Saw an early screening of "Crazy Heart". "Crazy Heart" is a very good film for one reason. Many critics have praised it and will continue to do so. Many critics will write it off as "just another washed-up musician struggling to overcome their addictions and weaknesses and make sense of things", etc. In a way, they are right. In a way, this is another one of those movies. But, because of Jeff Bridges' absolutely amazing performance, this film is more than that. If you want to see an actor breathe real-life into their character, endow truthful subtlety in their part, and absolutely nail a role that they were born to play, then you need to see Jeff Bridges rendition of Bad Blake. I believed that Bridge's portrayal of "The Dude" in "The Big Lebowski" was the essential role of his career, but after seeing this performance, I've changed my tune. It's true that we will not be witnessing cinematic history with the incredible plot or awe-inspiring film-making. However, if you are a fan of acting and want to see one of those performances that comes along every once in a rare while, please check out this film.
Reviews
4 Reviews
The Stoning of Soraya M.
(2008)
Good Proganda
9 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Many notices of atrocity have been brought to light in the Muslim world. One that amazingly survives today is the irrational, prehistoric, brutal practice of stoning people to death as punishment for accused crimes, justified or not. Unarguably, this practice is obviously and utterly inhumane, wrong, and hateful in every possible way. Also, this supports the basic fact that much of the Muslim world is living with tenth-century values in a twenty-first century world. I could go on about this but I move on to the review of "The Stoning of Sorayama M." I point out a negative and a positive criticism.
First the negative: This is a story that needs to be told. The filmmaker tells a very clear story and certainly drives home the point of this atrocity. Unfortunately, though, in the case of the story, we are not given a realistic telling. We are given a black and white world/good and bad. There are no colors in between to paint the people in this village. We are given the stock good guys and the stock bad guys and nothing in between. Thus, there is nothing realistically humane about the story being told. Which leads me to- The positive: The effect of this movie attempts to fire us up and play with our emotions. Because the good characters are so pure and good and the evil characters are such vile monsters in this film, we are driven into a rage where we would love to witness these vile, evil men viciously tortured and torn to pieces and eaten before our eyes by the hounds of hell. We would be applauding and cheering for more. Which leads me to believe that that is what the filmmaker was striving for in the decision to play out the actual stoning of this poor woman. With each frame of the stoning scene, we are driven to an emotional sadness, rage, and further desire for these demons to pay. I'm all worked up just thinking about it.
So, here is my point. We are not given a realistic, human drama about what happened in this village twenty-some years ago. The characters put before us are not real human beings. We are given a sermon designed to fill us with rage and the overwhelming desire to see injustice and inhumanity stopped and for people to pay. It reminds me when I first saw Superman when I was five years old. Upon the end of the film, I threw together a makeshift cape and costume and raced out into the front yard ready to save the world and take down all the bad guys in it. This film is good propaganda. Perhaps, it will drive people into enough of a flurry to join a woman's rights group or an organization that fights against the violation of human rights, etc.
Maybe this was the filmmaker's goal. Maybe he went into without the desire to tell people a real, honest story. Perhaps, he made this film so people would take be motivated to take action against something like this and perhaps that is the most powerful type of art there is. Maybe, turning people into superheroes is not such a bad thing.
First the negative: This is a story that needs to be told. The filmmaker tells a very clear story and certainly drives home the point of this atrocity. Unfortunately, though, in the case of the story, we are not given a realistic telling. We are given a black and white world/good and bad. There are no colors in between to paint the people in this village. We are given the stock good guys and the stock bad guys and nothing in between. Thus, there is nothing realistically humane about the story being told. Which leads me to- The positive: The effect of this movie attempts to fire us up and play with our emotions. Because the good characters are so pure and good and the evil characters are such vile monsters in this film, we are driven into a rage where we would love to witness these vile, evil men viciously tortured and torn to pieces and eaten before our eyes by the hounds of hell. We would be applauding and cheering for more. Which leads me to believe that that is what the filmmaker was striving for in the decision to play out the actual stoning of this poor woman. With each frame of the stoning scene, we are driven to an emotional sadness, rage, and further desire for these demons to pay. I'm all worked up just thinking about it.
So, here is my point. We are not given a realistic, human drama about what happened in this village twenty-some years ago. The characters put before us are not real human beings. We are given a sermon designed to fill us with rage and the overwhelming desire to see injustice and inhumanity stopped and for people to pay. It reminds me when I first saw Superman when I was five years old. Upon the end of the film, I threw together a makeshift cape and costume and raced out into the front yard ready to save the world and take down all the bad guys in it. This film is good propaganda. Perhaps, it will drive people into enough of a flurry to join a woman's rights group or an organization that fights against the violation of human rights, etc.
Maybe this was the filmmaker's goal. Maybe he went into without the desire to tell people a real, honest story. Perhaps, he made this film so people would take be motivated to take action against something like this and perhaps that is the most powerful type of art there is. Maybe, turning people into superheroes is not such a bad thing.
Antichrist
(2009)
An Ineffective Mess
30 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The sad thing about Lars Von Trier's "Antichrist" is that it is an ineffective mess. The film had me leaving the theatre thinking for hours of not what it meant but why it was such an ineffective mess. The truth is that I'm still trying to piece that together but I've come up with some heavy verdicts. Von Trier has proved that his strength is manipulating our emotions and leading us through painful journeys to an emotional, honest climax or catharsis. "Breaking The Waves" is possibly a masterpiece because of this effectiveness. Later films like "Dancer in the Dark" and "Dogville" aspire to this as well. There is something to be said about the scaled down quality and "Dogme95" honesty that he has worked with. These are the films he was meant to make. He is in way over his head with a film such as Antichrist. He teases us with developing this interesting relationship with He and She. While I was a bit bored with the earlier development, it looked as though we were going to explore the emotionally naked territory he has led past actors into which is thrilling to watch. Instead, he begins to throw crazy visuals at us like the body parts sprouting through a tree, a talking fox proclaiming "Chaos Reigns"(WTF), a deer running away in the middle of giving birth, and more. What I was at least looking for here was for a developed connection between these wild visuals and the emotional honesty of the characters but there was obviously none and really no point to these visuals as they really don't make any connection other than to be jarring and sometimes cool-looking effects; whereas someone like a Kubrick would have found a way to connect these visuals and serve the story or the concept. Beyond that, he decides to take us into a world of shock, Eli Roth-style. Anybody up for a little blood ejaculation? How about a little snip-snip of the old clitoris? Old knife-sharpener wheel through the leg? I will say I didn't think Willem Dafoe could have had it worse than "Platoon". I was wrong. In this attempt at shock, which I guess will affect some, he insults the audience thinking he can get a payoff by assuming to reach such brave horrifying cinematic heights and crossing such boundaries by displaying such taboo, shocking, assumptively-creative, shock-gore. I could go further into this but basically, he betrays the audience and questions our intelligence by thinking that we are stupid enough to be as emotionally impacted as we have been with his earlier honest works. I could go on in general. The actors dump more than there heart and soul into this probably hoping to achieve something Bjork or Emily Watson may have reached but were instead betrayed by Von Trier's cop-out. If it is a compliment, I will continue to think about this film for some time. Unfortunately, though, it's clear he doesn't achieve anything here because he doesn't earn it as he has in the past. *1/2 out of 4
A Well-Balanced Piece
5 January 2003
I recently saw a preview screening of "Irish Eyes" in Los Angeles and must say I was pretty impressed. A look at the world of the Irish mafia in Boston through the world of two brothers, the film succeeds in that it doesn't specifically focus on the mob side of things, trying to be an Irish "Goodfellas", but is equally concerned with developing an honest story between two brothers and how crime and conflict tear at the familial bind.
Hats off to John Novak, the straight-laced brother with political aspirations and a very suprising Daniel Baldwin, who, as far as I have seen, gives the performance of his career as the criminal brother who has a good heart somewhere deep inside but can't seem to save himself as he becomes steeped deeper and deeper into trouble. Also, a nice debut for director, Daniel McCarthy.
Definitely worth a look.
Hats off to John Novak, the straight-laced brother with political aspirations and a very suprising Daniel Baldwin, who, as far as I have seen, gives the performance of his career as the criminal brother who has a good heart somewhere deep inside but can't seem to save himself as he becomes steeped deeper and deeper into trouble. Also, a nice debut for director, Daniel McCarthy.
Definitely worth a look.
Tell Your Friends