Until then, check out some work I've been doing and critique that: http://www.youtube.com/user/Alienation3rdKind/videos
Thanks for sticking in there guys.
And like Schwarzenegger in Terminator, I'll be back.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Oy Vey, reasons I've been away
I have not forgotten about you blog, I've just been tired, busy, and, sadly, sick. I hope to be back on track soon. I realize I had a goal of critiquing a movie a day this month, and damn I was close, and maybe I'll pursue this again, but until now expect me to be back next week at the latest. I will be resuming with the Woody (Allen) Wednesday post I should be writing today.
Until then, check out some work I've been doing and critique that: http://www.youtube.com/user/Alienation3rdKind/videos
Thanks for sticking in there guys.
And like Schwarzenegger in Terminator, I'll be back.
Until then, check out some work I've been doing and critique that: http://www.youtube.com/user/Alienation3rdKind/videos
Thanks for sticking in there guys.
And like Schwarzenegger in Terminator, I'll be back.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Harmony and Me
This review is the combination of My Dinner with Andre and Lars and the Real Girl, I don't really know what I love so much about this independent movie cause nothing spectacular or amazing really happens. In fact nothing happens. The title interested me and it was only upon viewing the movie the hundredth time I realized the male protagonist's, Justin Rice, name is Harmony. Even then I still have no idea who the me is supposed to be and it should be Harmony and I, but I digress.
The story centers on the character of Harmony who is heart broken after a recent breakup. He is kind of a pansy but you can't help but feel pity for the guy if only cause the people he's surrounded by are utter assholes. Hey, breakups are hard, and the movies about them are numerous but for some reason I love this one the most, if only cause it feels real. By real I mean almost unbearable to watch, in the good way, the emotionally empathy I feel for Harmony is so much more than any famous, gorgeous actor in Hollywood Romance movies who will surely get the girl in the end.
In reality, Harmony is all of us after a break up. Granted we aren't all going to wear a heart necklace and bring up our breakup to everybody, but we'll want to. You want to spend time with friends and family and be reassured that there's someone better and they really weren't that great, but not all of us are greeted with dysfunctional messages at all ends, like Harmony is. Perhaps the easy summation as to why this movie works is that simple: I like Harmony. He is a genuine character that represents a great majority of people. He is relatable while still being unrelatable. Also, it was interesting to see a breakup from only a male perspective, and not the everyday guy you would expect but a genuinely kind guy. That isn't to say that you don't get a glimpse of his girlfriend, Jessica. The few glimpses into Jessica you see just add to the sympathy you already feel for Harmony and make you not want the cliche Hollywood "re-hookup".
It has the feeling of a documentary with rough cuts and vague notions of time. Seriously cheap and easy to make it makes me feel like I could pick up my hand held camera and video tape the everyday shit that happens to me, I won't because it still wouldn't be as interesting as this movie. The writer and director, Bob Byington, did a fantastic job at creating a character driven and oriented movie that truly made me feel rather than think. This is not a bad thing, in fact I rather enjoyed just rewatching this movie (also Netflix kept recommending it). Byington also makes a short cameo in the film as Harmony's brother Jim, which I didn't know the first time I watched it, but has since added to the dark comedy I already found in Harmony's interactions, especially with his family.
On a cool side note, I was researching the people in this movie, many of whom aren't really known for anything else, and found that Justin Rice, Harmony, who sings a song and plays piano in this movie, is credited most with songs and song writing in movies. I just thought this was a cool little tidbit. Any yes, there is music in this movie (please someone watch so when I break into the song "Finishing Touches" people will understand and stop staring).
Harmony keeping the harmony
Friday, October 18, 2013
Lars and the Real Girl
This movie is far too underrated for what it is. Ignore the hipster in me when I say, "I saw this movie before it was popular," because after this review it will be (probably not, but a girl can hope). I saw this movie back when it was released in 2007, back when I was actually figuring out what independent films were. It's movies in this genre that you can thank for these posts and this entire blog. Without movies like Lars, I would never have bothered delving into the unknown cinematic excellence you have probably come to know/expect (again, let a girl dream). This is not to say the movie itself is anything revolutionary or spectacular, just something I'd never really seen before (I was only 13, give me a break). I have since rewatched the movie so fear not, maturer me is the one writing this blog, and I still highly urge you to watch it, if only to chuckle at the idea that Ryan Gosling would date a doll.
The last line gives a pretty good overview of what the movie entails. Lars (Ryan Gosling) lives next to his brother, Gus (Paul Schneider), and his pregnant wife, Karin (Emily Mortimer). Lars is kind,church-going, naive man who gets along with everyone in the small town, but he is a bit strange. Lars' cubicle mate shows him a website where you can order a realistic sex doll, which Lars does. Not for sex, but for a girlfriend. Imagine a world where guys dated their sex dolls, hilariously pathetic and sad and it would be for Lars as well if you didn't feel so sorry for him. At first everyone is creeped out and confused, especially Gus, but soon the entire town gets together to welcome Bianca (the sex doll) and help Lars. It's actually touching.
As is the case with every independent movie, this was very low budgeted and nothing too spectacular happens, but the situation is so unique and interesting that it held my attention the entire time. I always like to commemorated acting, but here a special round of applause is called for, if only because Ryan Gosling always plays the "cool" guy now (fuck Drive).
The characters, as well as, acting was done extremely well. I felt for everyone in the movie and respected how they each developed. Especially the character of Lars. We see how he is in the beginning and where he inevitable ends up, where we wanted him to be the entire time. The use of Bianca as a catalyst for changing Lars was a tactic I'd never seen before and have yet to see in any other movie. Bianca herself, although an inanimate sex doll, has her own story. You really begin to feel as if Bianca is real. She is personified in such a way that you want to believe that at any moment she'll wake up and treat Lars right (Chucky: Sex Doll go ahead and make that a Child's Play sequel).
The dialogue in this movie is also incredible, simplistic, and, at times, nonexistent. One characteristic of Lars is a quiet, personal guy, who is often cut off from society in the garage he lives in. the introduction of Bianca begins to bring him out of his shell and even attend parties. He begins communicating with his family, who take care of Bianca, more to whom, even though he lives next door, he rarely spoke. Yet Lars remains awkward, we see it in the beginning when Lars acts strange to a coworker who is flirting with him, and later, even after Bianca's arrival, where he doesn't want to talk to her doctor (actually his psychiatrist). Lars has long conversations in silence with the doctor, these takes are often long and uncomfortable but great because they force you to be in the scene.
This movie is incredibly simplistic but original and quirky. It isn't too long and it is worth the watch. I do recommend checking it out.
The last line gives a pretty good overview of what the movie entails. Lars (Ryan Gosling) lives next to his brother, Gus (Paul Schneider), and his pregnant wife, Karin (Emily Mortimer). Lars is kind,church-going, naive man who gets along with everyone in the small town, but he is a bit strange. Lars' cubicle mate shows him a website where you can order a realistic sex doll, which Lars does. Not for sex, but for a girlfriend. Imagine a world where guys dated their sex dolls, hilariously pathetic and sad and it would be for Lars as well if you didn't feel so sorry for him. At first everyone is creeped out and confused, especially Gus, but soon the entire town gets together to welcome Bianca (the sex doll) and help Lars. It's actually touching.
As is the case with every independent movie, this was very low budgeted and nothing too spectacular happens, but the situation is so unique and interesting that it held my attention the entire time. I always like to commemorated acting, but here a special round of applause is called for, if only because Ryan Gosling always plays the "cool" guy now (fuck Drive).
The characters, as well as, acting was done extremely well. I felt for everyone in the movie and respected how they each developed. Especially the character of Lars. We see how he is in the beginning and where he inevitable ends up, where we wanted him to be the entire time. The use of Bianca as a catalyst for changing Lars was a tactic I'd never seen before and have yet to see in any other movie. Bianca herself, although an inanimate sex doll, has her own story. You really begin to feel as if Bianca is real. She is personified in such a way that you want to believe that at any moment she'll wake up and treat Lars right (Chucky: Sex Doll go ahead and make that a Child's Play sequel).
The dialogue in this movie is also incredible, simplistic, and, at times, nonexistent. One characteristic of Lars is a quiet, personal guy, who is often cut off from society in the garage he lives in. the introduction of Bianca begins to bring him out of his shell and even attend parties. He begins communicating with his family, who take care of Bianca, more to whom, even though he lives next door, he rarely spoke. Yet Lars remains awkward, we see it in the beginning when Lars acts strange to a coworker who is flirting with him, and later, even after Bianca's arrival, where he doesn't want to talk to her doctor (actually his psychiatrist). Lars has long conversations in silence with the doctor, these takes are often long and uncomfortable but great because they force you to be in the scene.
This movie is incredibly simplistic but original and quirky. It isn't too long and it is worth the watch. I do recommend checking it out.
Tell me this photo doesn't give you nightmares
Thursday, October 17, 2013
La Strada (The Road)
Here he is, Zampano!
The more and more I watch of Fellini, the more I'm forced to ask myself which time of his work is my favorite. Of course his neorealism movies like 8 1/2 and La Dolce Vita are incomparable to any other movie and seeing anything done by Fellini during this time is easily identifiable as his own. However, other works by Fellini are quite simplistic and not as outlandish as the two I mentioned. La Strada is a perfect example of a Fellini work that doesn't necessarily scream his name, albeit his wife, Giulietta Masina, plays the lead. One thing that I've found as a component in all Fellini films, no matter when, is that they each have a party scene and a clown-like character. I like think of this as his signature, and even works outside of neorealism contain this, La Strada especially.
La Strada follows the relationship of Gelsomnia and Zampano on "the road," (see where the title comes from?). Zampano shows up at Gelsomnia's home bringing the news that her sister is dead and buys Gelsomnia from her mother for a great deal of money. He takes her on the road to assist in his traveling art career where h breaks a chain with his lungs of steal. Gelsomnia is a weird woman and happily preforms for Zampano who treats her awfully and physically and emotionally abuses her and cheats. Gelsomnia runs away and ends up witnessing a man tight rope walking, he turns out to be the Fool, an adversary of Zampano's. When Zampano arrives and forces Gelsomnia to accompany him to a circus, they find the Fool works there. A fight ensues which results in Zampano and the Fool going to jail. Contrary to her own ideals Gelsomnia waits for Zampano and accompanies back on the road.
The passage of time in this movie isn't displayed too well, and I have no idea how much time passes from the beginning to the end, except on part where a woman says 4 or 5 years have passed since she's seen Gelsomnia. Of course there are hints, for instance, Gelsomnia learns to play the trumpet, and it is implied that Gelsomnia has not been home for a long time. We also see clear seasonal change, yet the movie never seems to move further. The characters do not change much, Zampano is a rude, abusive person and Gelsomnia is a goofy woman who can't leave.
There is no real conflict throughout the movie, it is more of a character development, which is only apparently when you see the characters in the last 20 minutes of the movie. Perhaps the thing to look at most is the road they took to get there (see what I did there?). The way they became who they are at the end of the movie is what the whole movie is about and cannot truly be appreciated until the end. There were dull moments but when I saw how they got to where they inevitably end my jaw hit the ground
Opposed to the neorealist movies of Fellini, La Strada is straight forward. Everything actually happens without confusing dream o fantasy sequences, there aren't even memories. Honestly while I was watching this I was heavily reminded of Bergman's Seventh Seal. Perhaps this was due to the almost theatrical aspects of the movie along with many overlapping concepts, a traveling artist, living in a wagon, that theatrical acting,etc. There were numerous things but the two are completely different overall, although I'd like to read a paper where someone compares the two... maybe I could write that paper... Ideas people!
I digress, I was personally routing for Gelsomnia, she is innocent and naive. Unfortunately bad things kept happening to her and people keep treating her awfully. i was hoping that the Fool would be kind, yet he is as just as much an asshole as Zampano. My empathy was expanded the entire movie and I believe this is due to the brilliant performance given by Giulietta Masina and Anthony Quinn's believable evil persona.
The plot was funny and simple, and if you like neorealistic Fellini it is interesting to watch the differences between this and movies like 8 1/2. The movie is almost theatrical in a way, but adds to the expansion of disbelief that you can see Zampano preforming. Anyway, highly recommend checking it out.
The more and more I watch of Fellini, the more I'm forced to ask myself which time of his work is my favorite. Of course his neorealism movies like 8 1/2 and La Dolce Vita are incomparable to any other movie and seeing anything done by Fellini during this time is easily identifiable as his own. However, other works by Fellini are quite simplistic and not as outlandish as the two I mentioned. La Strada is a perfect example of a Fellini work that doesn't necessarily scream his name, albeit his wife, Giulietta Masina, plays the lead. One thing that I've found as a component in all Fellini films, no matter when, is that they each have a party scene and a clown-like character. I like think of this as his signature, and even works outside of neorealism contain this, La Strada especially.
La Strada follows the relationship of Gelsomnia and Zampano on "the road," (see where the title comes from?). Zampano shows up at Gelsomnia's home bringing the news that her sister is dead and buys Gelsomnia from her mother for a great deal of money. He takes her on the road to assist in his traveling art career where h breaks a chain with his lungs of steal. Gelsomnia is a weird woman and happily preforms for Zampano who treats her awfully and physically and emotionally abuses her and cheats. Gelsomnia runs away and ends up witnessing a man tight rope walking, he turns out to be the Fool, an adversary of Zampano's. When Zampano arrives and forces Gelsomnia to accompany him to a circus, they find the Fool works there. A fight ensues which results in Zampano and the Fool going to jail. Contrary to her own ideals Gelsomnia waits for Zampano and accompanies back on the road.
The passage of time in this movie isn't displayed too well, and I have no idea how much time passes from the beginning to the end, except on part where a woman says 4 or 5 years have passed since she's seen Gelsomnia. Of course there are hints, for instance, Gelsomnia learns to play the trumpet, and it is implied that Gelsomnia has not been home for a long time. We also see clear seasonal change, yet the movie never seems to move further. The characters do not change much, Zampano is a rude, abusive person and Gelsomnia is a goofy woman who can't leave.
There is no real conflict throughout the movie, it is more of a character development, which is only apparently when you see the characters in the last 20 minutes of the movie. Perhaps the thing to look at most is the road they took to get there (see what I did there?). The way they became who they are at the end of the movie is what the whole movie is about and cannot truly be appreciated until the end. There were dull moments but when I saw how they got to where they inevitably end my jaw hit the ground
Opposed to the neorealist movies of Fellini, La Strada is straight forward. Everything actually happens without confusing dream o fantasy sequences, there aren't even memories. Honestly while I was watching this I was heavily reminded of Bergman's Seventh Seal. Perhaps this was due to the almost theatrical aspects of the movie along with many overlapping concepts, a traveling artist, living in a wagon, that theatrical acting,etc. There were numerous things but the two are completely different overall, although I'd like to read a paper where someone compares the two... maybe I could write that paper... Ideas people!
I digress, I was personally routing for Gelsomnia, she is innocent and naive. Unfortunately bad things kept happening to her and people keep treating her awfully. i was hoping that the Fool would be kind, yet he is as just as much an asshole as Zampano. My empathy was expanded the entire movie and I believe this is due to the brilliant performance given by Giulietta Masina and Anthony Quinn's believable evil persona.
The plot was funny and simple, and if you like neorealistic Fellini it is interesting to watch the differences between this and movies like 8 1/2. The movie is almost theatrical in a way, but adds to the expansion of disbelief that you can see Zampano preforming. Anyway, highly recommend checking it out.
(Movie is in Italian and black and white)
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Take the Money and Run
I'm not usually one for slap stick humor, usually I believe it to be a genre of only cheap laughs, yet as is the case with such classic movies like Airplane! I make an exception, Take the Money and Run is another great example of classic comedy.
The movie is set up like a documentary, much like Allen's later Zelig, about an aspiring criminal, Virgil Starkwell. It follows Virgil through his many failed attempts at crimes and features interviews with those close to him. Virgil is an awful criminal who's attempts at crime again and again end in disaster and time in jail. Virgil even meets his wife while failing to steal her purse. Virgil's main goal is to rob a bank, the only problem is that the heist is scheduled for the same day as another robbery. Both groups go to jail and Virgil once again escapes.
If you are familiar with any of Allen's later films then you are very well acquainted with his type of humor, sophisticated yet juvenile (see Sleeper). For instance, to get out of prison early Virgil becomes a gerbil in a medical experiment where he instantly becomes a Rabbi. When Virgil's parents are interviewed they refuse to have their real faces shown and instead wear masks.
There really isn't a moment in this movie where I had enough of the comedy, and there wasn't a moment that I didn't laugh. Some reviews also say that the comedy is "outdated." I have already addressed my hatred of that word in movie reviews (see Seven Year Itch) and it is even more ridiculous here. Things that were comical in the 70s are still funny now, and Woody Allen is still relevant.
The inter-cuts of the interview kept reminding me I was just watching a movie and made me laugh at any idea this were possible. While the expansion of my disbelief were not completely elevated the entire time, it kept me laughing. The movie is presented as a serious documentary which adds to the comical appeal.
I don't know what else I can say about this movie other than it is a must see, especially if you like comedy. This movie has many overlap to other media today, a comical shift on the normally serious prison movies, for instance, O' Brother Where Art Thou.
If you are familiar with any of Allen's later films then you are very well acquainted with his type of humor, sophisticated yet juvenile (see Sleeper). For instance, to get out of prison early Virgil becomes a gerbil in a medical experiment where he instantly becomes a Rabbi. When Virgil's parents are interviewed they refuse to have their real faces shown and instead wear masks.
There really isn't a moment in this movie where I had enough of the comedy, and there wasn't a moment that I didn't laugh. Some reviews also say that the comedy is "outdated." I have already addressed my hatred of that word in movie reviews (see Seven Year Itch) and it is even more ridiculous here. Things that were comical in the 70s are still funny now, and Woody Allen is still relevant.
The inter-cuts of the interview kept reminding me I was just watching a movie and made me laugh at any idea this were possible. While the expansion of my disbelief were not completely elevated the entire time, it kept me laughing. The movie is presented as a serious documentary which adds to the comical appeal.
I don't know what else I can say about this movie other than it is a must see, especially if you like comedy. This movie has many overlap to other media today, a comical shift on the normally serious prison movies, for instance, O' Brother Where Art Thou.
Woody (Allen) Wednesday
Of all the numerous directors, and all the fantastic films, Woody Allen reigns supreme (in my eyes, at least). It seems impossible that this far into this blog I have yet to mention even one of his films, but I just couldn't find the right way, the rights words, or the right movie to start with. So why not just do them all?
I am proud to introduce Woody (Allen) Wednesday. Every Wednesday until his filmography is done I will be reviewing a new Woody Allen movie, a challenge I gladly accept, although it will take a year (an impressive filmography).
Today I felt like it would only be appropriate to review Take the Money and Run (coming later today), the first movie Woody wrote, directed, and started in. How I'll arrange them in the future, who knows? I literally came up with this idea at 2am, give the gal a break.
Also I wanted to point out the irony of posting this following a Mia Farrow review. If you have any criticisms towards Allen's work due to his life, leave them at the door. I will hope you don't hold any prejudice against his work and keep an open mind/heart. I will not be mentioning the Farrow/Allen fued other than in terms of how it affected/changed his work.
***DISCLAIMER*** I will say that every movie I review is "my favorite Woody Allen film and this is mostly true, I love everyone of his movies and as Woody (Allen) Wednesday gets further in you will surely realize this. Having said this I will mostly try to focus on why I love that movie. Also, my absolute favorite is Manhattan as you will learn when I eventually review that. In what I planned to be the third week, next week being his latest Blue Jasmine.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Rosemary's Baby
Classic horror is the only real horror and Rosemary's Baby is certainly the epitome of classic horror. This movie is creepy, from the prologue music, hidden closet, creepy neighbors, to the impregnation scene.
The movie begins when Guy and Rosemary move into a new apartment, before belonging to an old deceased woman who suspiciously moved a wardrobe in front of a closet. The neighbors are loud and can be heard through the walls and later Rosemary meets the neighbor's tenant who suspiciously commits suicide. Soon the neighbors befriend Rosemary and Guy, Rosemary wishes to diverge from the neighbors but much to her dismay Guy continuously invites them over. One night, Rosemary imagines becoming impregnated by someone with evil eyes. The following morning Rosemary is pregnant.
A long string of events takes place following the discovery, from Guy suddenly acting even stranger, Rosemary cutting off all her hair and suddenly becoming sickly, and the neighbors becoming overly involved in Rosemary's pregnancy. A Rosemary's brings up his concerns for Rosemary's safety and brings up the ideas of "covens." Unfortunately he becomes sick before telling Rosemary what he has found out about the building, her neighbors, and most importantly her baby. (I won't give any more away as it would most likely ruin the movie).
As is always the case with Mia Farrow, the acting was stupendous. In fact, it was this movie that really interested me in her later work, albeit the fact that she ended up in Woody Allen films would have eventually acquainted me with her none the less. The performance is only comparable to Janet Leigh in Psycho, both classic women in classic horror movies. The symbolism of Rosemary cutting her hair leads to a completely different characters, curious, ghastly, and scared about what is going on around her is powerful and rightly displayed.
I won't lie, I hated this movie the first time I saw it. I was infuriated by the ending yet in hindsight I believe this was evoking a strong emotional response. In fact many of the actual discoveries made in the movie and how everything unfolded had me yelling at the screen and kept me on the edge of my seat the entire time. The concept of a happy ending doesn't really apply here, although I had no idea why I expected one after all the crap the characters had to go through.
Throughout the movie there are many interesting scenes that I still don't quite c=gather to this day. Rosemary sees a nun one day boarding up windows, yet she is in bed, possibly a dream (nightmare) although possibly a memory. She has a similar scene while becoming impregnated, although here we can assume it is what actually happened. These scenes were incomparable to anything I've ever seen before, in fact the entire movie is quite unique, though since then it has inspired many movies.
This movie has many long scenes and a large introduction, yet when the action actually starts it keeps you on the edge of your seat. While I do believe many scenes could be cut shorter, overall the movie was so good otherwise that I don't even notice them anymore. The movie is long, 2 hours and 15 minutes (just about).
The movie begins when Guy and Rosemary move into a new apartment, before belonging to an old deceased woman who suspiciously moved a wardrobe in front of a closet. The neighbors are loud and can be heard through the walls and later Rosemary meets the neighbor's tenant who suspiciously commits suicide. Soon the neighbors befriend Rosemary and Guy, Rosemary wishes to diverge from the neighbors but much to her dismay Guy continuously invites them over. One night, Rosemary imagines becoming impregnated by someone with evil eyes. The following morning Rosemary is pregnant.
A long string of events takes place following the discovery, from Guy suddenly acting even stranger, Rosemary cutting off all her hair and suddenly becoming sickly, and the neighbors becoming overly involved in Rosemary's pregnancy. A Rosemary's brings up his concerns for Rosemary's safety and brings up the ideas of "covens." Unfortunately he becomes sick before telling Rosemary what he has found out about the building, her neighbors, and most importantly her baby. (I won't give any more away as it would most likely ruin the movie).
As is always the case with Mia Farrow, the acting was stupendous. In fact, it was this movie that really interested me in her later work, albeit the fact that she ended up in Woody Allen films would have eventually acquainted me with her none the less. The performance is only comparable to Janet Leigh in Psycho, both classic women in classic horror movies. The symbolism of Rosemary cutting her hair leads to a completely different characters, curious, ghastly, and scared about what is going on around her is powerful and rightly displayed.
I won't lie, I hated this movie the first time I saw it. I was infuriated by the ending yet in hindsight I believe this was evoking a strong emotional response. In fact many of the actual discoveries made in the movie and how everything unfolded had me yelling at the screen and kept me on the edge of my seat the entire time. The concept of a happy ending doesn't really apply here, although I had no idea why I expected one after all the crap the characters had to go through.
Throughout the movie there are many interesting scenes that I still don't quite c=gather to this day. Rosemary sees a nun one day boarding up windows, yet she is in bed, possibly a dream (nightmare) although possibly a memory. She has a similar scene while becoming impregnated, although here we can assume it is what actually happened. These scenes were incomparable to anything I've ever seen before, in fact the entire movie is quite unique, though since then it has inspired many movies.
This movie has many long scenes and a large introduction, yet when the action actually starts it keeps you on the edge of your seat. While I do believe many scenes could be cut shorter, overall the movie was so good otherwise that I don't even notice them anymore. The movie is long, 2 hours and 15 minutes (just about).
( Sorry if this is a bit rushed or disorderly, I am sick and was just trying to get it out as fast as possible. Expect it to be updated as soon as tomorrow. )
Monday, October 14, 2013
My Dinner with Andre
Sometimes I'll watch a movie and ask myself, "I love it, but why do I love it?" After a few watches I'll be able to answer this question and still go "ah! I never noticed that part of this movie before." The point I'm trying to make isn't that I talk to myself a lot, or even that I rewatch a lot of movies, but I'm trying to point out that even after watching My Dinner with Andre multiple times, I still have no idea why I find it so appealing.
I found this movie from an episode of Community, which very closely plays homage to it in the episode Critical Film Studies (it was only a matter of time before I mentioned this show in this blog and I think this is the right post to do it in). I was lost during the entire episode and have since, of course, checked out the movie, as I have been known to do (hello, this is a film blog). Anyway, I'm glad the show introduced me to this movie cause it is perhaps one of my favorites.
Have you ever met up with an old friend and just sat in a restaurant catching up? Neither one of you touches the food even after the waiter has put it on the table because you don't want to break a story. I have become quite accustomed to this way of life since starting college and moving to another state. An entire year may go by before I return home and have dinner with a friend. There is so much to catch up on that you don't know where to begin and, hell, you never want it to end. There is no plot to My Dinner with Andre, there are just two men, old friends, Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory, sharing a meal and stories. Many of the stories belong to Andre, who has been off having crazy adventures and exploring. The only real stories we hear from Wally are in the beginning when he is narrating about not wanting to see Andre, whom he assumes has gone nuts.
I wanted to come into this blog with an idea of why I love this movie so much, and the only idea I've concluded to is that it is real. Nothing "Hollywood" happens. There is one set, albeit the few outside shot of Wally in the beginning, and minimalist characters. The restaurant isn't crowded and when the conversation is over the entire place is empty, as if the two have been reminiscing for hours.
Another fine quality is the story telling. While there is not much going on as far as visually, Andre's stories are so interesting and captivating you don't even need to witness them through flashbacks in order to appreciate them and truly love them. In the way, the movie is almost like a book, leaving you the ability to imagine and picture what happened for yourself, something I haven't seen many movies employee. Even then I was so captivated in the delivery of these stories that while watching the movie I didn't even care how it'd looked, it was only until it was over that I went "huh, I didn't see any of it."
Acting and delivery were other aspects of this movie that I truly love. I believe that in any movie if you use the actors real name, it instantly becomes more believable. Viewers expand their disbelief to assume they aren't just watching a movie with a character but a person. If makes viewers want to see other works by them and it certainly has me wanting more of the actors. My empathy was suspended here, more than it is watching a big Hollywood name play a character in a budgeted movie. I felt a connection to the personas of the actors on screen, if only because they seemed normal and average, this is a strange idea since the stories that Andre are telling are completely crazy and unique.
I love this movie. Sometimes I still ask myself "but why?" And it is a valid question. Nothing happens, it is all in the story. Nothing flashy, nothing moves, there are two characters. But I love it none the less and in the end, why doesn't mean anything.
OFF TOPIC SIDE NOT: Also, if you like the movie I suggest checking out the Community episode... in fact the entire series is pretty amazing and they talk about many other great movies as well. Not to mention one day there will be a Community movie that I will certainly review (I already can, it's awesome).
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Double Indemnity (last Wilder for a while)
My film history class watches a lot of amazing movies and recently we watched a Billy Wilder movie in class, Double Indemnity. I won't lie it took me ages to figure out what the title was and what it meant (I kept thinking it was Double Identity). Anyway, Double Indemnity refers to a clause in a life insurance policy if death is accidental. The entire plot revolve around this concept as Walter Neff, an insurance salesman, and Phyllis Dietrichson, plan to kill her husband.
The movie begins with a bloody Walter recording the story onto a tape recorder for his boss, the rest of the story is simply a flashback with Walter's narrating. Walter goes to the Dietrichson's house to get the auto insurance renewed and in the process falls in love with Phyllis, a wife who is a little too interested in the company's life insurance policy. From there Walter and Phyllis trick Mr. Dietrichson into signing a life insurance policy and eventually kill him, employing the Double Indemnity clause by using a train as means of murder. From there all hell breaks loose as an investigation concerning Mr. Dietrichson means of death are investigated by Barton Keyes, Walter's boss. Keyes can sense anything wrong in a death and Walter gets nervous that his plot will be foiled. As I do not wish to spoil the rest I will leave it at that.
Double Indemnity is classic film noir. The use of lighting is particularly beautiful here, creating a feel of unease and suspicion matching the emotions of our characters and keeping us interested. Characters hide in shadows creating beautiful dramatic irony and tension for at any moment someone could die or get caught. One scene in particular stands out: the moments before Mr. Dietrichson's murder. Walter hides in the shadows in the back of the car on the way to the train station. Mr. Dietrichson is completely unaware of his wife's intentions and has no idea Walter is there. The scene seems to go on forever as we wait, on the edge of our seats, for the inevitable.
As is a classic classification of film noir is the femme fatale. Phyllis Dietrichson is the perfect example of a femme fatale. She convinces Walter to assist her in the murder of her husband, while not out rightly asking she tricks him into it, and leads to his eventual demise.
There is also tension as we become more aware of Walter's possibility of being caught. Even right after the under the car almost doesn't start, trapping Phyllis and Walter at the sight of the crime, foreshadowing all the difficulties the two will have getting away. Later, a man on the train is almost able to identify him, definitely confirming it was not Mr. Dietrichson on the train. Phyllis is called in for questioning, as it turns out there is a question as to the death of her husband. Later, Walter listens to a tape in Keyes office which clears him as a suspect, yet the idea that he was under suspect is an alarming realization. Many obstacles get in the way of the two claiming their money and escaping.
The fact that this movie is told through flashback is interesting because we know where our protagonist ends yet we must figure out how he got there. We are aware that he is confessing and surely dying from a wound yet how he ends up there is in question for an hour and a half. We have constant inserts of the present thrown into the story to remind us where our story will eventually lead us as well as show progression as to how Walter is doing, getting worse every time we see him. The story is interesting and the pay off is great, though dark, as it is with most film noirs. We witness first hand the downfall of our protagonist at the hand of a femme fatale.
Perhaps the reason I love this movie so much is my previous love for Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train which I couldn't help but notice the similarities to. I did some research and it turns out Hitchcock was somewhat inspired by Billy Wilder's Double Indemnity while working on his movie and actually turned to it's crew for help. The idea of two of my favorite directors working in collaboration, even through proxy, is enough to make me want to weep. If you have seen either movie I urge you to see the other, the familiarity is haunting yet each director brought their own specialty to their own which I found to be quite remarkable.
Thanks for sticking in these last three days for Wilder reviews, I'll be reviewing a different director's work tomorrow. Make sure to check out the Wilder films I've reviewed here as well as others, he is truly a great director.
The movie begins with a bloody Walter recording the story onto a tape recorder for his boss, the rest of the story is simply a flashback with Walter's narrating. Walter goes to the Dietrichson's house to get the auto insurance renewed and in the process falls in love with Phyllis, a wife who is a little too interested in the company's life insurance policy. From there Walter and Phyllis trick Mr. Dietrichson into signing a life insurance policy and eventually kill him, employing the Double Indemnity clause by using a train as means of murder. From there all hell breaks loose as an investigation concerning Mr. Dietrichson means of death are investigated by Barton Keyes, Walter's boss. Keyes can sense anything wrong in a death and Walter gets nervous that his plot will be foiled. As I do not wish to spoil the rest I will leave it at that.
Double Indemnity is classic film noir. The use of lighting is particularly beautiful here, creating a feel of unease and suspicion matching the emotions of our characters and keeping us interested. Characters hide in shadows creating beautiful dramatic irony and tension for at any moment someone could die or get caught. One scene in particular stands out: the moments before Mr. Dietrichson's murder. Walter hides in the shadows in the back of the car on the way to the train station. Mr. Dietrichson is completely unaware of his wife's intentions and has no idea Walter is there. The scene seems to go on forever as we wait, on the edge of our seats, for the inevitable.
As is a classic classification of film noir is the femme fatale. Phyllis Dietrichson is the perfect example of a femme fatale. She convinces Walter to assist her in the murder of her husband, while not out rightly asking she tricks him into it, and leads to his eventual demise.
There is also tension as we become more aware of Walter's possibility of being caught. Even right after the under the car almost doesn't start, trapping Phyllis and Walter at the sight of the crime, foreshadowing all the difficulties the two will have getting away. Later, a man on the train is almost able to identify him, definitely confirming it was not Mr. Dietrichson on the train. Phyllis is called in for questioning, as it turns out there is a question as to the death of her husband. Later, Walter listens to a tape in Keyes office which clears him as a suspect, yet the idea that he was under suspect is an alarming realization. Many obstacles get in the way of the two claiming their money and escaping.
The fact that this movie is told through flashback is interesting because we know where our protagonist ends yet we must figure out how he got there. We are aware that he is confessing and surely dying from a wound yet how he ends up there is in question for an hour and a half. We have constant inserts of the present thrown into the story to remind us where our story will eventually lead us as well as show progression as to how Walter is doing, getting worse every time we see him. The story is interesting and the pay off is great, though dark, as it is with most film noirs. We witness first hand the downfall of our protagonist at the hand of a femme fatale.
Perhaps the reason I love this movie so much is my previous love for Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train which I couldn't help but notice the similarities to. I did some research and it turns out Hitchcock was somewhat inspired by Billy Wilder's Double Indemnity while working on his movie and actually turned to it's crew for help. The idea of two of my favorite directors working in collaboration, even through proxy, is enough to make me want to weep. If you have seen either movie I urge you to see the other, the familiarity is haunting yet each director brought their own specialty to their own which I found to be quite remarkable.
Thanks for sticking in these last three days for Wilder reviews, I'll be reviewing a different director's work tomorrow. Make sure to check out the Wilder films I've reviewed here as well as others, he is truly a great director.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
The Seven Year Itch and thoughts about reviews
Like my Billy Wilder marathon, I've decided to follow Witness for the Prosecution with The Seven Year Itch. Of course we are all familiar with this movie due to the iconic scene of Marilyn Monroe's skirt flying up on-top a subway grate, yet there are so many other memorable moments.
Richard Sherman's wife and son go away for the summer, as every wife and child does that time of year, and Sherman is left alone in his apartment with the rules: no smoking and no drinking. What's a guy to do then? Most men in the neighborhood run off and find a mistress, as is the case with Sherman's janitor who sees Marilyn (an unnamed woman who lives upstairs and whom Sherman befriends) and assumes Sherman is doing the same. After Marilyn nearly kills Sherman with a potted plant, Sherman invites her down for a drink. Sherman instantly break both rules set by his wife and instantly starts fantasizing about Marilyn. Paranoia takes hold of him as he believes Marilyn will tell everyone he has in some way forced himself upon her. Eventually the two become friends, and nothing more. This creates a great deal of dramatic irony as everyone else outside the situation would believe the two to be having an affair since soon Marilyn is living with Sherman and walking around the apartment barely clothed.
One of the strongest features of this movie is the use of fantasies. Our main protagonist constantly runs possible scenarios in his head, which we all do, yet his are comical and wildly outlandish. Before meeting Marilyn, Sherman has a long conversation with his wife, who isn't there, about how he could have an affair if he truly wanted and precedes to flashback to multiple advances by various women, which never actually happened. Not long after, Sherman is in his apartment fantasizing about Marilyn and himself playing piano as elegantly as humanly possible. Rather than let these fantasy sequences just play out, Wilder inserts the ridiculous expressions of Sherman as he watches himself and Marilyn. In fact, he does this for most of the fantasy sequences. Another sequence shows Marilyn using her commercial time to alert other women of Sherman's ways which we see Sherman's wife on vacation watching. This fantasy leads Sherman to trying and avoid Marilyn, which doesn't work for long. I love the use of these sequences in the movie and it is possible what make it so memorable.
The acting was also phenomenal, the characters play what you would assume they are like in real life. For instance Marilyn is a ditsy model and actress, I am not at all trying to belittle her it just seems that is her default in many roles. Tom Ewell plays the "everyday man," struggling with real life dilemmas and handling them how any of us would, by making ourselves out to be alpha in our heads. His character grows substantially throughout the course of the movie. While originally we feel of him as an imaginative weakling, he eventually stands up to a man he believes is sleeping with his wife, another fantasy, and takes off work to go see his family, even tough earlier in the film is is established that he can't do this due to "high time" at his job. This movie is so down to Earth while still being so very imaginative that it is both relatable and outlandish, as contradictory as it sounds.
Now a couple side notes: For some reason I found myself reading people's critiques of this movie on Netflix, where everyone is an expert (don't start explaining the irony of that sentence to me). Anyway, one phrase that was constantly in the critiques was "outdated." Excuse me for a moment while I bang my head against a wall.
This is asinine. Of course women and children aren't sent away for the summer leaving their husbands to do whatever they want, though I'm sure there is a couple that does this somewhere, but the theme of infidelity and trying to overcome all urges is still relevant today (I would love someone to challenge me on this so I could challenge their face with my fist). And yeah maybe the girl next door (above you) is a myth, sorry prepubescent boys, but it is possible even if the girl is yards away. Next time you want to claim a movie is outdated make sure you watch it first and grasp what it is actually about. No movie is current forever, that's why it's called current, but while the styles and culture may change, some hell most values are stagnant. This is a fine example of a value system we still employee.
Sorry for the rant but reading this I tried to grasp what the writers were talking about and as a fine movie reviewer myself (shut up) it bugged me. Also, if you don't like this type of movie it isn't that the movie is bad it's that you have shitty taste in cinema and that your idea of a good movie is probably Twilight. But in all seriousness, this type of movie isn't for everyone, and that is fine (we aren't friends but it's fine). If you don't like this type of movie normally you shouldn't review is (yeah, I reviewed a horror movie but I know a good horror movie from a bad one, at least I've seen enough to compare). That's it for my tangent thank you for reading if you've made it this far. If you like older films and are a fan of witty, romantic, and classically funny movies watch The Seven Year Itch. If you don't then you have no business here.
Richard Sherman's wife and son go away for the summer, as every wife and child does that time of year, and Sherman is left alone in his apartment with the rules: no smoking and no drinking. What's a guy to do then? Most men in the neighborhood run off and find a mistress, as is the case with Sherman's janitor who sees Marilyn (an unnamed woman who lives upstairs and whom Sherman befriends) and assumes Sherman is doing the same. After Marilyn nearly kills Sherman with a potted plant, Sherman invites her down for a drink. Sherman instantly break both rules set by his wife and instantly starts fantasizing about Marilyn. Paranoia takes hold of him as he believes Marilyn will tell everyone he has in some way forced himself upon her. Eventually the two become friends, and nothing more. This creates a great deal of dramatic irony as everyone else outside the situation would believe the two to be having an affair since soon Marilyn is living with Sherman and walking around the apartment barely clothed.
One of the strongest features of this movie is the use of fantasies. Our main protagonist constantly runs possible scenarios in his head, which we all do, yet his are comical and wildly outlandish. Before meeting Marilyn, Sherman has a long conversation with his wife, who isn't there, about how he could have an affair if he truly wanted and precedes to flashback to multiple advances by various women, which never actually happened. Not long after, Sherman is in his apartment fantasizing about Marilyn and himself playing piano as elegantly as humanly possible. Rather than let these fantasy sequences just play out, Wilder inserts the ridiculous expressions of Sherman as he watches himself and Marilyn. In fact, he does this for most of the fantasy sequences. Another sequence shows Marilyn using her commercial time to alert other women of Sherman's ways which we see Sherman's wife on vacation watching. This fantasy leads Sherman to trying and avoid Marilyn, which doesn't work for long. I love the use of these sequences in the movie and it is possible what make it so memorable.
The acting was also phenomenal, the characters play what you would assume they are like in real life. For instance Marilyn is a ditsy model and actress, I am not at all trying to belittle her it just seems that is her default in many roles. Tom Ewell plays the "everyday man," struggling with real life dilemmas and handling them how any of us would, by making ourselves out to be alpha in our heads. His character grows substantially throughout the course of the movie. While originally we feel of him as an imaginative weakling, he eventually stands up to a man he believes is sleeping with his wife, another fantasy, and takes off work to go see his family, even tough earlier in the film is is established that he can't do this due to "high time" at his job. This movie is so down to Earth while still being so very imaginative that it is both relatable and outlandish, as contradictory as it sounds.
Now a couple side notes: For some reason I found myself reading people's critiques of this movie on Netflix, where everyone is an expert (don't start explaining the irony of that sentence to me). Anyway, one phrase that was constantly in the critiques was "outdated." Excuse me for a moment while I bang my head against a wall.
This is asinine. Of course women and children aren't sent away for the summer leaving their husbands to do whatever they want, though I'm sure there is a couple that does this somewhere, but the theme of infidelity and trying to overcome all urges is still relevant today (I would love someone to challenge me on this so I could challenge their face with my fist). And yeah maybe the girl next door (above you) is a myth, sorry prepubescent boys, but it is possible even if the girl is yards away. Next time you want to claim a movie is outdated make sure you watch it first and grasp what it is actually about. No movie is current forever, that's why it's called current, but while the styles and culture may change, some hell most values are stagnant. This is a fine example of a value system we still employee.
Sorry for the rant but reading this I tried to grasp what the writers were talking about and as a fine movie reviewer myself (shut up) it bugged me. Also, if you don't like this type of movie it isn't that the movie is bad it's that you have shitty taste in cinema and that your idea of a good movie is probably Twilight. But in all seriousness, this type of movie isn't for everyone, and that is fine (we aren't friends but it's fine). If you don't like this type of movie normally you shouldn't review is (yeah, I reviewed a horror movie but I know a good horror movie from a bad one, at least I've seen enough to compare). That's it for my tangent thank you for reading if you've made it this far. If you like older films and are a fan of witty, romantic, and classically funny movies watch The Seven Year Itch. If you don't then you have no business here.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Witness for the Prosecution
I went on a Billy Wilder kick not to long ago, just watching movie after movie of his and it was incredible. One movie in particular stands out and has to be my favorite, Witness for the Prosecution. While court room melodrama is one of the simplest genres to create and is now a days everywhere, Witness for the Prosecution stands out. It is because of such courtroom classics as 12 Angry Men and Witness for the Prosecution that we now find this genre everywhere from our own TVs to the big screen, from Law and Order to the Lincoln Lawyer.
Perhaps one of the features that makes this movie unique and amazing is the ability to manipulate the viewer. We jump into the story of a lawyer, Sir Wilfred Robarts, who has recently undergone complications with a heart condition, it is his first day returning to his office a peculiar case is brought to his attention. At the complete opposition of his nurse, Robarts takes the case.
We hear the case as it is first described and we form the conclusion that the man, Leonard Vole, is innocent, as does the lawyer. We have no idea about any specifics of the crime aside from that a rich woman Vole befriended is dead, leaving him a great deal of money. He seems very surprised to hear of his inheritance, furthering our belief that he is telling the truth. When there seems to be beyond a shadow of doubt that the accused is innocent, his wife, Christine, shows up and says she is willing to lie that his story is that of truth and she is willing to take the stand and confirm it.
Huge curveballs keep coming as Christine takes the stand as a witness for the prosecution, claiming she is not truly married to Vole but is, instead, still married to a man named Helm who Vole was unaware of. She says that Vole is lying and committed the murder and later told her about it, telling her to lie to the jury. A woman comes forward giving love letters from Christine to Robart, in which Christine claims to be trying to get rid of her husband by accusing him of a crime he didn't commit.
My verdict kept changing every few minutes, keeping me intrigued the entire movie and wanting more even after the credits. This movie deserves a sequel and the ending certainly provides the possibility for one.
My favorite thing about this movie the the actual lack of information the viewer has. While so many movies will give the viewer some inclination as to what the true verdict is, with Witness for the Prosecution you are given none. By doing this, you are forced to go on a journey with Robarts, only knowing what he knows when he knows it and the payoff is so fulfilling. I spent the entire movie asking "what happens next?!" A true sign that the movie was done well.
Apart from the acting being so well done, every performance was so believing and had me hanging on every word the characters said, the characters were well developed. There is an entire monologue and flashback to when Christine met Vole and how the two ended up together, an entire monologue and flashback about how Vole met the deceased, and every interaction the characters share with one another, especially when they first meet each other, is masterfully done. I emphasized with out main protagonist, Robarts, if only from seeing everything from his point of view and being manipulated the same ways.
Although I already know the conclusion of this movie I would gladly rewatch it and still be on the edge of my seat, if only by the breathtaking performances.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Nine Dead (horror movie commentary)
Let's talk a minute about horror movies. I hate them, there are a few exceptions to this rule and I'm not above going to a theater and burying my face in someone's arm, yet I don't understand the appeal and rarely choose to watch them on my own. While I don't believe in ghosts, ghouls, witches,or anything paranormal like that, I can't help that when I'm trying to fall asleep at night that every every bump or gust of wind terrifies me (all stemming from the time my brother put a Chucky doll in my room convincing me the doll was alive... my childhood was strange). Perhaps the most terrifying sub-genre of horror is a crazed human killers. Paranormal is one thing but an actual human with a weapon is a real possibility and I try to avoid this subgroup, especially if based off true events. Overall, however, I've been giving the horror genre a chance.
Of course I appreciate the classics: The Shining, Evil Dead, Poltergeist, Rosemary's Baby, etc; and very few of them actually "terrify" me if you will but with modern special affects I've all but expanded my disbelief to believe that an actual killer is going to show up in the theater (I also love Scream which this happens in).
One movie that I thought would be promising was Nine Dead, if only because Netflix kept shoving it in my face. The plot intrigued me, a killer locks nine people in a room and threatens to kill one every 10 minutes if they don't figure out why they are all there, and the reasons connects each of them. The characters are an array of different occupations, nationalities, and backgrounds, it seems very unlikely that one thing may connect them all. I thought the idea of throwing a riddle into the mix would be an interesting twist on a horror movie.
So I sat through Nine Dead. ALL OF IT, and I regret it every day. I kept thinking to myself, "You're already 10, 20, 30, 60 minutes in." Then it just seemed impractical to turn the movie off with 10 minutes left, and most importantly, I wanted to hear the puzzles conclusion. All the while I was constantly hopeful that the payoff would be reward for wasting an hour and a half of my life and yet it was the biggest movie let down.
The puzzle is solved but I almost wish that the masked killer would have just shot everyone and saved me the time. Nothing was good about the movie. The plot was promising but poorly brought to fruition, the acting was awful but this may be contributed to the fact that the movie took place in one room, with only a few added shots and even then I could have shot this in my parent's basement with a handheld camera.
I have nothing to say that is good about this movie. I hate it all. In hell there is a room where they play nothing but this movie. I will, however, be kind in saying that it was the first screenplay by it's writer's Patrick Wehe Mahoney and just to have anything created is an accomplishment. Other then that, save yourself the time and if you must absolutely know the puzzles conclusion let me save you the time, look up the synopsis on IMDB.
Now as I mentioned I do not like horror movies and I thought before writing this review that this may seem a bit biased. Rather than force anyone to suffer through the same hell I did, I read some of the reviews that others have left. The census is that this movie sucks. I usually don't listen to viewer reviews on Netflix because I like to form my own opinions (the irony of this statement on an opinionated movie blog is comical, I know) but I have seriously debated taking them into consideration from now own. Don't believe me? Read them yourself. (Also the movie only got 30% on Rotten Tomatoes http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/nine_dead/)
Of course I appreciate the classics: The Shining, Evil Dead, Poltergeist, Rosemary's Baby, etc; and very few of them actually "terrify" me if you will but with modern special affects I've all but expanded my disbelief to believe that an actual killer is going to show up in the theater (I also love Scream which this happens in).
One movie that I thought would be promising was Nine Dead, if only because Netflix kept shoving it in my face. The plot intrigued me, a killer locks nine people in a room and threatens to kill one every 10 minutes if they don't figure out why they are all there, and the reasons connects each of them. The characters are an array of different occupations, nationalities, and backgrounds, it seems very unlikely that one thing may connect them all. I thought the idea of throwing a riddle into the mix would be an interesting twist on a horror movie.
So I sat through Nine Dead. ALL OF IT, and I regret it every day. I kept thinking to myself, "You're already 10, 20, 30, 60 minutes in." Then it just seemed impractical to turn the movie off with 10 minutes left, and most importantly, I wanted to hear the puzzles conclusion. All the while I was constantly hopeful that the payoff would be reward for wasting an hour and a half of my life and yet it was the biggest movie let down.
The puzzle is solved but I almost wish that the masked killer would have just shot everyone and saved me the time. Nothing was good about the movie. The plot was promising but poorly brought to fruition, the acting was awful but this may be contributed to the fact that the movie took place in one room, with only a few added shots and even then I could have shot this in my parent's basement with a handheld camera.
I have nothing to say that is good about this movie. I hate it all. In hell there is a room where they play nothing but this movie. I will, however, be kind in saying that it was the first screenplay by it's writer's Patrick Wehe Mahoney and just to have anything created is an accomplishment. Other then that, save yourself the time and if you must absolutely know the puzzles conclusion let me save you the time, look up the synopsis on IMDB.
Now as I mentioned I do not like horror movies and I thought before writing this review that this may seem a bit biased. Rather than force anyone to suffer through the same hell I did, I read some of the reviews that others have left. The census is that this movie sucks. I usually don't listen to viewer reviews on Netflix because I like to form my own opinions (the irony of this statement on an opinionated movie blog is comical, I know) but I have seriously debated taking them into consideration from now own. Don't believe me? Read them yourself. (Also the movie only got 30% on Rotten Tomatoes http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/nine_dead/)
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Top 5:
I feel like this belongs here.
My top five favorite directors:
1. Woody Allen- I want to review all his movies but I fear that will annoy readers, maybe one day Woody, one day...
2. Alfred Hitchcock- I own this man's discography and I love every one of his movies, except Frenzy but that's a whole story and one day I'll tell it.
3. Ingmar Bergman- See Wild Strawberries and The Seventh Seal review
4. Federico Fellini- The more Fellini movies I watch the more I love him, see La Dolce Vita review and more coming soon
5. Stanley Kubrick- no explanation necessary
Getting this down to 5 was extremely difficult, I love so many movies and so many directors and the list is always growing. I highly recommend checking out the work of all these directors as well as: Billy Wilder, John Ford, Darren Aronofsky, Quentin Tarantino, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, David Fincher, Francis Coppola, Charlie Chaplin, Martin Scorsese, and so many more.
My top five favorite directors:
1. Woody Allen- I want to review all his movies but I fear that will annoy readers, maybe one day Woody, one day...
2. Alfred Hitchcock- I own this man's discography and I love every one of his movies, except Frenzy but that's a whole story and one day I'll tell it.
3. Ingmar Bergman- See Wild Strawberries and The Seventh Seal review
4. Federico Fellini- The more Fellini movies I watch the more I love him, see La Dolce Vita review and more coming soon
5. Stanley Kubrick- no explanation necessary
Getting this down to 5 was extremely difficult, I love so many movies and so many directors and the list is always growing. I highly recommend checking out the work of all these directors as well as: Billy Wilder, John Ford, Darren Aronofsky, Quentin Tarantino, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, David Fincher, Francis Coppola, Charlie Chaplin, Martin Scorsese, and so many more.
Pretty in Pink (and my failed attempts at humor)
The 80's were an amazing decade, from the music and video games all the way to the style and movies. Unfortunately, I was born a decade too late but this doesn't mean I've missed out on any of the fun. My iPod, not a walkman, shuffles from "The Future's so Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades," to "We're Not Gonna Take It." I was always player two growing up, the hardships of being the youngest, but I can still kick your ass at Super Mario Brothers and finish the game in under 10 minutes. I never understood modern fashion and have always ideally wanted to return to the "crazed" style of the prior generation. And most importantly, my dvd shelf is filled with the John Hughes discography: I learned how to skip school from Ferris, I was a member of the Breakfast Club (Ally Sheedy), and everyone forgot my 16th birthday (the last one is a lie, I was the only one that forgot).
Now I was going to review Breakfast Club, and maybe one day I still will, but I decided that would be cliched since every tween who just discovered cinema believe that they "own" that movie. Instead I turn to another favorite I believe is an underrated classic, Pretty in Pink.
So many high schoolers want their lives to turn out like a Disney Princess movie where they live happily ever after, all the power to them, I was the girl who watched any Molly Ringwald movie and wanted to be her, like the makeover scene in Breakfast Club, and Pretty in Pink was my favorite. I watched this dvd so many times that the case had a permanent residence on top of the dvd player. I have since grown out of my 80's phase, but Pretty in Pink and most importantly, Ducky, still holds a special place in my heart.
Molly Ringwald, Andie, is a girl who lives on the wrong side of the tracks, her famiy is poor and, John Hugh classic theme of parents, an unemployed father who relies on Andie for everything. Her best friend is the crazy Ducky, John Cryer, who is secretly in love with her. Suddenly Andie sparks the interest of rich boy, Blane, Andrew McCarthy. Andie doesn't think she's good enough for Blane whose friends don't think Andie is good enough for him. It is a simple plot but the emotion that is packed into the script and the actors' performances make this movie a classic. Friendships, relationships, family, and money are all brought to question.
If you are familiar with any of John Hughes' work you may notice that Pretty in Pink is quite different. This is because John Hughes is simply the writer while Howard Deutch was director. This was the first movie that Deutch directed and it is still my favorite, while he does have a couple other movies that I rather liked. The movie has the feel of most other 80's movies, simple sets, a party scene, and rebellious teens, everything you could hope for.
There is not much I can say in terms of the actual production of the movie other than I loved the entirety of it. It was simple, and simple is one of the many reasons I love 80's movies. (That and the music numbers and there is a musical number where Ducky lip syncs "Try a Little Tenderness.") The character development in this movie also makes it amazing, I cared a great deal as to what would happen to them, no so much Andie, she was whiny, but more Ducky. It is not often a secondary character carries so much power but Ducky accomplishes this.
Most comically in this movie is the fashions. Usually I am capable of overlooking the styles I find in 80's movies, hell any decade movie, but this one is especially haunting since it is one of the major plot points. A characteristic of Andie is her ability to create outfits. The title of the movie refers to the pink dress that Andie creates from another pink dress. Now this is just my humble opinion (and mind you I mentioned my inability to understand fashion earlier, and you just thought I was rambling) the dress she destroyed to create a dress was better than the monstrosity we get as a result, in fact all the outfit she wears throughout this movie were awful. (Sincerely, 2013.) But if you can overlook this quality, which you should cause how could they know in 1986 what would be fashionable now, though I doubt this as ever fashionable. I would continue this rant but I don't want to become a fashion blog.
If you happened to make it through that last paragraph, congrats. Overall, this movie is amazing and I understand why teenage me loved it so much. If you are a fan of sappy movies or 80's cinema you'll probably love it as well. Also it's really good if you're having a date night you want to end by getting laid, seriously it will probably work or just lie and tell her you love her, one is certainly faster than the other.
I keep getting sidetracked, wow this post sucks. WATCH THIS MOVIE.
Thanks
I haven't been blogging for that long, I always found it to be a tedious act and frankly never thought I had anything that interesting to say. I have been working on Fresh Tomatoes for what seems like an eternity, considering how much time a day I spend here, but is considerably less: 2 months almost. While I have strayed from posting in the past I wanted October to be special and didn't want to be deferred in my quest to have a say in Cinema, no matter how asinine my reviews may be, by posting a movie a day. So far I have done well in this quest and I aim to keep it going.
I appreciate any of you who may be checking out the website and I urge you to keep coming back, I do have a considerable amount of views despite few actual followers. The feedback I have been receiving is supportive and keeps me posting so thank you for your kind words, whether of Facebook, Twitter, or even the comments on here. If there was anything that you'd like to contribute I am willing to hear any criticism, commentary, opinions, kind remarks, hatred remarks, ANYTHING. If you agree with my reviews or disagree, have any questions, and especially recommendations I am glad to hear them.
Anyway, this post was just to express my gratitude for anyone who may be reading it. So far I have kept up my October goal and I plan to keep it going on throughout this month, after which who knows? Perhaps I will regain a steady stream of 2 posts a week, maybe not. We'll have to see.
I appreciate any of you who may be checking out the website and I urge you to keep coming back, I do have a considerable amount of views despite few actual followers. The feedback I have been receiving is supportive and keeps me posting so thank you for your kind words, whether of Facebook, Twitter, or even the comments on here. If there was anything that you'd like to contribute I am willing to hear any criticism, commentary, opinions, kind remarks, hatred remarks, ANYTHING. If you agree with my reviews or disagree, have any questions, and especially recommendations I am glad to hear them.
Anyway, this post was just to express my gratitude for anyone who may be reading it. So far I have kept up my October goal and I plan to keep it going on throughout this month, after which who knows? Perhaps I will regain a steady stream of 2 posts a week, maybe not. We'll have to see.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Coffee Town
I'm going to go ahead and switch things up for a bit. I feel like my last few posts have been a bit stale and that may due to the fact that they are mostly about old and foreign movies. So for now I'm going to have a bit of fun and review a new(ish) comedy and just for the hell of it I am typing this in a coffee shop.
I can honestly say I was looking forward to this movie since back in, what I think, was 2010 if not 2011 when I heard Collegehumor was getting into the movie business. As an avid visitor of the site I was intrigued with whatever movie they had to offer needless of what it was about, who was in it, hell even the plot didn't matter, seriously I didn't care at all. And I was not at all disappointed.
I was skeptical whether this movie would ever be released as the rumors dwindled and I heard nothing about a release when suddenly it popped up all over the website and twitter. The cast is filled with some of the funniest actors and the plot is sound. Glenn Howerton (Always Sunny in Philadelphia), Ben Schwartz (Park and Rec), Steve Little (Eastbound and Down), and Josh Groban, are some of my favorite people and they form the main ensemble of the movie.
The plot is both hilarious and interesting. Will works in a coffee shop, no he isn't a barista or even an employee of Coffee Town, instead he goes there everyday and sets up his office. He is often visited by his friends Gino, a cop, and Chad, who visits on his smoking breaks even though he doesn't actually smoke. Sam, an actually employee of Coffee Town, hates Will and views him as a "parasite in 'his house of free wifi'" (which I now refer to every Starbucks as).
Coffee Town is unfortunately in a great neighborhood, I say unfortunately because this means it's going to be converted into a bar. Will is faced with the possibly of losing both his office and his girl, Becca, Adrianne Palicki (who Sam also likes and spends the entire movie perusing). Will doesn't want this to happen and it seems the only way to prevent it is for a crime to take place, or at least for it to look like a crime has taken place. The three friends plan to break into Coffee Town and make it look as if someone has broken in and robbed the place, with Gino on duty the gang won't have to worry about being caught by police.
What ensues, however, doesn't go according to plan. Chad ends up fighting a guy with down syndrome, Will ends up cock-blocked by his laptop, Sam's band ends up failing a gig, and Gino screws up the date of the robbery. You can decide which one is the worst.
One of my favorite things about this movie is how the perspective of Will is shown through use of doodles, for instance when we are introduced to Becca she has drawn angel wings. This effect is not overused and is quite interesting, adding to the already funny plot. Another thing would be the use of a musical number also portraying Will's perspective, this time while on ecstasy (but that's a whole different story), and later seeing the actual scene that took place (according to everyone else's perspective).
If you need any more incentive to see to see this movie, Brad Copeland, writer and director, did work on Arrested Development. ARRESTED fricking DEVELOPMENT. That's awesome. (Plus if you're hipster you could brag to your friends about seeing this movie that they probably haven't already. Call it "underground" or something. If you're not a hipster, it's not actually underground but don't tell the hipsters.) Anyway the point stands that this movie is hilarious and everyone should see it.
Most importantly, I learned something from this movie, like if someone lets you into a door before them, let them go in front of you it is the polite thing to do! (Also it's a good idea to have a friend with down syndrome.) There is not much else I can say about this movie. I have watched it so many times since it was realized earlier this year and I still find it just as funny as the first time. It lived up to the expectations that I had and I can't wait to see whatever the website and Brad Copeland do next.
I can honestly say I was looking forward to this movie since back in, what I think, was 2010 if not 2011 when I heard Collegehumor was getting into the movie business. As an avid visitor of the site I was intrigued with whatever movie they had to offer needless of what it was about, who was in it, hell even the plot didn't matter, seriously I didn't care at all. And I was not at all disappointed.
I was skeptical whether this movie would ever be released as the rumors dwindled and I heard nothing about a release when suddenly it popped up all over the website and twitter. The cast is filled with some of the funniest actors and the plot is sound. Glenn Howerton (Always Sunny in Philadelphia), Ben Schwartz (Park and Rec), Steve Little (Eastbound and Down), and Josh Groban, are some of my favorite people and they form the main ensemble of the movie.
The plot is both hilarious and interesting. Will works in a coffee shop, no he isn't a barista or even an employee of Coffee Town, instead he goes there everyday and sets up his office. He is often visited by his friends Gino, a cop, and Chad, who visits on his smoking breaks even though he doesn't actually smoke. Sam, an actually employee of Coffee Town, hates Will and views him as a "parasite in 'his house of free wifi'" (which I now refer to every Starbucks as).
Coffee Town is unfortunately in a great neighborhood, I say unfortunately because this means it's going to be converted into a bar. Will is faced with the possibly of losing both his office and his girl, Becca, Adrianne Palicki (who Sam also likes and spends the entire movie perusing). Will doesn't want this to happen and it seems the only way to prevent it is for a crime to take place, or at least for it to look like a crime has taken place. The three friends plan to break into Coffee Town and make it look as if someone has broken in and robbed the place, with Gino on duty the gang won't have to worry about being caught by police.
What ensues, however, doesn't go according to plan. Chad ends up fighting a guy with down syndrome, Will ends up cock-blocked by his laptop, Sam's band ends up failing a gig, and Gino screws up the date of the robbery. You can decide which one is the worst.
One of my favorite things about this movie is how the perspective of Will is shown through use of doodles, for instance when we are introduced to Becca she has drawn angel wings. This effect is not overused and is quite interesting, adding to the already funny plot. Another thing would be the use of a musical number also portraying Will's perspective, this time while on ecstasy (but that's a whole different story), and later seeing the actual scene that took place (according to everyone else's perspective).
If you need any more incentive to see to see this movie, Brad Copeland, writer and director, did work on Arrested Development. ARRESTED fricking DEVELOPMENT. That's awesome. (Plus if you're hipster you could brag to your friends about seeing this movie that they probably haven't already. Call it "underground" or something. If you're not a hipster, it's not actually underground but don't tell the hipsters.) Anyway the point stands that this movie is hilarious and everyone should see it.
Most importantly, I learned something from this movie, like if someone lets you into a door before them, let them go in front of you it is the polite thing to do! (Also it's a good idea to have a friend with down syndrome.) There is not much else I can say about this movie. I have watched it so many times since it was realized earlier this year and I still find it just as funny as the first time. It lived up to the expectations that I had and I can't wait to see whatever the website and Brad Copeland do next.
Reservoir Dogs and Tarantino
There are two types of crime movies, those done wrong and those done right. Reservoir Dogs falls into the latter. While I believe at this point in everyone's life they've seen Reservoir Dogs, and if you haven't what is wrong with you, you should have, I feel the need to mention it in this blog if only for appearance sake.
Usually I am not for gritty, violent, or bloody movies, as you may become acquainted with as I continue this blog. Reservoir Dogs, then, is certainly an exception to this rule. The imagery of a man having his ear cut off and being dowsed in gasoline is certainly one that still haunts me and keeps me up at night. While I would more often than not be sickened and turned off by this scene, I have come to expect such "quirks", if you will, from Tarantino movies.
Reservoir Dogs is the first of Tarantino's movies, and certainly one that I still regard amongst his best. Since his debut Tarantino has brought some of the most powerful and provocative movies, certainly some of my favorites, such as: Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill (volumes 1 and 2), and most recently Django Unchained. It seems everyone is acquainted with Tarantino's work and if you are not I highly urge you to visit you local video store, or Netflix, and do some serious movie watching.
The plot of Reservoir Dogs is quite simple, a group of miscellaneous characters get together to pull of a robbery. Each character is assigned a pseudonym, in the form of colors, to preserve their anonymity. Unfortunately the group is infiltrated and it turns out that one of them is actually an undercover cop. The movies is told through flashbacks to the characters' pasts and how they came about being involved in the heist. Only a few characters pasts are shown: Mr. White, Mr. Blonde, and Mr. Orange.
The movies opens in a diner, not unlike Pulp Fiction, where characters have a simple conversation concerning tipping, which to this day I believe to be a very comical and quote worthy scene. The camera pans around the table and we get a tiny taste of what the characters are like, but we have no idea what the movie is about, the next scene is Mr. Orange profusely bleeding in the back of a car while Mr. White tries desperately to calm him down. It is like Tarantino gave you a nice symphony that suddenly broke into screamo.
The rest of the movie takes place in the gang's meet up place where they try to figure out who could possibly be the snitch. All hell breaks loose here as Mr. Orange lies on the ground dying, Mr. Pink accuses everyone, Mr. White tries to keep the order, and Mr. Blonde goes bat shit crazy. We see flashbacks and slowly get closer to finding out who the snitch is. The use of flashbacks is my favorite thing in this movie. The plot, the writing, the story are all so basic (with the exception of Mr. White, and this is not bad) but the editing make it unlike anything I'd ever seen before. The present isn't what makes the story, the past is the story. We don't see the robbery which is the entire cause for the situation but we see the gathering of people and what part they are meant to play.
The ending was also shocking. While you may think twist endings are cheap story writing, this ending was one for the books. Throughout this entire movie I never expected anything like it. I would love to comment on the use of transition in the way that we do not truly see how the ending happens precisely but I do not want to ruin it for anyone who may not have seen it, which you should immediately, stop reading this and go watch it.
The acting should also be commemorated. The cast is one that I personally regard amongst movies' finest, and most of them also appear again in later Tarantino films. Harvey Keitel (White), Steve Buscemi (Pink), and Tim Roth (Orange) all appear in Pulp Fiction where Mr. Blonde's character is one of the Vega brothers. Michael Madsen (Blonde) also appears in Kill Bill. Tarantino also makes a cameo as Mr. Brown and in some of his later films.
Overall, Reservoir Dogs is one of my all time favorite movies, which is not a title I give out gracefully. I am a huge fan of Mr. Tarantino and if he sees this, which he won't, I'd love to interview you sir! But I digress, Reservoir Dogs is phenomenal in every way, the screenplay and directing could not be better and it is a huge accomplishment that someone could create this masterpiece as their first full length film and I could only one day hope to be as close to this amazing (I won't be). If you do happen to see Reservoir Dogs I recommend checking out all other works by Tarantino and trying to piece together his amazing Tarantino universe (a challenge even though I have seen all his movies). The man is a master of his art.
Usually I am not for gritty, violent, or bloody movies, as you may become acquainted with as I continue this blog. Reservoir Dogs, then, is certainly an exception to this rule. The imagery of a man having his ear cut off and being dowsed in gasoline is certainly one that still haunts me and keeps me up at night. While I would more often than not be sickened and turned off by this scene, I have come to expect such "quirks", if you will, from Tarantino movies.
Reservoir Dogs is the first of Tarantino's movies, and certainly one that I still regard amongst his best. Since his debut Tarantino has brought some of the most powerful and provocative movies, certainly some of my favorites, such as: Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill (volumes 1 and 2), and most recently Django Unchained. It seems everyone is acquainted with Tarantino's work and if you are not I highly urge you to visit you local video store, or Netflix, and do some serious movie watching.
The plot of Reservoir Dogs is quite simple, a group of miscellaneous characters get together to pull of a robbery. Each character is assigned a pseudonym, in the form of colors, to preserve their anonymity. Unfortunately the group is infiltrated and it turns out that one of them is actually an undercover cop. The movies is told through flashbacks to the characters' pasts and how they came about being involved in the heist. Only a few characters pasts are shown: Mr. White, Mr. Blonde, and Mr. Orange.
The movies opens in a diner, not unlike Pulp Fiction, where characters have a simple conversation concerning tipping, which to this day I believe to be a very comical and quote worthy scene. The camera pans around the table and we get a tiny taste of what the characters are like, but we have no idea what the movie is about, the next scene is Mr. Orange profusely bleeding in the back of a car while Mr. White tries desperately to calm him down. It is like Tarantino gave you a nice symphony that suddenly broke into screamo.
The rest of the movie takes place in the gang's meet up place where they try to figure out who could possibly be the snitch. All hell breaks loose here as Mr. Orange lies on the ground dying, Mr. Pink accuses everyone, Mr. White tries to keep the order, and Mr. Blonde goes bat shit crazy. We see flashbacks and slowly get closer to finding out who the snitch is. The use of flashbacks is my favorite thing in this movie. The plot, the writing, the story are all so basic (with the exception of Mr. White, and this is not bad) but the editing make it unlike anything I'd ever seen before. The present isn't what makes the story, the past is the story. We don't see the robbery which is the entire cause for the situation but we see the gathering of people and what part they are meant to play.
The ending was also shocking. While you may think twist endings are cheap story writing, this ending was one for the books. Throughout this entire movie I never expected anything like it. I would love to comment on the use of transition in the way that we do not truly see how the ending happens precisely but I do not want to ruin it for anyone who may not have seen it, which you should immediately, stop reading this and go watch it.
The acting should also be commemorated. The cast is one that I personally regard amongst movies' finest, and most of them also appear again in later Tarantino films. Harvey Keitel (White), Steve Buscemi (Pink), and Tim Roth (Orange) all appear in Pulp Fiction where Mr. Blonde's character is one of the Vega brothers. Michael Madsen (Blonde) also appears in Kill Bill. Tarantino also makes a cameo as Mr. Brown and in some of his later films.
Overall, Reservoir Dogs is one of my all time favorite movies, which is not a title I give out gracefully. I am a huge fan of Mr. Tarantino and if he sees this, which he won't, I'd love to interview you sir! But I digress, Reservoir Dogs is phenomenal in every way, the screenplay and directing could not be better and it is a huge accomplishment that someone could create this masterpiece as their first full length film and I could only one day hope to be as close to this amazing (I won't be). If you do happen to see Reservoir Dogs I recommend checking out all other works by Tarantino and trying to piece together his amazing Tarantino universe (a challenge even though I have seen all his movies). The man is a master of his art.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Fear and Loathing
Welcome to Bat Country folks. This movie is one hell of a trip both in its pursuit if the American Dream and the presence of some of the strongest narcotics one can buy. Based on Hunter S Thompson's stupendous novel, Fear and Loathing shows everyone the faults in chasing the American Dream. I don't condone the use of narcotics but for Hunter S Thompson they seemed to have worked (it has been pointed out to me that I unintentionally quoted Hunter himself here). Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is the world's most interesting journalist and attorney movie, and this may be contributed to the amount of drugs our protagonist is on or that it is the only one.
Johnny Depp, a friend of the author, portrays Raoul Duke in the film and does a fantastic job doing so. Benicio Del Toro plays Dr. Gonzo, the attorney of Raoul. Hunter also makes a small cameo as a future version of Raoul, this cameo is so short yet satisfying for anyone who is a fan of Hunter's.
Movies which are based off books is not a new concept and usually it's possible to watch a movie without having ever read the book. I do not suggest this for Fear and Loathing, and not just because Hunter S Thompson is a brilliant writer, but the book helps put the movie in better perspective. I originally watched the movie without any inclination as to what the story was about and having never read the book. I have since read the novel and have a better understanding of what it is I was watching. Granted my original assumption of the movie just being about bad acid trip was not far off.
Having said all of this I want to address the movie itself. As I've said, if you haven't read the book this movie may be a little hard to understand. There are scenes seen entirely in the perspective of our protagonist who is, for lack of better terms, "tripping balls." These scenes while quite comical, really make no sense. The narrations do help us follow the story yet they are the rants of a highly "medicated" Raoul.
The whole plot is based off our protagonist writing a story which I don't think he actually accomplishes based off the sheer amount of drugs and lack of doing any work. The movie should be classified as "character-driven" if anything and yet we see no character go through a "change."
Despite having no idea what the fuck I am watching half the time, I love this movie. Perhaps this is due to the fact that it is unlike any movie I have ever seen before. Perhaps it is due to the phenomenal acting done by both Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro. Perhaps it's due to the extremely amazing tripping scenes. The way Raoul's perspective is captured, the special effects of the lizard bar, and the use of projections to show war on the hotel walls, both were amazing scenes that I haven't seen any other movie come close to.
This movie has the benefits of feeling the effects of drugs while still allowing you to pass a drug test in the morning and after all isn't that what we all want? No? Okay scratch that.
(SIDE NOTE: I feel the need in this blog to confirm myself as a "reader". The order in which I read/watch the book/movie is not always the same. Sometimes I'll see a movie just because I love the book and sometimes it is the complete opposite as is the case with Fear and Loathing. Most of the time if I have not read the book already I will read it based off whether I enjoyed the movie or not but keep in mind that it is not always best to judge a book by its movie as my high school self learned from failing so many reading checks.)
Johnny Depp, a friend of the author, portrays Raoul Duke in the film and does a fantastic job doing so. Benicio Del Toro plays Dr. Gonzo, the attorney of Raoul. Hunter also makes a small cameo as a future version of Raoul, this cameo is so short yet satisfying for anyone who is a fan of Hunter's.
Movies which are based off books is not a new concept and usually it's possible to watch a movie without having ever read the book. I do not suggest this for Fear and Loathing, and not just because Hunter S Thompson is a brilliant writer, but the book helps put the movie in better perspective. I originally watched the movie without any inclination as to what the story was about and having never read the book. I have since read the novel and have a better understanding of what it is I was watching. Granted my original assumption of the movie just being about bad acid trip was not far off.
Having said all of this I want to address the movie itself. As I've said, if you haven't read the book this movie may be a little hard to understand. There are scenes seen entirely in the perspective of our protagonist who is, for lack of better terms, "tripping balls." These scenes while quite comical, really make no sense. The narrations do help us follow the story yet they are the rants of a highly "medicated" Raoul.
The whole plot is based off our protagonist writing a story which I don't think he actually accomplishes based off the sheer amount of drugs and lack of doing any work. The movie should be classified as "character-driven" if anything and yet we see no character go through a "change."
Despite having no idea what the fuck I am watching half the time, I love this movie. Perhaps this is due to the fact that it is unlike any movie I have ever seen before. Perhaps it is due to the phenomenal acting done by both Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro. Perhaps it's due to the extremely amazing tripping scenes. The way Raoul's perspective is captured, the special effects of the lizard bar, and the use of projections to show war on the hotel walls, both were amazing scenes that I haven't seen any other movie come close to.
This movie has the benefits of feeling the effects of drugs while still allowing you to pass a drug test in the morning and after all isn't that what we all want? No? Okay scratch that.
(SIDE NOTE: I feel the need in this blog to confirm myself as a "reader". The order in which I read/watch the book/movie is not always the same. Sometimes I'll see a movie just because I love the book and sometimes it is the complete opposite as is the case with Fear and Loathing. Most of the time if I have not read the book already I will read it based off whether I enjoyed the movie or not but keep in mind that it is not always best to judge a book by its movie as my high school self learned from failing so many reading checks.)
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Smultronstället (Wild Strawberries)
My last critique of an Ingmar Bergman film was neutral at best and I believe some of the negative comments I made may scare viewers off (as if what I say has any effect). However, Wild Strawberries is a perfect reason to watch anything by Ingmar Bergman. Frankly, cinema does not get better than this folks.
Dr. Isak Borg is such a powerful character whom I believe personifies someone everyone has in their life. He is an old man who has grown lonely in his old age, alienated from his family due to his negative personality. Isak is on a journey to Stockholm to accept a reward and a journey to make amends. He must face his past, present, and future through memories, reality, and dreams.
The most powerful scenes in this movie are perhaps those of dreams. In the beginning of the movie we witness the dream that leads Isak to the conclusion that he does not have long to live. In the dream Isak sees a man with a distorted face, a clock with no hands (which appears later in the film as part of a memory), and his own body in a coffin which reaches towards him. This dream is very realistic to Isak who believes his time is running out and his coffin is beckoning him.
Another dream of Isak's is very archetypal. The dream shows Isak failing to pass a simple doctor's test despite his extensive medical knowledge. He begins to question whether he deserves the reward he is going to collect or not. How many of us can say we have not had a similar dream? Whether you're failing a test you know you've studied for or showing up for the first time to a class at the end of a semester (the latter haunts me). This dream, or rather nightmare, forces us to question ourselves and put everything into perspective, even in the waiting world we are left wondering. This idea is something that bothers Isak the entire movie, not necessarily relating specifically to his reward but to his life as well. How'd he get to where he is and does he deserve everything he has?
We learn a lot about Isak through his memories and dreams, and we see his growth through his current journey. For instance, during his travels Isak runs into a group of young adults and offers them a ride. They are extremely grateful for the offer and accompany Isak to his destination. Upon getting another ride the girl tells Isak that it is he she loves and chooses, a kind and meaningful sentiment. Isak also reconciles with his daughter in law who opes up to him and shares the true nature of her visit, which she wouldn't have done if not for Isak's sudden shift in demeanor.
While the film ends with Isak's arrival at his son's house, his real journey begins. Bergman does not show us whether Isak dies or if he lives, but we get the sense that either way it is peaceful. Isak has made amends with himself and his family (or at least tried as is the case with his son) and has come to accept where he is going. We are shown a candid shot of who Isak was and how he has become that way, and we most certainty see the shift in his character and hints as to where he is going.
Dr. Isak Borg is such a powerful character whom I believe personifies someone everyone has in their life. He is an old man who has grown lonely in his old age, alienated from his family due to his negative personality. Isak is on a journey to Stockholm to accept a reward and a journey to make amends. He must face his past, present, and future through memories, reality, and dreams.
The most powerful scenes in this movie are perhaps those of dreams. In the beginning of the movie we witness the dream that leads Isak to the conclusion that he does not have long to live. In the dream Isak sees a man with a distorted face, a clock with no hands (which appears later in the film as part of a memory), and his own body in a coffin which reaches towards him. This dream is very realistic to Isak who believes his time is running out and his coffin is beckoning him.
Another dream of Isak's is very archetypal. The dream shows Isak failing to pass a simple doctor's test despite his extensive medical knowledge. He begins to question whether he deserves the reward he is going to collect or not. How many of us can say we have not had a similar dream? Whether you're failing a test you know you've studied for or showing up for the first time to a class at the end of a semester (the latter haunts me). This dream, or rather nightmare, forces us to question ourselves and put everything into perspective, even in the waiting world we are left wondering. This idea is something that bothers Isak the entire movie, not necessarily relating specifically to his reward but to his life as well. How'd he get to where he is and does he deserve everything he has?
We learn a lot about Isak through his memories and dreams, and we see his growth through his current journey. For instance, during his travels Isak runs into a group of young adults and offers them a ride. They are extremely grateful for the offer and accompany Isak to his destination. Upon getting another ride the girl tells Isak that it is he she loves and chooses, a kind and meaningful sentiment. Isak also reconciles with his daughter in law who opes up to him and shares the true nature of her visit, which she wouldn't have done if not for Isak's sudden shift in demeanor.
While the film ends with Isak's arrival at his son's house, his real journey begins. Bergman does not show us whether Isak dies or if he lives, but we get the sense that either way it is peaceful. Isak has made amends with himself and his family (or at least tried as is the case with his son) and has come to accept where he is going. We are shown a candid shot of who Isak was and how he has become that way, and we most certainty see the shift in his character and hints as to where he is going.
SIDE NOTES: Isak is portrayed by Victor Sjostrom, more commonly known as a Swedish director.
In The Seventh Seal the idea of Wild Strawberries is repetitious I do not know whether this was on purpose or purely coincidental.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
La Dolce Vita (The Sweet Life)
The first time I saw a Fellini film I will admit that I wasn't too thrilled with it. The movie was 8 1/2 and the rough transition between dream states and reality confused me, not to mention the lack of plot and the constant reminder that I was watching a movie. All these critiques. however, were exactly what Fellini was aiming for and after watching La Dolce Vita I have decided to give 8 1/2 another shot.
La Dolce Vita translated is "The Sweet Life" which suits this movie perfectly. The plot centers around the fantastic and tragic aspects of famous people's lives. Marcello Mastroianni portrays the protagonist, Marcello, a paparazzi journalist and captures him as he associates with many famous icons. In this way we are introduced to many characters who may not seem important and who are not mentioned for a long time but play a major role in the film's eventual end.
The last two scenes of this movie seem to be unconnected to the rest of the film, this is not to say they are bad but rather give the feeling of being from a different film entirely. Our protagonist has suddenly gone through a drastic change (which we do not see), we do not see many main characters and thus do not know what the end of the movie has been for them, and the sudden previous scene seems lost and forgotten (we as the viewer are given no inclination as to how the previous scene ended or how long ago it was). One may assume that the relationship between Marcello and other characters not shown in this scene ended badly validating their lack of appearance, and this would make sense due to tensions that grow throughout the movie. Also, as the entire movie is a critique of the lives of famous people, we may assume that the transition and utter non-mention of the previous scene is used to show no one longer cares, like news their emotions too have faded towards the situation. This is of course all speculation that I have come up with to justify the last two scenes, yet even I am still bitter.
One of the last two scenes is also mirrored in Fellini's later 8 1/2. In La Dolce Vita as a party comes to an end, characters parade out of the house to music, as if parading the entire cast off set. This is done in 8 1/2 as well where Fellini parades the cast and crew of the entire film around a movie set. I admire Fellini's ability to apply this technique to two separate films and doing it so beautifully both times.
Perhaps the thing that should be most commemorated about La Dolce Vita is the acting. Marcello Mastroianni is an actor that Fellini used multiple times and the reasoning is very apparent. While Marcello Mastroianni's character is a rude cheater and a liar the viewer can't help but follow his story and hope it works out a certain way. Whether you want him to end up with Emma or Maddalena, you are deeply invested in the characters actions. This movie is entirely based on the audience empathizing with the character, as there is no real plot.
While the movie is entirely character driven, there are certain story lines and relationships that Marcello develops. These relationships have their own stories and only some have an actual conclusion, others have inclinations as the audience is shown many things Marcello doesn't actually know (there is a scene in which Marcello goes into a cemetery while Maddalena "works").
The critique of the life of famous people and the business of paparazzi is so well demonstrated, in a way that was both interesting and held my attention, and really drove Fellini's point home. Although the move was made in the 60s, the themes are still apparent today. We can see in the movie how paparazzi infiltrate the lives of actors and how annoying they can be. We see the lengths they will go to, no matter how inappropriate, to get the story. I finished this movie disgusted at how entertainment news is captured and I believe everyone else will too.
Overall, I love this movie. While I am not thrilled with it's ending, the acting and visual aspects pleased me so. I connected with the protagonist in the sense of wanting the plot to unfold a certain way (it didn't or maybe it did, like I said the ending is kind of open in that way although I took it in a sense that I had been wrong).
La Dolce Vita translated is "The Sweet Life" which suits this movie perfectly. The plot centers around the fantastic and tragic aspects of famous people's lives. Marcello Mastroianni portrays the protagonist, Marcello, a paparazzi journalist and captures him as he associates with many famous icons. In this way we are introduced to many characters who may not seem important and who are not mentioned for a long time but play a major role in the film's eventual end.
The last two scenes of this movie seem to be unconnected to the rest of the film, this is not to say they are bad but rather give the feeling of being from a different film entirely. Our protagonist has suddenly gone through a drastic change (which we do not see), we do not see many main characters and thus do not know what the end of the movie has been for them, and the sudden previous scene seems lost and forgotten (we as the viewer are given no inclination as to how the previous scene ended or how long ago it was). One may assume that the relationship between Marcello and other characters not shown in this scene ended badly validating their lack of appearance, and this would make sense due to tensions that grow throughout the movie. Also, as the entire movie is a critique of the lives of famous people, we may assume that the transition and utter non-mention of the previous scene is used to show no one longer cares, like news their emotions too have faded towards the situation. This is of course all speculation that I have come up with to justify the last two scenes, yet even I am still bitter.
One of the last two scenes is also mirrored in Fellini's later 8 1/2. In La Dolce Vita as a party comes to an end, characters parade out of the house to music, as if parading the entire cast off set. This is done in 8 1/2 as well where Fellini parades the cast and crew of the entire film around a movie set. I admire Fellini's ability to apply this technique to two separate films and doing it so beautifully both times.
Perhaps the thing that should be most commemorated about La Dolce Vita is the acting. Marcello Mastroianni is an actor that Fellini used multiple times and the reasoning is very apparent. While Marcello Mastroianni's character is a rude cheater and a liar the viewer can't help but follow his story and hope it works out a certain way. Whether you want him to end up with Emma or Maddalena, you are deeply invested in the characters actions. This movie is entirely based on the audience empathizing with the character, as there is no real plot.
While the movie is entirely character driven, there are certain story lines and relationships that Marcello develops. These relationships have their own stories and only some have an actual conclusion, others have inclinations as the audience is shown many things Marcello doesn't actually know (there is a scene in which Marcello goes into a cemetery while Maddalena "works").
The critique of the life of famous people and the business of paparazzi is so well demonstrated, in a way that was both interesting and held my attention, and really drove Fellini's point home. Although the move was made in the 60s, the themes are still apparent today. We can see in the movie how paparazzi infiltrate the lives of actors and how annoying they can be. We see the lengths they will go to, no matter how inappropriate, to get the story. I finished this movie disgusted at how entertainment news is captured and I believe everyone else will too.
Overall, I love this movie. While I am not thrilled with it's ending, the acting and visual aspects pleased me so. I connected with the protagonist in the sense of wanting the plot to unfold a certain way (it didn't or maybe it did, like I said the ending is kind of open in that way although I took it in a sense that I had been wrong).
(NOTE: Movie is in Italian and black and white)
My Film Wall
I recently added two new posters to my wall and I felt it was appropriate to share. The new ones are the Hitchcock's Vertigo and Aronofsky's Pi. The other two Allen's Manhattan, perhaps my favorite movie of all time and the poster is actually in French. The other is Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs my personal favorite of Tarantino's. I highly recommend checking out each of these movies and will eventually review each and everyone. I shall continue to review and continue to add to my wall.
Friday, October 4, 2013
Det sjunde inseglet (The Seventh Seal)
This is my first foreign movie review and I believe this is appropriate due to my love of Ingmar Bergman films. NOTE: The movie is Swedish and black and white.
The plot is a combination of Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey and Final Destination, due to our main protagonist's struggle when he is faced with imminent death and his pursuit to avoid it. In order to accomplish his goal and postpone his death, the protagonist challenges Death to a game of chess, the result of which will determine whether he lives or dies.
The movie is set in the 14th century, during the black plague. We are greeted with gruesome images of some dead bodies and one scene in which townsfolk parade the town whipping one another to please the Gods. These gruesome images do not distract from the main theme or plot, however, but only help to further the personified struggles of the time period.
The acting and directing also seem to be more theatrical as opposed to cinematic. This is something I have come to accompany with earlier Bergman films and thus accept, however if you are not used to it, it can be a trivial technique. The characters often look to the audience at something off camera and these shots can be held for an uncomfortable amount of time. We do eventually see a cut to the object of the characters attention, this technique is effective in building suspense yet it seems to be used in abundance here.
There are also events in the film which I found interesting but are never fully explained or mentioned again, transitions are often rough and not seamless. For instance, in the very beginning of the movie our protagonist plays chess with Death on the beach. We do not see what happens in this game and for what seems like a fourth of the movie it is not mentioned again.
I also spent a great portion of scenes trying to locate the protagonist yet he never seemed to be in the shots until his dialogue was required. The scene where the group goes to see the witch be burned at the stake he is not the be found until they reach the actual burn site. This is an issue with continuity I could just not get over.
One technique this movie effective employees is repeated dialogue. We open with the reading of a biblical passage about opening the seventh seal and end with it as well, this time read by the protagonist's wife. The theme of religion and the inability to know about the afterlife or be certain of the existence of a God is personified by this and motivates the entire movie. Even as the movie comes to an end we are left with no sure answer to these questions as even Death himself claims to not know.
I enjoy many of Bergman's movies and find him to an absolutely revolutionary director whom's work grows to unmeasurable proportions. This is not his greatest film and even typing this I was hesitant to point out his flaws yet this is bias as I love his later work. If you are a fan of Ingmar Bergman I highly suggest adding this movie to your library and watching it.
The plot is a combination of Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey and Final Destination, due to our main protagonist's struggle when he is faced with imminent death and his pursuit to avoid it. In order to accomplish his goal and postpone his death, the protagonist challenges Death to a game of chess, the result of which will determine whether he lives or dies.
The movie is set in the 14th century, during the black plague. We are greeted with gruesome images of some dead bodies and one scene in which townsfolk parade the town whipping one another to please the Gods. These gruesome images do not distract from the main theme or plot, however, but only help to further the personified struggles of the time period.
The acting and directing also seem to be more theatrical as opposed to cinematic. This is something I have come to accompany with earlier Bergman films and thus accept, however if you are not used to it, it can be a trivial technique. The characters often look to the audience at something off camera and these shots can be held for an uncomfortable amount of time. We do eventually see a cut to the object of the characters attention, this technique is effective in building suspense yet it seems to be used in abundance here.
There are also events in the film which I found interesting but are never fully explained or mentioned again, transitions are often rough and not seamless. For instance, in the very beginning of the movie our protagonist plays chess with Death on the beach. We do not see what happens in this game and for what seems like a fourth of the movie it is not mentioned again.
I also spent a great portion of scenes trying to locate the protagonist yet he never seemed to be in the shots until his dialogue was required. The scene where the group goes to see the witch be burned at the stake he is not the be found until they reach the actual burn site. This is an issue with continuity I could just not get over.
One technique this movie effective employees is repeated dialogue. We open with the reading of a biblical passage about opening the seventh seal and end with it as well, this time read by the protagonist's wife. The theme of religion and the inability to know about the afterlife or be certain of the existence of a God is personified by this and motivates the entire movie. Even as the movie comes to an end we are left with no sure answer to these questions as even Death himself claims to not know.
I enjoy many of Bergman's movies and find him to an absolutely revolutionary director whom's work grows to unmeasurable proportions. This is not his greatest film and even typing this I was hesitant to point out his flaws yet this is bias as I love his later work. If you are a fan of Ingmar Bergman I highly suggest adding this movie to your library and watching it.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Being John Malkovich
If there is anyone in my head right now I'd like to welcome you to leave.
Who hasn't at one time or another wanted to be someone else? For that matter, who hasn't at one time or another wanted to be John Malkovich (I can't be the only one)? Fortunately, there is a door you can walk through in order to accomplish the latter.
Another mind bending, darkly funny, and emotionally insightful drama written by Charlie Kaufman (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). A door into the mind of John Malkovich which allows participants to enter and see out the eyes of the actor for fifteen minutes before dropping them on the side of the turnpike, is discovered by puppeteer, Craig (John Cusack). Unbeknownst to him, Malkovich becomes a money scheme to Craig and his lover interest Maxine (Katherine Keener). He also becomes a puppet in Craig's wife's, Lotte (Cameron Diaz), affair with Maxine. The love triangle eventually leads to conflict among the three characters and posses Malkovich's mind (and body).
I was not wuite sure how the plot could unfold had Malkovich discovered this doorway, however the scene that ensues is all I could need and want , Malkovich inside Malkovich. Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich. Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich? Malkovich. Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich. Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich! Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich, Malkovich. Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich? Malkovich Malkovich. Since I do not wish to spoil the scene which I believe one should see for themselves that is all I can say. Malkovich.
Who hasn't at one time or another wanted to be someone else? For that matter, who hasn't at one time or another wanted to be John Malkovich (I can't be the only one)? Fortunately, there is a door you can walk through in order to accomplish the latter.
Another mind bending, darkly funny, and emotionally insightful drama written by Charlie Kaufman (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). A door into the mind of John Malkovich which allows participants to enter and see out the eyes of the actor for fifteen minutes before dropping them on the side of the turnpike, is discovered by puppeteer, Craig (John Cusack). Unbeknownst to him, Malkovich becomes a money scheme to Craig and his lover interest Maxine (Katherine Keener). He also becomes a puppet in Craig's wife's, Lotte (Cameron Diaz), affair with Maxine. The love triangle eventually leads to conflict among the three characters and posses Malkovich's mind (and body).
The cast is full of actors and actresses that you may be familiar with yet I doubt you have ever seen them in such a light as that of Being John Malkovich. Rater than showing the beautiful of the cast we see a disheveled wardrobe and makeup combo, to this day I have a hard time believing it is John Cusack and Cameron Diaz. This is done so masterfully and captures the essence of the characters in a way that even if you muted the dialogue you could fully understand what the characters are like.
I especially commemorate the use of first person camera techniques that give the viewer the feeling that they are possessing John Malkovich. The sets were also intriguing, the office where Craig works, and where the door to Malkovich's head is, has such a low ceiling that the cast needs to quite literally crouch through the halls. If not such a funny and well done film I'd classify it as ridiculous, yet this is not the case.
The use of dark contrasting colors and shadowing is also an important technique that this film effectively utilizes. I cannot remember one scene that uses bright colors and I am not at all upset by this fact. The entire movie takes place in doors in poorly lighted areas, with the exception of the interstate and the restaurant which both take place at night. I am not criticizing the lighting department, quite the contrary, I admire the ability of the lighting to set the mood of every scene. For instance, even the poor florescent lighting in the office creates a familiar atmosphere of a boring redundant job. Even the tunnel into Malkovich's head is perfectly lit. While you would expect a light at the end of the tunnel, you instead get a dark passage which builds suspense every time you see a character enter.
The use of dark contrasting colors and shadowing is also an important technique that this film effectively utilizes. I cannot remember one scene that uses bright colors and I am not at all upset by this fact. The entire movie takes place in doors in poorly lighted areas, with the exception of the interstate and the restaurant which both take place at night. I am not criticizing the lighting department, quite the contrary, I admire the ability of the lighting to set the mood of every scene. For instance, even the poor florescent lighting in the office creates a familiar atmosphere of a boring redundant job. Even the tunnel into Malkovich's head is perfectly lit. While you would expect a light at the end of the tunnel, you instead get a dark passage which builds suspense every time you see a character enter.
I was not wuite sure how the plot could unfold had Malkovich discovered this doorway, however the scene that ensues is all I could need and want , Malkovich inside Malkovich. Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich. Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich? Malkovich. Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich. Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich! Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich, Malkovich. Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich? Malkovich Malkovich. Since I do not wish to spoil the scene which I believe one should see for themselves that is all I can say. Malkovich.
The dark comedy in this film also had me laughing out loud, from the creepy puppets that Craig plays with to the scene of Malkovich inside Malkovich. It is trippy, unique, and interesting.
Overall Review: Watch!
(Did I mention there's an adorable monkey?)
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Pi
3.1415926535897932384626433832795... I used to remember a lot more digits but that doesn't matter I'm talking about the movie not the number (or the number formally known as π) .
Pi is Darren Aronofsky's first full length movie which he both wrote and directed. I have shared before my love for Aronofsky's work in Requiem for a Dream and his later Black Swan (which he did not write but rather directed) and Pi is no exception to the "legacy" its successors create.
Pi, along with being the first of Aronofsky's films is also the first of his I saw. After seeing his use of black and white film, despite being in the late 90s (1998), I was captivated. The contrast draws the viewer into the mayhem and confusion of every scene. The use of camera techniques also forces the viewer to ask what is reality and what is a dream or a hallucination.
Sean Gullette, whom Aronofsky using again in Requiem for a Dream, is the main protagonist and our narrator. He believe that numbers exist everywhere in nature (I am inclined to agree with him) and is currently searching for a pattern in the infinite number Pi. This movie is very mind bending in its ability to let the viewer figure out many key elements for themselves like deciphering reality and fiction, and determining the goals of key characters and why they are involved. Many situations are not fully explained and it is left to the viewer to create an ending, usually this may be considered a downfall but I rather enjoyed it, the director is not force feeding the audience and certain open ended scenes led me to the conclusion they did not actually happen.
Suspense was also very well captured in Pi. There is one scene in which Max watches out his door for a package to be delievered. The camera shows the actions happening in the hallway as suspicious men drop the package off. The use of the peep hole and camera cuts is exquiste and captivating, the audience is also caught up in Max's own suspicions as he dead bolts the door multiple times.
Another scene takes place in the subway, where Max sees a man across the tracks, standing with his back towards the camera. We see blood dripping off the man's hand and Max suspiciously eyes him. The man disappears when a train passes by but later Max finds a brain. Just as imporatant as the visual aspects of this scene, sound played an important part. The blood itself is heard dripping to the floor and echoing in the otherwise empty station. We also hear the static and music that acocmpany Max's headache (which is found in many scenes). This scene is never fully explained yet it is possibly the scene that sticks with me most. Yet another is the man Max runs into in a subway cart. The man sings but disappears after a moment. Whether the man is real or not, and why he was there is never revealed yet the protagonist's mental stability is proved to be servery deteriorating.
Another interesting element in the movie is the repetition of dialogue. On multiple occasions Max reminisces about the time he was six and he stared into the sun. "Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six I did. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal. I was terrified, alone in that darkness. Slowly, daylight crept in through the bandages, and I could see. But something else had changed inside of me. That day I had my first headache." This quote both introduces the movie and ends it, a powerful technique into taking the story full circle and showing the changes in the character. The viewer is also greeted with the sensation that this story has somehow made Max who is is and creates the entirety of events we've just witnessed. Exceptional beautiful and unique in my opinion.
I have said it before and I will say it again, rewatchablitity is perhaps the most important part of a movie. This movie is definitely rewatchable with a strong story line, strong acting, and unbelievably amazing directing. I highly recommend checking it out.
Overall Review: MUST WATCH!
Pi is Darren Aronofsky's first full length movie which he both wrote and directed. I have shared before my love for Aronofsky's work in Requiem for a Dream and his later Black Swan (which he did not write but rather directed) and Pi is no exception to the "legacy" its successors create.
Pi, along with being the first of Aronofsky's films is also the first of his I saw. After seeing his use of black and white film, despite being in the late 90s (1998), I was captivated. The contrast draws the viewer into the mayhem and confusion of every scene. The use of camera techniques also forces the viewer to ask what is reality and what is a dream or a hallucination.
Sean Gullette, whom Aronofsky using again in Requiem for a Dream, is the main protagonist and our narrator. He believe that numbers exist everywhere in nature (I am inclined to agree with him) and is currently searching for a pattern in the infinite number Pi. This movie is very mind bending in its ability to let the viewer figure out many key elements for themselves like deciphering reality and fiction, and determining the goals of key characters and why they are involved. Many situations are not fully explained and it is left to the viewer to create an ending, usually this may be considered a downfall but I rather enjoyed it, the director is not force feeding the audience and certain open ended scenes led me to the conclusion they did not actually happen.
Suspense was also very well captured in Pi. There is one scene in which Max watches out his door for a package to be delievered. The camera shows the actions happening in the hallway as suspicious men drop the package off. The use of the peep hole and camera cuts is exquiste and captivating, the audience is also caught up in Max's own suspicions as he dead bolts the door multiple times.
Another scene takes place in the subway, where Max sees a man across the tracks, standing with his back towards the camera. We see blood dripping off the man's hand and Max suspiciously eyes him. The man disappears when a train passes by but later Max finds a brain. Just as imporatant as the visual aspects of this scene, sound played an important part. The blood itself is heard dripping to the floor and echoing in the otherwise empty station. We also hear the static and music that acocmpany Max's headache (which is found in many scenes). This scene is never fully explained yet it is possibly the scene that sticks with me most. Yet another is the man Max runs into in a subway cart. The man sings but disappears after a moment. Whether the man is real or not, and why he was there is never revealed yet the protagonist's mental stability is proved to be servery deteriorating.
Another interesting element in the movie is the repetition of dialogue. On multiple occasions Max reminisces about the time he was six and he stared into the sun. "Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six I did. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal. I was terrified, alone in that darkness. Slowly, daylight crept in through the bandages, and I could see. But something else had changed inside of me. That day I had my first headache." This quote both introduces the movie and ends it, a powerful technique into taking the story full circle and showing the changes in the character. The viewer is also greeted with the sensation that this story has somehow made Max who is is and creates the entirety of events we've just witnessed. Exceptional beautiful and unique in my opinion.
I have said it before and I will say it again, rewatchablitity is perhaps the most important part of a movie. This movie is definitely rewatchable with a strong story line, strong acting, and unbelievably amazing directing. I highly recommend checking it out.
Overall Review: MUST WATCH!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)