Sunday, October 5, 2014
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Nymphomaniac Part 1 (2014) - F
The film offended me. Not by the explicit sex scenes. But by its ridiculousness, by the idea that this pretentious silly thing is being presented as serious art.
The protagonist's behavior is not realistic. It's is a misogynyst's personal fantasy version of a woman. The film intercuts her absurd behavior with silly dialogue. It's sophomoric; it's badly done. Von Trier's films are usually solid-sounding concepts, that play out as slow and pointless things. This one takes the cake though.
The protagonist's behavior is not realistic. It's is a misogynyst's personal fantasy version of a woman. The film intercuts her absurd behavior with silly dialogue. It's sophomoric; it's badly done. Von Trier's films are usually solid-sounding concepts, that play out as slow and pointless things. This one takes the cake though.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Safety Not Guaranteed (2012) - B+
The presence of Mark Duplass indicates that this might be a mumblecore movie. Or if not, one of the recent films that have a foot in mumblecore (they're loose and casual in style and pace) but doesn't suffer from low production values. In fact, it is one of the latter.
The story has something oblique to do with love and companionship, and self-delusion. The performances make it work. Aubrey Plaza is especially good as a smart, quiet, semi-vulnerable young woman coming of age. Mark Duplass and Jake Johnson are each very good in this also. All in all it's a pretty good way to spend 85 minutes.
Submarine (2010) - B+
This bears a definite resemblance to Wes Anderson's more energetic and imaginative films. If you liked "Rushmore" or "The Life Aquatic", you'll dig this. (Conversely I suppose that if you didn't, you won't). But it doesn't just imitate; it takes further.
I did. It's genuinely funny and inventive, not only in the writing but also in the filmmaking technique. This was written and directed by Richard Ayoade, a character actor whom you might have seen doing some deadpan nerd characters in UK and US films; he shows a very large talent here.
Friday, March 14, 2014
The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) - D+
This is Wes Anderson's latest film, and it reminds one of his previous (better) films in some ways - it's got the cartoonish art deco look that he's becoming known for going on in full force, and it's got an air of cartoonish whimsy, and like some of this films there's an air of "old world meets new world". But it reminded me more of someone else's movies, in the way that it mimicks old movies (and books) in a detailed way that could have passed for loving, but then undercuts everything that it's doing with an oppressive air of cynicism and "now watch me pee in the punch bowl" and "WTF, who cares" - I had to sit and think where I'd seen this approach before, and it did come to me - the Coen brothers.
The sad thing is, Anderson could have made a real, poignant movie here if he had wanted to. The story supports one, and parts of this are written well and tug at the heartstrings. But only for a few minutes at a time. The movie instead chooses to focus on trying to make fun of such an old-fashioned thing as drama, or intrigue.
He also could have made a reasonable funny movie here. Some of the performers are very funny (especially Ralph Fiennes) and some of their lines are very funny. But as a comedy, this goes on way too long on one note - snooze inducing - and also suffers from numerous grotesque scenes that detract from any sustained comedic mood.
So what he made here is a big heaping ornate bowl of nothing. Just as the Coen Brothers tend to do. I'm disappointed in this guy ... that's two bad ones in a row. One ("Moonrise Kingdom") that was a reworked Jean-Luc Godard movie, and this one that seems to aspire to be the Coens. Wes, my advice - please just be yourself.
The sad thing is, Anderson could have made a real, poignant movie here if he had wanted to. The story supports one, and parts of this are written well and tug at the heartstrings. But only for a few minutes at a time. The movie instead chooses to focus on trying to make fun of such an old-fashioned thing as drama, or intrigue.
He also could have made a reasonable funny movie here. Some of the performers are very funny (especially Ralph Fiennes) and some of their lines are very funny. But as a comedy, this goes on way too long on one note - snooze inducing - and also suffers from numerous grotesque scenes that detract from any sustained comedic mood.
So what he made here is a big heaping ornate bowl of nothing. Just as the Coen Brothers tend to do. I'm disappointed in this guy ... that's two bad ones in a row. One ("Moonrise Kingdom") that was a reworked Jean-Luc Godard movie, and this one that seems to aspire to be the Coens. Wes, my advice - please just be yourself.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Hunger (2009) - D
With all the hype right now surrounding "12 Years A Slave" and it's Oscar triumph, I decided to check out Steve McQueen's first film, despite my dislike of his other two. "Hunger" got a lot of positive attention when it came out, particularly for Michael Fassbinder's performance. The movie is about Bobby Sands of the IRA and his hunger strike. In it, Fassbinder literally wastes away (under a doctor's supervision) so as to show us a malnourished body in full glory.
Which is a freak show conceit. Something really unnecessary in my book. What pornography is to sex, McQueen's films are to human misery. It amplifies it, and then thrusts it into your face.
As a film, this is all about that freakshow performance, and self-conscious artiness. Impressive wordless sequences, well-photographed. An extremely long dialogue scene (ten minutes or so) delivered by two actors shown from a single-camera shot without a cut. This isn't a drama, it's a still-life portriat that invites us to reflect on the anger of the hunger strikers, and the way that anger manifested itself turned inwards. In bones protruding from skin, and lesions and blood sores.
This guy's films just aren't for me. He's a director (Michael Haneke is another) who is going to keep putting out technically well-made films that garner attention from critics, and occasionally incite social dialogue, but which I will never enjoy. His whole trip is to dwell on human misery, not in a naturalistic way but in a way that celebrates the extremes of human behavior. At core it's obvious to me that he's sadistic and that he entered the world of film so as to satisfy his core urge of making us all want to wince and gag.
Which is a freak show conceit. Something really unnecessary in my book. What pornography is to sex, McQueen's films are to human misery. It amplifies it, and then thrusts it into your face.
As a film, this is all about that freakshow performance, and self-conscious artiness. Impressive wordless sequences, well-photographed. An extremely long dialogue scene (ten minutes or so) delivered by two actors shown from a single-camera shot without a cut. This isn't a drama, it's a still-life portriat that invites us to reflect on the anger of the hunger strikers, and the way that anger manifested itself turned inwards. In bones protruding from skin, and lesions and blood sores.
This guy's films just aren't for me. He's a director (Michael Haneke is another) who is going to keep putting out technically well-made films that garner attention from critics, and occasionally incite social dialogue, but which I will never enjoy. His whole trip is to dwell on human misery, not in a naturalistic way but in a way that celebrates the extremes of human behavior. At core it's obvious to me that he's sadistic and that he entered the world of film so as to satisfy his core urge of making us all want to wince and gag.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
In Secret (2014) - A-
It's been said that the trailer spoils this movie, so I won't post it. Suffice it to say that the story occurs in 19th Century France (though it's in English - American and British actors), and is not a happy one.
In fact the subject matter is extremely bleak, and has been attempted by Hollywood on a handful of occasions - though not within the last 30 years, interestingly. I think it's better done here than in other more celebrated films. I was immersed in the bad life choices made by the characters. Which is what movies do best - to make you feel an experience, sometimes something unpleasant.
This film recreates the look and feel of its time beautifully. It's well-cast and perfectly made. People tend to take movies of this time for granted, as commodities rather than as art. IMO if Francois Truffaut had directed this 30 years ago - and this does have a timeless quality to it, such that had he done so, it would have looked like this - people would have taken it as particularly important. It's impressive. I know that I'm saying even less than usual about this film, in perhaps a vain attempt not to spoil the story's content, but the sum total of what I want to communicate is : A). It's a wonderfully made film, and B). If you're in the mood for a small dose of culture, by all means this is worth taking in.
In fact the subject matter is extremely bleak, and has been attempted by Hollywood on a handful of occasions - though not within the last 30 years, interestingly. I think it's better done here than in other more celebrated films. I was immersed in the bad life choices made by the characters. Which is what movies do best - to make you feel an experience, sometimes something unpleasant.
This film recreates the look and feel of its time beautifully. It's well-cast and perfectly made. People tend to take movies of this time for granted, as commodities rather than as art. IMO if Francois Truffaut had directed this 30 years ago - and this does have a timeless quality to it, such that had he done so, it would have looked like this - people would have taken it as particularly important. It's impressive. I know that I'm saying even less than usual about this film, in perhaps a vain attempt not to spoil the story's content, but the sum total of what I want to communicate is : A). It's a wonderfully made film, and B). If you're in the mood for a small dose of culture, by all means this is worth taking in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)