hereontheoutside Reviews

The Battle of Algiers (1966)

Brilliant synthesis of historically accurate drama, Italian neo-realism, and cinema verite

[10/10 · 15 August 2007]

Gillo Pontecorvo's 'The Battle of Algiers' is a masterpiece in the finest sense of the word. Few films are as emotionally and intellectually stirring, and complex. The film follows Ali La Pointe (Brahim Hadjadj) as he joins and eventually attempts to lead the FLN in the Algerian revolt against French colonial power. Opening with the end we see La Pointe hiding in the wall of a FLN hideout as an FLN member tips off the French army as to where he is hiding. The French Colonel Mathieu (Jean Martin) is standing on the other side of the wall he is hiding in warning him that he has to come out or he will be forced to blow up the building, killing everyone inside. Then Pontecorvo brings the audience back to before La Pointe joined the FLN. This gives the film a hunting residue of looming failure, a pure sense of hopelessness for the rebels you are pulling for. Or at least the rebels I was pulling for. Part of the beauty of Pontecorvo's portrayal of the rebellion is that it isn't one-sided; it doesn't attempt to say the rebels were right and deserved their independence and the French were occupying dictators. It tends to lean that way, but the portrayal is much more complex than that. Both sides kill innocents in an attempt to seek revenge against those who have injured innocents on their side. The audience relates to, and respects, La Pointe and the FLN, while despising their methods. At the same time you can respect Mathieu and the French for their attempts to end things peacefully and the respect Mathieu shows for the FLN leaders he captures, in private and in the press. Taking in equal parts from the Italian Neo-Realistic tradition and the 60s cinema verite school, the film alternates between gritty footage of the FLN roaming the city streets, plotting and planning their revolt. Humanizing and immortalizing them. Then the footage jarringly rotates to more documentary style footage of Algerians in the streets, striking, protesting or roaming the markets of Algiers. Shot in a, sometimes, grainy black and white the film finds beauty in rawness and jarring, rough shots, finds beauty in the hideous and the luscious. Every bombing, interview, jail, city street or hole in the wall carries a dark, sweeping, beauty that the audience doesn't have to search to find. Easily one of the best films on wartime politics and on revolutionaries ever made. It's haunting, the kind of film that will stick with you for days, leaving you grappling with moral complexities and desiring to determine a more definite sense of self. This is what cinema should be. It can be hard to communicate when a film is this good in an era when criticism lends itself towards the sensational and the linguistically fluid for even the tritest trash film, but this, this is a powerfully moving film. A mix of the raw and harsh eye of Cassavetes, the violently prophetic scenarios of Scorsese and the morally marginalizing notions of Kubrick at his best. An absolute must-see for anyone who considers himself, or herself, a fan, not of film, but of cinema. A film that has never been more apt for America, contemplating the moral complexities of war, and the utter lack of that proverbial line where right and wrong collide.

Brand Upon the Brain! (2006)

Hollywood wouldn't dare and the independent forces of North American don't have the gall to try it anymore

[8/10 · 8 August 2007]

'Brand Upon the Brain' is the perfect example of the kind of intriguing art-film still taking place in remote sects around the world. The kind of film that will go unnoticed by the majority of the film-making and film-going world. The film is heavily stylized and all the more engaging for it. The cinematography is washed out, hazy, even intentionally blurred at times, but consistently breath taking and beautiful. The starched white's bleed into the blacks establishing a nostalgic, dream-like quality. Overall the film is consistent in looks with Guy Maddin's 2003 silent film 'Cowards Bend the Knee,' it is myriadly more comprehensible than 'Cowards,' while by no means stepping into any mainstream consciousness. The film, for all practical purposes, is silent, but is lead, throughout, by an animated Isabella Rossellini, who often narrates the action, at other times is the voice of the characters or the voice of their subconscious. The film also heavily relies on naturalistic noises, artificially produced as sound effects to sporadic events taking place. This treatment of sound, so well executed that Maddin's crew deserves an Oscar for best sound editing, contributes to the overall sense of a hazy dream state. Which is precisely where we join the main character of the film, Guy Maddin, as the film opens. He is traveling by canoe back to the island that he grew up on. His family and a host of orphans inhabited a large lighthouse on an ambiguous island. His mother is dying and needs him to repaint the lighthouse, with two coats, so that she may visit it before she dies and remember it how it was. As he paints he realizes he is painting over the past and becomes lost in memories of abandonment, sexual promiscuity and confusion, an over- bearing mother, a treacherous and loving sister, immoral scientific experimentation, and the hi-jinx of a child brother/sister detective team, among other acts of sexual experimentation, near incestuous contact, voodoo curses and paganism. To say the least the film is sprawling, but it is pulled together nicely through cyclical imagery and themes (though this film is out there, the cyclical nature of themes in films about families is pretty standard), but it works nonetheless. The editing of the film is up to par for Maddin. Jarring, painfully emotional and crass. Another aspect of this film that will likely be overlooked by the advertising teams whom decide what films people are going to go and see. The film is short, only clocking in at around an hour and a half, but it is fast paced and the kind of film that you walk out of knowing, whether you felt it was brilliant or not, that it was worth how ever much you had to pay for it, a unique experience that Hollywood will never be able to offer an audience and that the assimilating forces of independent film don't offer audiences often enough.

Hot Fuzz (2007)

Wright, Pegg and Frost are the future of comedy cinema...

[8/10 · 4 August 2007]

The Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost teams' second feature film brings equal amounts of parody and gore from their first venture 'shaun of the Dead.' Their parody of the cop/buddy film constantly quotes and lifts from films like 'Chinatown' and 'Bad Boys 2.' Perfectly ripping the common conventions like the cop who can't pick up a gun again, the mismatched police beat team and others, but manages to combine them into a screenplay that is not only hilarious but a clever murder mystery as well. The pace never slows as overachiever Sgt. Angel (Simon Pegg) is relocated from London's Met to England's "safest village," Sandford, and he begins to discover that all of the accidents that Sanford reports may not be so accidental after all. The film only increases in vigilantism and knotted detective work as the film progresses. Expertly executed action montages keep the pace and faux-action flowing, even in the paperwork sequences which inevitably follow all arrests. Something Sgt. Angel points out as flaws in cop films like 'Point Break' that his partner Danny (Nick Frost) admires. The film is engaging as both comedy and detective film, culminating in an epic fistfight at a miniature model of the Sandford. Sgt. Angel and Danny stand at the edge of the model village, as the battle seems to be over, "I feel like I should say something smart," Angel says. "You don't have to say anything at all," Danny replies. The film is a near perfect parody that can only make filmgoers excited for the possibilities of futures Wright/Pegg/Frost ventures.

Young Mr. Lincoln (1939)

Delicious with a grain of salt

[7/10 · 2 August 2007]

According to John Ford's lyrically shot, fictional biopic of Abraham Lincoln's life his greatest faults may have been an obtuseness with woman and an ability to dance in "the worst way." Ford's camera has only praising views to reveal of Mr. Lincoln's early life. But for what the film lacks in character complexities it makes up for in beauty and depth of vision. Uncharacteristically beautiful compositions of early film, what could have been a series of gorgeous still frames, Ford has a unique eye for telling a story. The film sings of the life of a hopeful young man. Henry Fonda plays the contemplative and spontaneously clever Lincoln to a tee, one of his best roles.

The film concerns two young men, brothers, on trial for a murder that both claim to have committed. In classic angry mob style, the town decides to take justice into their own hands and lynch the pair of them, until honest Abe steps into the fray. He charms them with his humor, telling them not to rob him of his first big case, and that they are as good as lynched with him as the boys lawyer. What follows seems to become the outline for all courtroom- murder-dramas thereafter, as Abe cunningly interrogates witnesses to the delight and humor of the judge, jury and town before he stumbles upon the missing links.

The film plays out like many John Ford movies do: a tablespoon of Americana, a dash of moderate predictability, a hint of sarcasm that you aren't sure if you put in the recipe or if Ford did it himself. Despite the overtly 'Hollywood' feel of the film, and overly patriotic banter alluding to Lincoln's future presidency, the film is entirely enjoyable and enjoyably well constructed, if you can take your drama with a grain of salt.

The Cow (1969)

A film not to be forgotten

[10/10 · 30 July 2007]

Iranian director Daruish Mehrjuti's 1969 masterpiece is an all too forgotten work of film-art in the canon. The piece explores inter-community relationships and the life changing forces of nature, what ties man to his surroundings, better than any contemporary American film could, and as so few American films have. The film follows Hassan, an Irani peasant, who owns the only cow in his village. The tight frames and slow pacing reveals a special relationship between Hassan and his cow. Which creates an especial pressing moral dilemma for the town when they discover the cow dead while Hassan is away. What follows is a dark harrowing vision of the depths of the human psyche and man's dependency on nature for survival. Shot in harsh black and white, it takes on the luscious countryside of Iran and the strength of community and the fallibility of human kindness. Hassan's journey is an engaging, dark tale that has been lauded as a controversial film at Cannes and a difficult digest for modern viewers. But few films pack the emotional intensity of Mehruji's film.

Platoon (1986)

Wow

[8/10 · 28 July 2007]

Platoon is as gritty, intense and devastating as any war film you're likely to find, in any language. Without a profound stance against the pro-war characters, like Apocalypse Now! does, it presents the realities of Vietnam. The drug use, the individualistic conflicts, the tension within the army and the varying degrees of commitment within platoons. Charlie Sheen, surprisingly, is excellent, but his performance does not compare with the Oscar worthy performances of Tom Berringer and Willem Dafoe. They are both spectacular, bringing the harsh kill or be killed mentality of Vietnam to life, on both sides of the Vietnam debate. The film is gritty, there are no frills about the look of the picture, the grainy, washed out palettes illuminate the destitute nature of the soldiers, while simultaneously bringing out the majesty of the natural side of Vietnam. Oliver Stone provides an excellent counterpoint to most other Vietnam movies. There are no winners here, all of the characters find themselves suffering for the sake of political strife at large. Oliver Stone's film is heavy to its core, bringing the soldiers, and the civilians, sacrifice in war to poignant stand still as the staggering numbers of war causalities become people you've watched struggle through personal loss and moral marginalization. Truly one of the best war films ever made.

The Simpsons Movie (2007)

Surprisingly plot driven, unsurprisingly, very funny...

[7/10 · 27 July 2007]

Eighteen years after The Tracy Ullman Show the longtime creators of The Simpson's cannot be expected to create an hour and a half of brilliance when they've only tried this plot in 22 minute slots. The film reads much like the plot of every Simpson's episode you've ever seen (saying 'I've never seen an episode right now would be un-American). Homer does something that creates a problem, it tests his family's love for him, he does something ever dumber to prove his love and everyone learns something. This time Homer dumps his pig feces silo into the lake and creates major problems for Springfield. The plot, surprisingly, holds out for the duration of the film, it's nothing special, but it doesn't fail like most adult- cartoon films (See Family Guy: The Stewie Griffin Story or Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters). Best of all the film remains consistently funny. The first half hour is a non-stop barrage of jokes (including possibly the greatest Simpson's song ever, "Spider- Pig), after that the jokes thin in an attempt to keep the plot from treading water. But it holds up. In typical Simpson's fashion there are a few guest stars in the film, but they keep it to a minimum so they film doesn't begin to feel more like a reminiscence of the last eighteen seasons. It's more or less a lengthy episode; they don't even really abuse their ability to do things that they are unable to on TV. A little bit of enhanced animation, a 'god-damn,' a middle finger and Bart's penis sufficed. It is easily the best of the new adult-cartoon features that are appearing. And it's good enough to keep the audience excited over the prospect of a sequel, which is all but promised during the closing credits of the film.

There's Always Tomorrow (1956)

It's nearly criminal that this has not seen a re-release, a hidden gem in Sirk's filmography

[9/10 · 25 July 2007]

Virtually unknown among Sirk's catalog, which is reasonably when you consider his classic films like 'All That Heaven Allows' and 'Imitation of Life.' But for a film this good to have not seen a DVD release is criminal. I had the good fortune of being able to see this gem at a public screening this week. This is easily one of the best films to come out of the studio era. The film concerns Clifford Grove (Fred MacMurray) a toy developer, whose family neglects him. His wife bails out on their plans constantly, for the children, and the children pay no attention to their loving father. Clifford runs into an old flame, who is back in town and begins to innocently spend some time with her while she's in town. But his sneaky children become suspicious of his activities and start to follow him, his son begins to convince his siblings that their father is having in affair. Their begin to psychological torment their father and ultimately drive him to desire leaving his family. It's painfully dark, and Fred MacMurray is brilliant. The psychological effect on the viewer is tremendous. It's dark and hopeless. If children were shown this on the advent of puberty, no one would ever get married. The stark black and white cinematography is always telling more than the story, with sneaky, sweeping pans and dollies the film keeps you guessing the duration. It's the kind of backhanded studio film, that was rarely produced, where the director gives the audience only ambiguities for resolution, cyclical images void of hope for Clifford, but ambiguous enough to get by censors at the studio, enough to imply that maybe things turned out for old Clifford. This is studio-era cinema at it's best. If you get a chance to catch a screening of it on the new 35mm that is, supposedly, circulating art-house cinemas around the U.S., go. It's a shame that it is not more widely available, a radiant film from the 50s (though troubled and moderately sexist, symptomatic of the time period, but not so blatant that it can't be overlooked in the same way that critics can overlook the racism in 'Birth of a Nation').

Enter the Dragon (1973)

Not Bruce Lees best...or stupid Hollywood

[5/10 · 25 July 2007]

Bruce Lee's final film (excluding the posthumous 'Game of Death') is legendary among Kun- Fu fanatics, but wears the marks of the deconstruction of the 'Chinese' kung-fu film. The first time Hollywood took a financial interest in kung-fu, it indelibly feels more like a Hollywood action flick of the 70s than Lee's earlier work. Which, in my book, is a strike against it. Part of the charm and thrill of Bruce Lee films is the near kitchiness, an almost camp quality in their filming. The plot sags, forcing the plot forward, constantly pushing for the next battle in which Bruce Lee can take on hoards of unworthy opponents. The film takes itself more seriously than films like 'Fist of Fury' or 'The Big Boss.' It asks the viewer to believe whole-heartedly in the carefully choreographed battles. Han, the drug smuggling under-lord Lee attempts to take down, feels unmotivated, a collage of "bad-guy" stereotypes that never really feels motivated. The basic premise of the film, a fighting tournament on Han's private island, is given little prelude or reason and is quickly forgotten as the film pushes it's good vs. evil theme, which, of course, means more fighting. Though it's legacy asserts otherwise, 'Enter the Dragon' is the least enjoyable of Lee's films, the least authentic, and the least motivated. It craves the bigger, more Hollywood, premise and pretenses, drugs and gangsters versus the peasantry and craft of fighting that was spotlighted more in Lee's domestic films. Nonetheless essential viewing for its flaws, it still remains the least engaging and least enjoyable of the (too few) films in Bruce Lee's career.

The Good German (2006)

Better than you think, unless you think it's going to be better than the godfather

[7/10 · 23 July 2007]

Critics have been unjustifiably hard on Steven Soderbergh's stylized film on Post-WWII Berlin. Most criticism has noted a weak plot while remaining very positive on the look of the film. And without a doubt the film is beautiful. It is stylization at its best. And not Coen brother's fashion surreal-retro-stylization, this is authentic. Soderbergh, who usually works as his own cinematographer and editor under pseudonyms, has made this film so perfectly stylized it could have easily been a 40's Billy Wilder film (sans-multiple witticisms). The over-exposed, harsh black and white is beautiful, stark and ominous. Some of the best retro-cinematography in years.

The plot has been unfairly criticized. The adaptation is not what an audience would expect from a film about the sectioned post-WWII Berlin. While using the war, rising tensions between the U.S. and Russia, and the damage, and cost of Nazi led Germany; it remains set on smaller things, human relationships. The plot is more in the realm of Bergman or Fellini. It begins fast paced, seeming to foreshadow a film about treason, the coming US/Russian battles, but it becomes more engaging and surprising as it changes its focus onto issues of trust, how politics affect out everyday reality. It will surprise your expectations, and if the audience isn't ready for that the film will feel flat as a war piece.

I do not mean to assert that 'The Good German' is perfect, it is flawed and sometimes scattered. But it's major flaw is, well, let's give it a name to help describe it. We'll call this flaw 'Tobey Maguire.' Fortunately. His overly enraged and seemingly unmotivated character is knocked off by the thirty-minute mark, when the film begins to become most interesting. (Weird coincidence, hmmm) Though, I do feel for Maguire, he is cursed with the Matthew Broderick disease. It was first discovered in the mid-90's when audiences continued to mistake Broderick characters for Ferris Bueller, then becoming awe-stricken when they realized the Matthew Broderick can't age.

Clooney and Blanchett are great; Soderbergh's direction is at its best. (You know those increasingly rare moments when you forget he directed 'Erin Brockovich' or 'Ocean's Eleven' and its bastard children). Don't expect 'All Quiet on the Western Front' and you'll love this film for it's synthesis of paced late-60's Italian plots and the looks of 40's-50's American noirs. And if it feels sluggish at first, just remember Tobey Maguire will be dead in ten to twenty minutes.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Please, no more

[5/10 · 20 July 2007]

The third installment of the Spiderman franchise has left me praying that someone holds out to thwart the production of a 4th. It's becoming as ridiculous as the chicken fights on Family Guy. The effects are spectacular as usual, revolutionary, six years ago. But there is less of the sweeping shots of Spidey swinging nimbly from building to building and more prolonged, mid-air, action sequences that remind me more of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon than a comic book film.

Painstakingly dragged out to two and a half hours, the film consists of alternating scenes of Peter Parker trying to make things right in his relationship with Mary Jane in overly emotional discussions filled with trailer-worthy one-liners. The other half of the film, where they skip the plot and fall back on lots of flying through the air, is constant action. From the battle at the beginning with Green Goblin, through the introduction of Sandman and Venom, there are enough villains to create a new combination of fighters for each lengthy sequence. In the films defense the effects for Sandman and Venom are awe-inspiring. (See clip below of the Sandman's first appearance, it's great, but it's two minutes long.)

The main issue? The Peter Parker/Mary Jane relationship is unconvincing and forced. I never believed their interaction once during the film. Their separation and Parker's intentions of marrying Mary Jane never feel real. Which is saying something in a film where mutant black goo takes over two men's' bodies, a man trips into a nuclear experiment and has his cells fused with sand and where Topher Grace isn't a stoner. Despite all of these things, the relationship between Kristen Dunst and Tobey Maguire was the least believable thing here.

The final battle between the Green Goblin/Spiderman team and Sandman and Venom is pretty amazing, but the film has just gotten out of hand by that point. The scene is more laborious than the ending of Return of the King. And with four superheroes battling it out I'm left to wonder what we have done to deserve Raimi's consideration of a fourth Spiderman film.

300 (2006)

visually elegant, but reads like a memo from the pentagon

[6/10 · 19 July 2007]

I, personally, love the story of the 300 Spartans, it's really hard not to, so I was biased from the start. On one hand I want to point out the historical discrepancies and reference books and other films, you know: what they could have done better, changed, where they didn't need to fudge on history. But its unreasonable to judge a film about comic book visuals and video game violence based upon its historical relevance. That said it's not a bad movie. You get what you're looking for, amazing visuals, great landscapes, endless battles, homoeroticism, cheesy one-liners in the tradition of Die Hard. (I thought maybe they used up all the one-liners in the trailer, but was I wrong, there is a whole cache of them lined up for the audience.)

If all you're searching for is an engaging, mind numbing, gore filled two hours, this will surely do the trick. But if you're a sucker for a good story or solid acting you find this film a bit disappointing. The story of the 300 Spartans is spruced up a bit to be slightly more relevant for the modern, post 9/11 American audience. There are lots of politically induced soliloquies about freedom not being free and dying for your country. (Not that I'm attempting to pan the basic ideal here, that's another discussion entirely, but I think I might have heard these lines somewhere before…) There is also an overwhelming sense of the propagation of the east/west binary. The east, obviously being the Persian army, is portrayed as enslaving barbarians, exotic, an object of observation and curiosity, to be pondered but not participated in. This is a point of historical departure that feels phony and deliberate. Truly at this point in time there is a sort of binary, but the Spartans are portrayed with American values and the Persians with no values but the hope of becoming gods in their own right. A concept that really has no place being perpetuated at any time. I'm not saying don't see this, or trying to condone censorship, but merely pointing out that this is a symptom of America's post 9/11 terror hysteria. The film is fun, and incredibly well shot. But the plot is problematic, at best, and is the kind fake "independent" film that Hollywood is beginning to churn out at a rapid pace to consume the growing video game/comic book demographic of film-goers that Tarantino has bred to believe that good films contain breasts and unrealistic amounts of blood. (not that it's always bad, I still love Oldboy and there is nothing there but senseless, gratuitous violence, it's just poorly done in 300)

Bedtime for Bonzo (1951)

Of presidents and chimps

[6/10 · 18 July 2007]

I'm going to be honest; I kind of liked this movie. I, until a few weeks ago, had no idea that this film even existed, I'd only heard the phrase, "Bedtime for Bonzo," uttered by grandparents on a few scattered occasions. But after it was recommended to me, and I began to talk about it, I've realized that countless people of my generation have heard their parents and grandparents speak these words, and have no idea about the movie. So I couldn't resist finding out what the catalyst for this cliché really was.

Which brings me to my second issue in reviewing this film. Where do I come from? Or, rather, what angle? It's been pretty much universally panned by significant critics as well as in member reviews on sites like Netflix, Flixster, Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, etc. etc. But how do you write about a movie in which a future U.S. President has kidnapped a monkey from a university in order to impress the dean, who he wishes will become his future father-in-law? One of the key scenes in this film, one where I would say a lot of the meaning is hidden is when The Gipper is up in a tree chasing Bonzo. But Bonzo is much smarter than our 40th president; he has climbed onto the roof, stolen Ronnie's glasses from his bureau drawer and is climbing on the phone wires, after he dials 911. The police and fire department show up and help Ronnie down the tree, and he begins to tell them that he was chasing a monkey with glass and clothes. They don't believe him, obviously, because that's how films work, if everyone agreed and worked together you get 'Batman and Robin,' which we can all agree is no fun to watch. Ah, America. That's all. Didn't thrill you? That's basically how the whole film is. It's got a certain camp appeal, which is definitely working for it. It's really just the notion of watching a president take care of a monkey and treat it like a baby that's so appealing. But the novelty never wears off. Really. I could have watch two more hours of it and not gotten bored. Outside of that camp aspect it's a comedy of values wherein Ronnie learns that the woman he was going for, trying to impress with the monkey stunt, is not for him and that the woman he hired as a nanny for Bonzo is really more his style, more wholesome. There's not much in the way of plot, or interesting shots, or anything really. It's an old studio film. Don't expect too much. But I think if all of America were forced to watch this we may have not allowed the Terminator to become Governor of California. And I won't persecute, that goes for Minnesota and Jesse "The Body" Venture as well. My suggestion after watching this: serialize it. I want a whole series of films where ex-presidents have a live-in week with Bonzo, allow zaniness to ensue, cut and print.

Crank (2006)

No film has felt like a bigger waste of time since I accidentally saw The Santa Clause

[4/10 · 16 July 2007]

Crank has been reviewed over and over as a 'high octane' or 'most fun you'll have at the movies' kind of film. Contrary to what cliché-ridden reviewers and mindless thrill seekers may tell you, this film is a little hollow. It has the climactic thrills or driving your friend to the hospital as he has a heart attack only to find out that all he needed was a couple Gas-X and to quit eating pizza three times a day.

From the first the film spins, buzzes, warps and pulses through one day in the life of Chev Chelios, a hit man for the mob who has been murdered, kind of. He's been injected with a poison that should kill him in one hour. The film follows his frantic last day as he seeks to do right be his girlfriend while simultaneously reaping his merciless revenge on everyone who has done him wrong.

The energy rarely wanes throughout the film's arduous hour and a half. The writer/director team of Neveldine and Taylor penned this masterpiece in four days (as they boast on the commentary track); the screenplay feels like film school geeks who couldn't wait for the next Tarantino or Guy Ritchie film to be released so they decided to make a high octane film, devoid of plot, that pretends to weave many threads into the main vain. All of the subplots are really only breezed over though, making them feel thin. The story is fragile and asks a great leap of faith in the viewer to buy into this world.

I hate reviews that only bash so I'm going to follow the old matriarchal proverb that begins, "if you've got nothing nice to say…" and just end the review by saying, without giving the ending away, that a film this packed with action, senseless violence (that just doesn't entertain in the same way 'Oldboy' does) does not benefit from a sentimentalist, moderately surrealist ending that they give. It doesn't satisfy and leaves you wondering why you weren't reading a book, fostering a stray cat or volunteering at the local food pantry.

Through a Glass Darkly (1961)

I don't know what to put here....it's damn good. watch it

[9/10 · 15 July 2007]

Through a Glass Darkly marks one of the first collaborations between Bergman and his long time cinematographer Sven Nykvist (who passed away this last September). Nykvist shot films as varied as Lasse Hallestroms 'What's Eating Gilbert Grape' to Woody Allen's 'Crimes and Misdemeanors.' Nykvist's touch is present throughout the film, a style that begins to become a part of Bergman's signature mise-en-scene.

Bergman's screenplay is transitional because of it's scarcity of saturation. Using a cast of only four and only one location, the family's country home on an island off the coast of Sweden. Karin (Harriet Andersson) is slowly going mad, her family (fiancée, father and brother) are trying to understand her and not send her away, trying to let her know that things may be alright as she descends into hysteria, talking to walls, waiting for god to come out of the closet.

The film is quite simply a masterpiece. A portrayal of descent into madness and the effect on others that feels more grounded in reality than even the best of films on madness (see: Shock Corridor – Samuel Fuller, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest – Milos Foreman, or The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada – Tommy Lee Jones) Nykvist's mostly static camera gives the film a brooding sense of anticipation, lingering motionlessly, allowing the actors to move freely into deep frames, marginalizing themselves as they move about the large empty frame. The camera even goes so far as to linger a little too long at times, waiting long after the actors have exited the frame, making sure that the audience is aware that the hollowness, these spaces they live and think in exist without them, these voids the audience is watching never go away.

These sentiments are echoed by the well penned script. The father's regret over the madness of his deceased wife, the husbands jealousy, his inability to act, the nearly sexual love the brother feels for Karin, his isolation and inability to get over his immaturity. It's a delicately woven, exquisitely beautiful film on the landscapes of the mind and the solitude of life and the search for god. A good introduction to the psychological drama of Bergman for anyone unfamiliar with one cinema's masters.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

Why Wouldn't you see this? Do you not like fun?

[8/10 · 11 July 2007]

he film seems to come from an angle that wishes to allow the viewer unfamiliar with Harry's tribulations through his fifth year at Hogwart's to catch on and enjoy the over-the-top, action riddled film. Simultaneously it is designed to give special winks and nods to the, probably larger, demographic of viewers who are familiar with the novels and are forced to accept that films, inherently, must negate some of the smaller plot lines of the book in order to be successful.

New director to the Potter series, David Yates, seems to enhance the growing sensation of darkness in the films. Even more so than the Alfonso Cuaton directed 'Prisoner of Azkaban." The film works as most of the series does: loads of suspense, long action sequences where the 'good' do battle with the 'evil,' and slightly nauseating emotive sequences in which Harry falls in love and gets Connor Oberst angsty with Dumbledore.

The film is fun. It's a great summer blockbuster film, don't expect anything new from the series, it's the old tricks in new settings, but this is the best blockbuster film to come out this year. What is interesting to note is the maturation of the direction of these films. The more intricate and brooding plot lines have allowed the film to be shot a little hazier, straying a little from the well worn formulas of filming action. It feels less and less like a young adults film and more like a Terry Gilliam film sans sex and drugs.

Black Sheep (2006)

gore-porn meets comedic midnight movie

[7/10 · 7 July 2007]

f you've watched the trailer for this film, you are going to get exactly what you expect. The basic premise here is that genetic development of sheep for farming has created a mutant strain of sheep that are blood-thirsty. If you somehow manage to expect The Godfather instead of Evil Dead you will be greatly disappointed. But for what this film is, it's great.

A combination of the growing camp midnight movie genre and gore-porn, it's visually intense and a riot. It's comic brilliance. One of it's major assets is that it actually pulls off it's notion of conceptual humor. There aren't really any great one-liners or a surprisingly dense plot, but the concept of killer sheep is consistently funny throughout the film as director/ writer Joanthon King continues to take the film to the next level.

OK, so it's certainly not perfect (I only gave it 3 stars). The acting is patchy, Danielle Mason (who plays 'Experience') is terrible, every line a strain, her character makes the rather short film feel much longer until she shuts up and the fast paced sheep attacks resume. The plot is pretty shallow, while remaining functional to the sensationalist entertainment of the film. (I mean, really, it's about mutant sheep.) But those are the standards Evil Dead prepared the genre for. All in all I said Jonathon King's film is a success. It's not brilliant, but see it, it's not disappointing.

Planet of the Apes (1968)

If you expect genius you're dumb

[6/10 · 6 July 2007]

The image of Charlton Heston kissing a monkey is nearly as priceless as watching Charlton Heston play a Mexican in 'Touch of Evil.' There's something about him that tickles my generation, or maybe it's just me. But watching Heston act in an ensemble of ape-people seems too appropriate. It's about what you expect when you press play. Absurd, ultra- masculine, and the plot line is about ankle deep. Watching the film this week was the first time I'd made an effort to see 'Plant of the Apes,' somehow I feel as though, as a child, watching it on TNT or PBS or whatever channel that plays the same 4 B movies every month, that there was more going on, that the film made sense, but that feeling is now gone. 'Planet of the Apes' just kind of ends at one point, nothing really happens, a lot of tension building for nothing. The famous Statue of Liberty scene ("You Maniacs! You blew it up!) just kind of appears and you wonder, what happened to the rest of the plot?

Some people may argue that the plot isn't the point, that it's really a B-movie cloaked as an early blockbuster and that the campy qualities of the film are the point of watching it. OK. I can dig that. Because it's really an awful film. Irredeemably awful. But that's just if you take it seriously, with a grain of salt, it's OK, two and half stars. That's like 5 out of ten, and that's half way to perfect.

It's funny. Heston is really just classic Heston, Stallone-funny before steroids were chic. I mean, I guess how else do you take it, he's with a bunch of talking apes, but the film seems to want to take itself more seriously, like it should have some resonating message about America and humanity. But it doesn't, it's all lost and muddled in the mediocre plot that just never really develops. The new version (Tim Burton and Mark Wahlberg) tries to resolve those issues, tie up the plot, give it a message, and in that context it's a more successful film, but it's a worse film. I just don't think America (or possibly the world) is ready to receive a message from talking apes.

The Hidden Blade (2004)

A beautiful reworking of a classic samurai story

[8/10 · 27 June 2007]

This film is easily one of the best samurai films to emerge since Kurosawa's 'Ran' in 85. The thin color palette, graceful use of mise-en-scene, dense landscapes (the winter ones are especial beautiful) are resonate in the tone of 60-70s samurai masters like Okamoto. But the story, though traditional, resonates with more modern concerns. It's more a reflection on the past to try to understand the present. The beginning presents the main character as a lower class samurai struggling to adapt to the changing landscapes of Japan. Trying to read English and Dutch and failing to learn how to use firearms and other Western military devices and tactics. It's an intense samurai film in the style of Japanese classics, but dense with application to the modern world struggles. An alternative view of the samurai film that's worth a couple of hours.

Apocalypto (2006)

he tried so hard to make it tolerable for the audience that you almost want to tolerate it

[6/10 · 26 June 2007]

What appears to be Braveheart in Mexico, with a stuffed jaguar, turns to be a much smaller, more fragile film. Mel Gibson seems to have, at least initially, found a story that takes a major period of Latin history and made a small, intriguing film. That's how I felt after the first half hour. Then he brings in elements of Predator, Evil Dead and the plot-negating ending of an M. Night Shamalyan film.

There is a real lack of consistency in the film. I could say many blanket statements that would need an amendment at the end so I could maintain my dignity. An example may illuminate the watery oil consistency of the film. I say: the film is beautifully shot, except for that part where the main character is hunted through the woods like Predator, when Gibson tries to get stylized, hip and fresh and comes off like an old man consulting a manual on how to raise the tension in a film. Or I could say: The acting is pretty good for non-actors, except for the part with the fake jaguar, which, I hate to include any disclosure of events from the film, but the jaguar attack is like something from Army of Darkness, It is clearly a doll and not a jaguar and the camera just keeps lingering over the lifeless eye of the jaguar. My ten-year- old brother shot an attack sequence a lot like that on my parents VHS camcorder. He held the leg of the doll that wasn't on screen and shook it over his friends face. Basically what happens in Apocalypto.

The film loses all humanistic qualities by the end. Everything redeemable about the film is thrown out the window as the film descends into the classic world of camp films. In a few years, when film snobs decide to get over Mel Gibson's anti-Semitism and watch this, it could easily be a campy midnight classic. The film ultimately fails, while keeping you on the edge of your seat wondering when it will whirlpool into crap. Keep waiting, it will.

www.mplsreview.blogspot.com

The PianoTuner of EarthQuakes (2004)

I don't know that I buy the plot, but entrancing nonetheless

[7/10 · 10 June 2007]

The credits rolled and I sat staring, the afterimage of a burning white face and bench buried in the snow still resonating in my eyes. I was sure if I was blown away, confused, enraged or all three. The Piano Tuner of Earthquakes is riddled with problems: the unnecessarily overbearing voice-over exposition during the first forty minutes, the thin plot lines in the opening five minutes. The Quay Brothers seem to not be entirely sure what this film is about, I don't get the sense that there was a mastermind behind this warped world, like I do while watching Mulholland Drive.

That said, it is a very interesting film and, if for no other reason, this is a film that should be seen for being one of the most beautifully shot films of the last five years. The dried color palette, the hazy, dream-like quality of the main character's POV and the stop motion animation all combine to create a film rich in texture and beauty. It seems that The Brothers Quay, though maybe not the most talented of writers (this, I believe being only their second feature length as compared to stacks of rich short films), they are certainly masters of the medium visually. It's an intense, droning, paced film. It's slow and garbled. But it's beautiful.

Fay Grim (2006)

A perfect follow-up, a not entirely perfect film

[7/10 · 7 June 2007]

Henry Fool is a better film. But this is the perfect way to follow-up a film like 'Henry Fool.' To take Henry very seriously, his 'lies' and his mysterious aura. Even the opening shot of 'Henry Fool' when Simon puts his ear to the ground as Henry comes walking over the hill is more fully manifest through 'Fay Grim.' The over-the-top jokes, that are more or less meta-jokes (about the writing of the film and the jokes themselves), are good but the opening of the film is a little saturated in them. Also Hartley's use of Dutch angles throughout the film is jarring, yes, it's intention, but it feels forced and over-used, it goes beyond jarring to, what I'd like to call, annoying. It's a flawed film, but a must see for any Hartley or 'Henry Fool' fan.

And don't listen to stupid reviews, don't watch this unless you've seen the first film. The intrigue, satire and wit of this movie is totally lost if you haven't seen Henry Fool. It's a sequel. That's just dumb.

The Twilight Samurai (2002)

A Contemporary look at the anti-samurai film

[9/10 · 7 June 2007]

The trailer and posters, and other overused and trite forms of pre-determining what a film will be like are misleading. the Twilight Samurai feels like it should be just another samurai flick where a impoverished peasant finally reveals his past and his finely tuned samurai technique to his family, enemies or a master. But there is so much more to this film. Yamada turns the classic tales of the samurai on their head, But its more than just an inversion, it separates itself from other anti-samurai films, like Sword of Doom or Sword of the Beast. The cinematography is bleak and brooding, less like 21st century Japanese cinema and more in the style of Dogme 95 or even earlier Scandinavian filmmakers. Hiroyuki Sanada is phenomenal as 'Twilight' Seibei, he portrays the impoverished retainer perfectly, allowing Yamada's film to continue to exceed expectations. A great play on the traditional samurai movie that is every bit as intense and emotional as Rashomon or Harikiri.

Lucky Louie (2006–2007)

A disappointing experience for a fan

[6/10 · 5 June 2007]

I finished watching the first season of Lucky Louie this week, and to say the least I'm quite disappointed. It's not really awful but, oh, I don't know, it's so complicated. Louis CK is great, he's one of the greatest comedians I've ever seen. He's not much of an actor but neither is Jerry Seinfeld or Larry David or Mitch Hedberg, comedy is not necessarily about acting. So that aside, I'm still disappointed. It's like when you really love a band and know the tunes they put on that EP that probably sold about 20 copies and then they put out a full length (you know, something that will actually sell) and they put the same dam songs on it. And you wonder, why did you do that? I thought we were moving on, you've recorded this before. that's what watching the only season of Lucky Louie is like if you've seen all of his stand-up repeatedly. I haven't seen his new stand-up special, I'm sure it will be great, but Lucky Louie is nothing more than a complete season of acting out his old, old comedy routines. Which is good, at times, like when he is explaining his nightmares about Hell in the confessional to the father. Priceless. But that only really takes you so far before you say, wait a second the premise of every episode is that he's left in charge of his daughter, he messes it up, his wife gets mad, they make up, everyone is a better person, until next episode when it all begins again. The show is fine, its humorous, but it isn't original, its a little redundant, it lacks the creative spin on traditional topics like marriage and kids that Louis CK made his name on. Worth a viewing, if nothing else, so that you know why HBO pulled the plug on a show that had great potential and just had not come into it's own yet.

Torment (1944)

An intriguing, though not perfect, must-see

[6/10 · 4 June 2007]

The new eclipse series by the Criterion Collection is great for bringing cinephiles everywhere the opportunity to see films like this. The film is not perfect nor does it entirely submerge the viewer, but for a real fan of cinema, or more particularly Bergman, you can ask for nothing more. The film reveals Bergman's roots, it has his signature dark, brooding characters and themes, desolate landscapes, if not, at times, his own imagistic stamp.

The story, however, is maybe the engaging side of mediocrity. The film draws you into the downward spiral of the main characters (the central focus of the story) without making the world seem hopeless and desolate. But it doesn't reach the pre-poop-your-pants euphoria it seems to promise. It's almost there, but doesn't really ever clinch it.

The spiral of these characters is hidden within the world of the film. The torment, is silent, removed, intricate. The film is not what I expected from the early Bergman collection, and is not perfect, but is well worth the rent, for it's politics of the body, insight into Bergman's work and a subtle story that shames American suspense's absurdity, it's over-the-top plot structures, and its star driven sales. It's real, dark, flawed yet engaging. Worth a viewing or two.