I love to read American Cinematographer and a while back they interviewed the same colorist who worked with Juenet on Amelie, his name was....and he was working on "Two Brothers." I mention this because the uniform look of this film matches the stylized "Amelie" but presents a different feel. The film takes place in the nineteen twenties, yet instead of just giving us cars and sets and clothes from that era Juenet presents a film that looks old. the browns and yellows hint that we are watching a peice of history, a really old movie. not some hollywood production of what we think is suppossed to be the twenties. that in itself gives the movie its 'mise en scene.' it wasn't a modern day interpretation of the past, it was indeed the past. I love his use of color. that is my favorite thing about him. I separate the use of word film from movie. in my mind, and it's crazy in here, they are two different worlds. and for the films past suffering from a case of the black and white there is always wonderful shots. this film gives us wide open spaces. the beauty of french open land. the warm sun. we only view close ups or 'talking heads' a couple times and that's because Audrey Tatou has the most expressive face ever and it really makes a point when you can see her big eyes start to tear. I loved that I was able to see everything. her hobble, the wheat fields, the tall light house- not just people talking on top of the light house. when you take it all in, you take in her whole world. the point is that france is a character too especially in the war scenes and his use of color prevails here as well. during the fighting it was raining and blue and dirty and muddy and brown. it felt cold and lonely, it looked cold and lonely. when the soliders had to fight for their lives in between the borders of good and evil there was no sun, no warmth only a thick hovering fog. lighting for that is difficult, without creating shadows or reflecting too much light, but getting enough to create an image on film, Bruno Delbonnel should be proud. creating ambient light is extremely hard. one thing about this movie though, is Juenet was not using filters or gels. as I read with Amelie he goes through at the end and does most of it digitally. as a cinematograper that would anger me. its my job, my challenge to get it right or as close to right as possible, but with the use of visual effects and digitally coloring at the end it almost makes it possible to turn any crap looking of a film into a masterpiece. but during the fighting scene, the war, the fog and lighting there was something that couldn't be created as easily and as beautifully as Delbonnel did. my guess is they had minimal work during those shots- they saved the budget for the fighting itself, not its 'look' which is my favorite part. as far as film selection, it was most likely a kodak film and probably a very slow one at that. I think they should turn their still camera portrait film into film stock. but the choices made for this film was perfect. the whole time I don't feel I ever blinked. if I did I would have missed something. all I could say as I left was, oh, it was so beautiful.

A Very Long Engagement

2004-12-19T15:14:00.000-08:00

WARNING: Damn near everything I write is some kind of spoiler, so if you go to art films to see the twists and turns of the plot, you will be disappointed in the film if you read my reviews first. If you go to see beautifully photographed, deeply meaningful art, then it's likely my review will give you something to think about or something to discard entirely, but nothing to detract from your experience with the film.

From the same people who brought me the wonderful Amelie come this film. The pacing reminded me of Amelie, in that the editing produces a kind of punchline effect, where the jokes are punctuated by a change in the direction of the progress of the story. Though there were genuinely funny parts, the tone was much more toned down, for this is a story of love and memory and loss. And hope. Mostly hope.

Mathilde and Manech were once in love, long ago, before the war took him away from her. They were young and had the brash, unrestrained passion of youth. They were engaged and Manech would write on trees MMM, Manech Marries Mathilde. But Manech was a child and it seems that he remains a child throughout the story. He was sent to the war before their love was realized and, as the scared child he was, he attempted to get out of service by shooting his own hand. The punishment for such a crime, in this situation, was that he was sent out of the trench without a weapon to meet his doom. There comes a time when Mathilde learns that there is some hope he is alive. She devotes the rest of the story to figuring out whether or not he has lived. To find her lost love.

There is something hugely romantic about this story, because it is about one lover trying desperately to find the other, against insurmountable odds, at the risk of ruining the fragile hope she had always had and breaking the delusion she had held in her heart. Romance is a double-edged sword though, and the ideas that had kept her warm inside all those years also kept her from growing. She is able to "grow up" in a sense only with her continuing struggle to find the truth about what happened.

This is a dark story told in a way that largely softens the blow for the audience. For Mathilde is charming in the way that a child is charming and her love is passionate and deep and unrealizable. She is able to love in a way that is pure because she has been forced to separate that love from reality. This is not a story of the minor and major imperfections that old lovers come to accept and love about each other, this is the story of fairy-tale love that was snatched away before the words "happily ever after" could be read. The truth is that Mathilde and Manech are cowards -- Mathilde for her unwavering persistence in the belief that this boy she loved continues to live and Manech for his fear and his almost obsessive desire to make clear that the only thing on his mind was "MMM". They are both children, but the end of the story is what interests me the most for what it says about love.

You've been warned.

Through many tales and stories that Manech is dead and then renewed hope that he is alive, she travels to a man who really knows. He tells her that Manech is alive, but warns her that what she knows of him has died in the war. He has suffered amnesia and has no recollection of the time they spent together. She meets him, finally, in the final scene of the movie and her words, repeating over a shot that tracks out from their two-shot, are "I saw him. I saw him...." This is all that remains of their love, and, in a sense, all that there ever was of their love once they were separated -- the idea of what that love was, what love should be. They were in love with the idea of what they were in those brief shining moments at the beginnings of their lives. And nothing more. The ideas that kept him warm at night in the trenches and her pining away at home were not a real understanding of the other, but a vague set of ideas, frozen forever in the past. The structure of the film follows the internal life of Mathilde herself -- it is told like a fairy tale, but in bits and pieces. She is enveloped in this fairy tale of a boy she once knew who she imagines to be a man she still does. There is a brutal reckoning at the end of this story, because she is forced to confront this illusion at the same time she finds the true object of her dreams. He continues to exist, but he is a mere shell of what she knew. She doesn't know him, she sees him. And that is all. He possesses all of the same external features, but this is not the person she loves. And, ultimately, the person she loved could not still exist. He would've grown and changed and been someone different.

And this is the truth of time. People are in love only with the ideas and memories they hold. If Mathilde had found him after he had served valiantly in the war, he would be as unlike the person she knew as the boy with amnesia is. And she is changed after the years as well. The only way to hold on to that past is to dream of it and remember. And make it perfect in your mind.

More than just a tale of the nature of love, this is a nod to the process of creating film in general. Films are ways to preserve a certain take on truth in a way that is dream-like and can be manipulated to make it have whatever emotional effect the creators please. The spectator views the film in a way that makes him remember things that were never actually experienced; moreover, the spectator is capable of manipulating what he remembers so as to make his experience of the film completely different than that of another spectator. You love what you choose to love. You dream what you choose to dream. You see what you want to see.