Sennin Reviews

The Pianist (2002)

Manipulative the first hour, lineal during the rest

[5/10 · 22 February 2004]

In a general way, this movie can be divided into two parts, that differ in temporal terms, as well as in substance ones. The first part, shorter in time, seemed to me to be similar in content to those save the whales spots that Greenpeace makes you watch in school to generate environmental conscience. Not that I have a problem with Jewish folk, nor the whales, in fact I find extremely appalling both genocides, but the truth is that the victimist discourse that tries to bring the public into tears by making them feel impotent in front of the images is a very wasted one, particularly if the topic in discussion is the Jewish Holocaust (not to mention the whales). It would have been interesting to see Polanski driving the narration in a more objective way, showing the cause and the effect (in other words the reason why the Germans invaded Poland and persecuted the Jewish folk, as well as the persecution itself), and not only the effect, especially if proceeding that way the victimization of the Jewish is out of question (there's no way to be an apologist of the Holocaust, but there could have been a little sketch of the poor excuse for a twisted logic there was behind the invasion that would "explain" the behavior of the German soldiers in the movie), but would have avoided to fall into the coarse cliché it did. The second part, that entails a sudden twist in the narration, characterizes for being quite faster then the previous one (justifying its longer time), becoming a sort of adventure movie, well-driven most of the time, but that tended to be superfluous and implausible (fact that, by the way, has in this movie a wider tolerance rate: facts that in other movie would have tasted false or fictitious, in this movie were forgiven, due to the fat that it was "based on a real story") by times; in which the ups and downs of the pianist are told in a lineal way and without focusing that much on the external events, closing the public's perception: as opposite as in the first part, where one was witness of the "pathos" of the main character's family and the entire ghetto; in this one, one only gets to acknowledge only the facts concerning him. On the other hand, by the same time this perception is closing, one can feel a relief concerning the effectist discourse mentioned above. In deed, by this time they start to enter the scene the pro-Jewish characters, that seem to appear as life savers in this sea of anti-Semite people. But this relief comes a bit late into scene, as the public is already determinated by the previous scenes. From the technique aspect, we find the strong side of the movie: the photography is just splendid (keep an eye for the scene where the pianist finds himself before the destructed Warsaw); as well as the piano playing scenes, which are not only of a visual interest, but also provide us of an exquisite hearing pleasure (While many may complain about Chopin and say he is some sort of Gustavo Adolfo Béquer of the music, in the way that he didn't compose for art, but in order to get dates; they cannot deny that he is just more that a deployment of mere virtuosity à la Malmsteen, but that the music has a feeling and beauty that surround it). Regarding the acting, we must say it is well over the average but it isn't something out of this world, nor something like that. In the case of the secondary characters it's not that easy to tell, as there are so many and their performances are too little to define an opinion. Nevertheless, despite these last favorable points, I must continue to think that Polanski could have made a greater effort in this movie, since just by it self, or in comparison with his previous work, is quite unsatisfactory.

Black Hawk Down (2001)

Fine Scott's incursion into the war movies, but it somehow tends to the average

[5/10 · 18 February 2004]

In first place, to be able to appreciate any movie from this genre you must be a-. a nationalist-imperialist green-go (or in the exterior, a pro-yankee that still thinks (or prefers to think) that the U.S. are the good guys of the movie); or well b-. ignore the strong propaganda that is patent on it, and to separate the moral/ethic judgment we may have about the facts from the movie it self. In this movie's case, as hard as it could be, I could achieve this last thing, and, from this position, I may say that it is a fine movie, but nothing extraordinary, and, when compared with other movies from the genre, it may become one more of the lot. Anyway, the tension is well managed, as well as the camera work and the takes, achieving some really interesting scenes. In addition you may notice the direction of someone that knows what he wants, and the plotline, though all the distracting factors that may attempt against it, manages to make it through the the movie and to perform without problem. Other than that, I can't bear it anymore, it's all cheap propaganda (as you may see it isn't that true that I managed to achieve the previously said). About the director, without regarding any personal opinion one may have about him, we can't deny that he is one of the most versatile directors there are in the medium, as there are not two of his movies that belong to the same genre, but, in an opposite way, he has made a foray into every genre he has been able to: from K. Dick's science-fiction, to the historical film, passing through the space terror; and later making he's epic megaproduction. In this terms, being this his first (and probably the last) incursion into the war genre it is not bad, but as said before, it doesn't go further than that.

Lies (1999)

Entertaining, manages to avoid the monotony with a well-cared camera direction

[5/10 · 18 February 2004]

They may say I'm wrong, but, in my own judge, the main difference between erotic cinema and pornography is that the first one has a concept behind it, with well thought camera and decoration management; while the second one is plainly sex in front of a camera, and may god take care of the rest. Other interesting difference is that while this last one every scene involving a dialogue or that stands between a sex scene and another is just in the way; in the other one there is an equitable handling of the events, in which the happening of the characters actually affects -in a way or another- the plot development, taking special care on the verosimilitude of this one. In the case of Gojitmal, we are introduced into a typical story in this class of movies: A couple -a young student and an adult man- gets in contact in the distance and decides to get together to start a sexual relation that soon leads into the ways of the sadomasochism. The movie, that follows both the couple dates as well as other aspects of their lives, doesn't fall into the gratuity nor the monotony, in which many movies of this genre happen to fall; but plays with the cameras, has some interesting travelling and (spoiler?) there even is a fast-forward over an entire sex sequence to give place to the story. In the aesthetical plain, notice the predilection for environments in where there is almost none decoration, detail that give the scenes a more simplistic mood and allows to keep all attention on the couple (in contrast with the overwhelmed environments in the average porn, in which there is an attempt to give the characters a personality through the decoration, which in some cases manage to become stand alone archetypes, such as the sexy-intellectual girl, whose house has books everywhere and/or exotic statues on the walls and corners). Being a movie from the sex genre, and not being much of a fan of it myself, there is not such a great deal I may find on it, but I must accept it entertains and that it is well done. Keep a keen eye (actually a sharp ear) on the high-on-amphets hamsters on the soundtrack, without which the movie wouldn't be the same.

Waking Life (2001)

Well done, throws in interesting theories in different aspects

[9/10 · 12 February 2004]

Among the different theories of the cinematographic art, there is one that is quite influent now a days, that stands that a movie is well done if you are able to watch it on mute it and understand it. The most radicals say that if your not able to achieve this, you'd better write a book with your argument. This movie shows this is not necessarily true: if you mute it you won't understand a thing, but yet the images cause a significant impression that wouldn't be so lively expressed on the text. In other words, the visual part is important among the movie. In content, this is one of the most complex film I've ever seen. Not because the plotline, which by the way is quite simple, but due to the character discourses. Practically every character on the movie handles an elaborated speech, each of one ventures in the most different areas of human thinking, from modern philosophy, passing through psychanalysis, to cinematographic theory. Keep an eye on this last one, which I prefer most in contrast with the one displayed at the beginning of this text. Though it doesn't tell a story, the movie it self manages to be a theory that contains another theories, not letting the watcher to get distracted. For the same reason, this movie isn't suitable to everybody. As a bit of advice, put all the attention into the movie while watching it.

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)

This film justifies the classification of cinematography as an art

[8/10 · 12 February 2004]

This movie was shot between 1919 and 1920, a few decades since the motion picture camera was invented, and the Lumière brothers were in the middle of their experiments with it. At the time, cinema was being considered as a new way of making art, and yo make art you had to marry with a serie of ideas: ideology, aesthetics, cosmogony, etc. In these terms, this movie belongs to the German expressionism, which is reflected in the entire setup: from characters make up to the background of the set.

Having an average murder-mystery plot, the movie can be defined as a painting with some action occurring in it. The whole scenario was displayed following the same criteria as in expressionist painting: all diagonal and curve lines, evading the straightness and the cardinal orientation of things, wicked perspectives and proportions. Even the more minimum detail was carefully considered to fulfill the aesthetics needs. The result couldn't have been better, considering that the only visual trick they could do was to shrink/enlarge the camera's diafragma. Think that this was before the concept of travelling was even developed.

Concerning the plot, yet it's true that it isn't really the great thing and that many people now a days find it boring, I got to enjoy it, further than its aesthetical function (I even got to laugh in a couple of scenes), and I highly recommend it, as a good old piece of art from which many of today's film makers may take some good lessons on how to approach movies. I'm sure that if they got understand that, then there would be much lesser crappy movies than there are now a days.

Sub terra (2003)

Great environment setting, not-so-crappy-as-they-say storyline

[6/10 · 9 February 2004]

Whenever an adaptation of a book takes place in the film industry, the first thing everybody does is to compare it with the source. This applies even more if the book happens to be one of the main exponents of the XIXth century homeland's literature. From this starting point, the one big criticism this movie gets is that it tries to comprehend every aspect of the book (which, by the way is a compilation of short stories, that, if not completely disconnected one of another, they stand alone as independent stories), with all the subsequent lack of profundity that this means. But, what these people do not take into consideration, and may justify until certain point this superfluous treatment, is that the movie is not a direct reference to the tales, but some sort of evocation to the composition context. In deed, inside the movie plot, the author of the book, Mr. Baldomero Lillo, is a character and (spoiler?) is writing the shortstories at that time. This would make the movie not to be a rigorous borrowing of the events narrated in the book, but, in the opposite, a kind of explanation of the events from which the author took the basis to write his stories. Under this point of view, there is no reason why the movie should be as deep as the book, as it may focus on a more historical distance. For the actors performances, watch out for Mr. Noguera and Mr. Reyes, because they do a very good job. The strong side of the movie is, anyway, the setting. All the details were taken care of in order to achieve a realistic environment,where the situation lived by the coalminers and the Cousiño family was lively reflected.

Grill Point (2002)

Interesting movie, takes care of the small details while neglecting the global ones

[5/10 · 9 February 2004]

The movie works on a plain line, telling straightly the story about this couple of marriages and how they manage to resolve a given situation. At first thoughts, the movie seems to be careless in what techniques are concerned, no esthetics nor photography proposal; but by half the movie you start to notice how some minimal details are driven, happening to work out by the end of it. While the plot management could have been better, though it does entertain, one of the major problems you can find is the camera direction. As opposite as one may think, working with a hand camera (as Lars von Trier does in his Dogmas) isn't a piece of cake, but a matter of great care. If not, you may get some really bad shots that would be the equivalent of shutting down the video and record an audio only scene. This is what happens here: There is a couple of scenes, mostly the ones in the cars, where all you get to see is the face of the character speaking covering the 90% of your screen and then i switches to the face of the interlocutor. That and a couple of gratuitous scenes, like the one with the dentist, that may have been deleted are the big flaws you may find in the movie. As a conclusion I may say that I don't regret having seen this movie, but it didn't change my life either.

40 Days and 40 Nights (2002)

Basically, this is the biggest piece of crap I've ever seen

[1/10 · 9 February 2004]

This film reflects the decadence of Hollywood. Now a days, every incompetent being, each stupider than the last one, may get to direct a movie, or even worst, to write a script. That's the only possible explanation to the fact that this movie ever came out. Technically the movie is really lame. In fact I strongly doubt there was anyone involved in the production of this film that was aware that there exist techniques to shoot a movie. There's no photography management, no aesthetics careness, no nothing that would justify the one big and completely flaw by antonomasia that the script is. The only attempt of innovation you may find in the movie is the 100% computer animated sea of mammary glands waving all along the screen as the central character is supposed to be having an alucination. Concerning the script, there isn't a single part of it that doesn't deserve to go straightly to the trash bin. I strongly recommend, as well, that Mr. Rob Pérez dedicates the rest of his life in another work, as good as he makes sure it doesn't involve writing. The plot is just absurd (spoiler?). A guy swears to god that he won't have sex for the next 40 days, and what's worst: the entire community around him is so stupid and has nothing better to do in their own lives, that they run a hi-tech bet system in which they bet to the day they think the oath will be broken. Give it a 5 second thought. If your neighbour doesn't want to have sex: do you really give a damn about it??? Will your life start to work around that fact??? of course not!!! The movie it self doesn't have sense!!! Not even to mention the predictability of it. From the very beginning of the movie you know how it's going to end. And the gags and jokes, that were supposed to be the strong side of the movie, don't get to work at all. In all the time I wasted watching this movie, not ever once my lips showed a glimpse of a smile.

Cesante (2003)

Crappy, with some superfluous highlights, it certainly follows the mainstream of Sobras Inc. (Producers)

[2/10 · 8 February 2004]

As an animation, this movie is based on simplistic polygonical drawings and a display of some neat animation effects. Sadly, now a days these last ones aren't big deal, due to the exhaustation of the resources in this area that has being taking place in the post-matrix boom. In other aspect, it responds to the low-file-but-not-that-much-so-we-don't-get-to-entirely-define-ourselves line that is trademark of Sobras, one of the major cooperators to the film. On the other hand, you can notice right away the influence of hand of Nicolás López in the writing job. This overestimated young guy seems to misunderstand the term 'vanguard' for 'unjustified nonesense'. As a result we get a minimal plot line barroquously (sic) decorated with disconnected situations (some of them funny, some of them straightly weird) that surrounds the entire movie with a dizzyness aura, leaving in the spectator a shadow of doubt about what has one scene to do with the other. Anyway, we have to rescue the idea, which in it's pure state was good, although it was loosely developed; and a handful of scenes, dialogs, gags, etc. that made it to work out. Sadly enough, though these highlights, in an overall balance, the result doesn't get to throw out positive.