This is my final blog post on savage desire.
I haven't posted anything in several weeks so this was pretty close to inevitable. I struggle with how I should be evaluating film. I hate rating them. I just want an accurate demonstration of my experience. I don't want a rating to immediately categorize my liking of something. I want to be able to emphasize moments more than the work in its entirety, or at least moreso. I've also just sort of burnt myself out. I'm ready for something new to fill that void.
Reading.
This month I'v been reading at a rate unrivaled since 6th grade. And now I think I'm enjoying it more. I'm able to somewhat ignore the constant pressure to complete a book. I enjoy the process, the details, the style, everything. Perhaps the most revolutionary realization: it's not what happens, it's how and why it happens. I've been making my way through the first book of A Song of Ice and Fire and despite having watched the television series already (all available seasons), and I'm still riveted by it. It's just expanding on a universe--very reminiscent of my experience with Gone Girl.
So I'll likely create a new blog, but I'm not sure when. I'm also not sure what I'd write about. I feel it's almost necessary for me to remove myself as the subject of my writing. But that's easier said than done I presume.
I do not intend to delete this blog. If I create another blog, I'll surely link to it on here. Farewell.
7.28.2015
6.28.2015
Viewings (6/14-6/27)
I watched many movies over the past two weeks. I've ordered them by the quality of my cinematic experience.
1 Inland Empire
2 Breathless - Force Majeure - Kicking and Screaming
3 Melancholia - Sunset Boulevard
4 Mad Max: Fury Road
5 Gone Girl
6 Jarhead - Vivre sa Vie - To the Wonder
6.27.2015
Timing of Posts
I've fallen behind my self-imposed deadlines by failing to enforce them. My posts are clearly structured as one each week, for the viewings of the previous. I'm not sure what I'm gonna do, but hear this. My nature has caused this site to be structured, but I realize now that I kind of hate that rigidity. I'm drawn to film precisely due to its insights into life, which often surround the imperfections "behind the curtain" so-to-speak. So this blog should evolve, hopefully content-wise especially. My interest in culture is so much larger than simply film, and I hope to somehow convey that to whoever's reading this.
It's amazing, I've once again written myself into a place I wish I wasn't. Let me be clear, don't anticipate postings, because I'm not even sure when they'll come. I really despise writing things when I'm not in the mood to write. So when I'm in such a mood, I don't write.
It's amazing, I've once again written myself into a place I wish I wasn't. Let me be clear, don't anticipate postings, because I'm not even sure when they'll come. I really despise writing things when I'm not in the mood to write. So when I'm in such a mood, I don't write.
6.25.2015
Gone Girl, David Fincher
I initially watched this film in theaters, and loved it. I immediately declared it my favorite Fincher. This month, I impulsively checked out the book at the library, and was not disappointed. Remember the insufferable cliché, "the book was muuuuuch better?" I've always interpreted that to mean, "read the book before the watching the movie." Well, that certainly didn't work for On the Road. In fact, reading the book prior made me feel outright disdain for the film. But seriously, sample size! I shouldn't use that as gospel. Gone Girl, the book, has really made me reconsider my stance on what comes first.
The book was an enjoyable read, one of the best in awhile. The alternating POVs worked well, adding so much to Nick and Amy's characters. Flynn's writing of Amy is amazing (Sorry, I had to). She's one of my favorite characters I've read, sort of a likable version of Cathy Trask. I'm still not sure if I like that comp, but I'll leave it. Nick is an oaf who never can quite shed his oafish-ness. In terms of castings, I actually liked Affleck, Pike and Coon the most, based on their representation of the book's characters. I didn't like Tyler Perry's character as much, but that was mostly due to the deviation from the book. The book really went into Bolt's insane lawyer-ness, and the cool dynamic with Bolt's wife (Their law firm is Bolt & Bolt! Seriously.). Neil Patrick Harris was also good, but the book was betttter... Desi Collings is just that guy. That guy who gets off on the misfortune of women, who relishes playing the savior. A glaring omission from the film is Desi's weird Oedipal stuff with his mom, who resembles Amy. I really didn't like Boney and Gilpin in the film, REALLY didn't like them. Flynn's description of them led me to believe they weren't simply an opportunity to plug in two more attractive faces. I wanted the authentic Missourian look, think Fargo-lite, the McDormand ilk. Gilpin was a nothing. He was the dude bro along for the ride. Boney was the detective detectiving. Gilpin was there simply for the eyebrow raise. Boney was Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive without a personality.
I don't really fault the film for not being a perfect adaptation. I just wanted certain scenes to manifest onscreen, and when they didn't I was disappointed. One scene I wasn't disappointed with (SPOILER INCOMING) was Amy's offing of Desi. It really felt like Fincher, and was unquestionably my favorite part of the film.
Outside of what I've mentioned, there's one reason I loved the book so much more. It's Amy. It's post-woodshed Amy. Actual Amy. Plot-wise, the ending of the book had some more kinks, where both Nick and Amy were essentially battling to control public perception. Amy simply outmaneuvered him. There was also the stronger reinforcement of the idea of compatibility. It became clear to me that Amy and Nick were compatible, something that seemed incomprehensible for most of the story. I can't find any reason to not fully endorse this book. Read it.
The book was an enjoyable read, one of the best in awhile. The alternating POVs worked well, adding so much to Nick and Amy's characters. Flynn's writing of Amy is amazing (Sorry, I had to). She's one of my favorite characters I've read, sort of a likable version of Cathy Trask. I'm still not sure if I like that comp, but I'll leave it. Nick is an oaf who never can quite shed his oafish-ness. In terms of castings, I actually liked Affleck, Pike and Coon the most, based on their representation of the book's characters. I didn't like Tyler Perry's character as much, but that was mostly due to the deviation from the book. The book really went into Bolt's insane lawyer-ness, and the cool dynamic with Bolt's wife (Their law firm is Bolt & Bolt! Seriously.). Neil Patrick Harris was also good, but the book was betttter... Desi Collings is just that guy. That guy who gets off on the misfortune of women, who relishes playing the savior. A glaring omission from the film is Desi's weird Oedipal stuff with his mom, who resembles Amy. I really didn't like Boney and Gilpin in the film, REALLY didn't like them. Flynn's description of them led me to believe they weren't simply an opportunity to plug in two more attractive faces. I wanted the authentic Missourian look, think Fargo-lite, the McDormand ilk. Gilpin was a nothing. He was the dude bro along for the ride. Boney was the detective detectiving. Gilpin was there simply for the eyebrow raise. Boney was Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive without a personality.
I don't really fault the film for not being a perfect adaptation. I just wanted certain scenes to manifest onscreen, and when they didn't I was disappointed. One scene I wasn't disappointed with (SPOILER INCOMING) was Amy's offing of Desi. It really felt like Fincher, and was unquestionably my favorite part of the film.
Outside of what I've mentioned, there's one reason I loved the book so much more. It's Amy. It's post-woodshed Amy. Actual Amy. Plot-wise, the ending of the book had some more kinks, where both Nick and Amy were essentially battling to control public perception. Amy simply outmaneuvered him. There was also the stronger reinforcement of the idea of compatibility. It became clear to me that Amy and Nick were compatible, something that seemed incomprehensible for most of the story. I can't find any reason to not fully endorse this book. Read it.
6.16.2015
Viewings (6/7-6/13)
Once Upon a Time in the West
Primer
On the Road
Alice in Wonderland
Claire's Knee
Nightcrawler
Whiplash
The Searchers
Prisoners
Nine films is too much for one week. I had three regrettable experiences. The first was On the Road, which I'd been looking forward to watch for quite some time. I'd read the book this winter after seeing the incredibly stacked cast for this film. The book was fine, I guess. It certainly portrayed the beat generation in a specific way, one that made me understand the beat's significance. The weird thing about the book is that I didn't relate to anyone, but I really admired what they spoke about at times. The book takes place in almost an alternate reality for me. All of the characters seemed to described peripherally, and Kerouac's style doesn't get inside motives like, say, Steinbeck in East of Eden. This ambiguity doesn't seem as present in the film. The most obvious example is Dean and Carlo's relationship, which I loved in the book. It seemed that they just "got" each other. The film made it completely homosexual, as if that was what mattered. The book also is a reflection of the title, as Sal Paradise being "on the road" is prominently featured. The grind of actually being without a permanent home base is explored. The overall feel of the book is developed through this grind. In the film, the road is minimized, mostly due to time constraints. It seems the film is just hurriedly firing through the main plot points so it can call itself an adaptation. In this way it resembles an empty skeleton of the book, as the plot isn't really changed, it just loses its significance.
The failure of this film really illuminated some issues with adaptations. For this novel to be onscreen, it needs to 4-5 hours at least to catch the spirit of the beat. Another option would be to change the story but still retain the overall feeling that's left. More attention needs to be paid to making an adaptation actual art, rather than a copy of someone else's.
My second disappointment was Claire's Knee, my first experience to Rohmer. I doubt I'll watch another, as this seemed almost to be a farce. It was a parody of Lolita in some ways, and I often found myself uncomfortable. I just don't see the artistry at all.
My third disappointment and final watch of the week was Prisoners, a polarizing film to the critics. The cast is stacked, but the writing is shit. The story has some potential, but it seems they were just accumulating a massive pile of stereotypes and clichés to create a misdirecting story that they think the audience wants. Jackman is Bryan Mills with a lesser skillset. Maria Bello is what everyone thinks the grieving mother is. Terrence Howard is Terrence Howard, who fucking cares. Gyllenhaal is good, nowhere near Nightcrawler good though. His character has solved every case he's been assigned, which, I can tell you, as a watcher of The Wire, is utter bullshit. Please try to make it somewhat believable. Or else showcase his excellent detective skills, which they didn't. I just despised how everyone fit into a caricature. This film isn't something you should experience, it was created almost exclusively to create a tug-of-war within a stupid audience.
I also watched good movies this week! I watched two westerns, a genre I hadn't ventured into in years (Django does not count). Sergio Leone really showed mastery of the genre in Once Upon a Time in the West. His awareness of how the viewer feels while watching seems so great. This is especially present in the opening scene he bathes in suspense. The actual plot was average, I didn't find layers which were concealing greater ideas. It was simply a good western.
The second western I watched was John Ford's The Searchers, which, after half a century has climbed into the top ten all-time consideration according to many critics. Not top ten western, top-TEN. I watched this expecting greatness, and it is. The landscape combined with the Technicolor look is wonderful. The plot is excellent as well, it feels meaningful. I really love all of the characters. I'm not sure if I'll continue in westerns though, at least not Leone or Ford. This is regarded as Ford's greatest accomplishment, and I'm fine if this is all I see.
I also watched Primer. I really adore the writing. For awhile I've known of my love for what sounds smart, and this is not exception. I didn't understand what happened, I doubt I ever will, I'm not sure I care.
And finally! I was able to watch Alice in Wonderland! I've been wanting to see Mia in this for awhile, and she was exactly as I'd hoped. I generally like these type of adaptations just for the light that they show. There's so much hope! I pretty much loved everything for the first 3/4 of the movie with the exception of Johnny Depp, whom I hated. The end kinda went off the rails. We just weren't able logically justify Alice's decision to kill the Jabberwocky. I just didn't see it. That not to fault the story, just the adaptation. The CGI of the Jabberwocky also sucked, but that's just existing technology, so hopefully that's better in the sequel.
My final two watches (not chronologically), were both from this past Oscar season. The first is Whiplash. Chazelle digs deep in this one, exploring what it takes to become great. I liked this film, but never attached emotionally, at least not entirely. I'm not sure what to say about this one. It's good, not transcendent.
The best film I watched this week was Dan Gilroy's Nightcrawler. Lou Bloom is one of my favorite characters in cinema. His obsessive drive to become great, in a capitalistic sense, is riveting. He's an indictment of John Galt. I apologize for that, I know nothing of Ayn Rand. But he gives the people what they want, and what they want is disturbing. His creative vision is unparalleled, and nothing stands in the way of it. His dedication to his craft is enviable. The film surrounding him is also good, but not great. There was no full circle-type evaluation of Bloom to conclude, which is why this film isn't perfect. But it still gets my full endorsement.
Primer
On the Road
Alice in Wonderland
Claire's Knee
Nightcrawler
Whiplash
The Searchers
Prisoners
Nine films is too much for one week. I had three regrettable experiences. The first was On the Road, which I'd been looking forward to watch for quite some time. I'd read the book this winter after seeing the incredibly stacked cast for this film. The book was fine, I guess. It certainly portrayed the beat generation in a specific way, one that made me understand the beat's significance. The weird thing about the book is that I didn't relate to anyone, but I really admired what they spoke about at times. The book takes place in almost an alternate reality for me. All of the characters seemed to described peripherally, and Kerouac's style doesn't get inside motives like, say, Steinbeck in East of Eden. This ambiguity doesn't seem as present in the film. The most obvious example is Dean and Carlo's relationship, which I loved in the book. It seemed that they just "got" each other. The film made it completely homosexual, as if that was what mattered. The book also is a reflection of the title, as Sal Paradise being "on the road" is prominently featured. The grind of actually being without a permanent home base is explored. The overall feel of the book is developed through this grind. In the film, the road is minimized, mostly due to time constraints. It seems the film is just hurriedly firing through the main plot points so it can call itself an adaptation. In this way it resembles an empty skeleton of the book, as the plot isn't really changed, it just loses its significance.
The failure of this film really illuminated some issues with adaptations. For this novel to be onscreen, it needs to 4-5 hours at least to catch the spirit of the beat. Another option would be to change the story but still retain the overall feeling that's left. More attention needs to be paid to making an adaptation actual art, rather than a copy of someone else's.
My second disappointment was Claire's Knee, my first experience to Rohmer. I doubt I'll watch another, as this seemed almost to be a farce. It was a parody of Lolita in some ways, and I often found myself uncomfortable. I just don't see the artistry at all.
My third disappointment and final watch of the week was Prisoners, a polarizing film to the critics. The cast is stacked, but the writing is shit. The story has some potential, but it seems they were just accumulating a massive pile of stereotypes and clichés to create a misdirecting story that they think the audience wants. Jackman is Bryan Mills with a lesser skillset. Maria Bello is what everyone thinks the grieving mother is. Terrence Howard is Terrence Howard, who fucking cares. Gyllenhaal is good, nowhere near Nightcrawler good though. His character has solved every case he's been assigned, which, I can tell you, as a watcher of The Wire, is utter bullshit. Please try to make it somewhat believable. Or else showcase his excellent detective skills, which they didn't. I just despised how everyone fit into a caricature. This film isn't something you should experience, it was created almost exclusively to create a tug-of-war within a stupid audience.
I also watched good movies this week! I watched two westerns, a genre I hadn't ventured into in years (Django does not count). Sergio Leone really showed mastery of the genre in Once Upon a Time in the West. His awareness of how the viewer feels while watching seems so great. This is especially present in the opening scene he bathes in suspense. The actual plot was average, I didn't find layers which were concealing greater ideas. It was simply a good western.
The second western I watched was John Ford's The Searchers, which, after half a century has climbed into the top ten all-time consideration according to many critics. Not top ten western, top-TEN. I watched this expecting greatness, and it is. The landscape combined with the Technicolor look is wonderful. The plot is excellent as well, it feels meaningful. I really love all of the characters. I'm not sure if I'll continue in westerns though, at least not Leone or Ford. This is regarded as Ford's greatest accomplishment, and I'm fine if this is all I see.
I also watched Primer. I really adore the writing. For awhile I've known of my love for what sounds smart, and this is not exception. I didn't understand what happened, I doubt I ever will, I'm not sure I care.
And finally! I was able to watch Alice in Wonderland! I've been wanting to see Mia in this for awhile, and she was exactly as I'd hoped. I generally like these type of adaptations just for the light that they show. There's so much hope! I pretty much loved everything for the first 3/4 of the movie with the exception of Johnny Depp, whom I hated. The end kinda went off the rails. We just weren't able logically justify Alice's decision to kill the Jabberwocky. I just didn't see it. That not to fault the story, just the adaptation. The CGI of the Jabberwocky also sucked, but that's just existing technology, so hopefully that's better in the sequel.
My final two watches (not chronologically), were both from this past Oscar season. The first is Whiplash. Chazelle digs deep in this one, exploring what it takes to become great. I liked this film, but never attached emotionally, at least not entirely. I'm not sure what to say about this one. It's good, not transcendent.
The best film I watched this week was Dan Gilroy's Nightcrawler. Lou Bloom is one of my favorite characters in cinema. His obsessive drive to become great, in a capitalistic sense, is riveting. He's an indictment of John Galt. I apologize for that, I know nothing of Ayn Rand. But he gives the people what they want, and what they want is disturbing. His creative vision is unparalleled, and nothing stands in the way of it. His dedication to his craft is enviable. The film surrounding him is also good, but not great. There was no full circle-type evaluation of Bloom to conclude, which is why this film isn't perfect. But it still gets my full endorsement.
6.08.2015
Viewings (5/31-6/6)
Tokyo Story
Masculin Féminin
Hot Girls Wanted
The 400 Blows
Although not rated the highest, Masculin was probably my favorite film of the week. It was only my second Godard film, but once I get further into his canon, he may become my favorite director. The portrayal of the female characters, whether realistic or not, is highly intriguing to me. Tokyo Story is just a phenomenal portrayal of humanity and culture. Characters try to tow the line between duty to family and societal demands. Strikingly, those with most success find themselves disconnected from family. The portrayal of Japanese culture is also alluring. I watched The 400 Blows because it's considered the defining film of the French New Wave. My overall experience wasn't great, which was equilibrating for me. I've watched too many enjoyable films lately, causing me to wonder if my enjoyment was from some outside environmental factor. But 400 brought it into context.
Obviously, Hot Girls Wanted is not like the other three films. It's a documentary about amateur porn. I found it particularly revealing in understanding females' reasoning for entering that world. It was an experience I found profound because it brought to consciousness what I understood in my fragmented subconscious. I see this world with more clarity now. This film seems like an opportunity for people to learn to empathize with porn actors rather that reinforcing the stigma. This world will remain inevitably, so it's important to eliminate the destructive power relationships within it. Man and woman must be presented as equally human.
Masculin Féminin
Hot Girls Wanted
The 400 Blows
Although not rated the highest, Masculin was probably my favorite film of the week. It was only my second Godard film, but once I get further into his canon, he may become my favorite director. The portrayal of the female characters, whether realistic or not, is highly intriguing to me. Tokyo Story is just a phenomenal portrayal of humanity and culture. Characters try to tow the line between duty to family and societal demands. Strikingly, those with most success find themselves disconnected from family. The portrayal of Japanese culture is also alluring. I watched The 400 Blows because it's considered the defining film of the French New Wave. My overall experience wasn't great, which was equilibrating for me. I've watched too many enjoyable films lately, causing me to wonder if my enjoyment was from some outside environmental factor. But 400 brought it into context.
Obviously, Hot Girls Wanted is not like the other three films. It's a documentary about amateur porn. I found it particularly revealing in understanding females' reasoning for entering that world. It was an experience I found profound because it brought to consciousness what I understood in my fragmented subconscious. I see this world with more clarity now. This film seems like an opportunity for people to learn to empathize with porn actors rather that reinforcing the stigma. This world will remain inevitably, so it's important to eliminate the destructive power relationships within it. Man and woman must be presented as equally human.
6.01.2015
Viewings (5/24 - 5/30)
The Act of Killing
8 1/2
Persona
Breathless
It's rare that I have a week like this one: Three tour de force viewings in a row. I was previously apprehensive about entering into classic cinema, but now I'm on course to to go full criterion. I'm undoubtedly going to watch significantly more of Bergman, Tarkovsky, maybe more Fellaini, and perhaps even Kurosawa. I also hope to continue with von Trier, Vinterberg and more Dogme-type realism.
But my most profound discovery of the week was Godard, specifically the pleasure of the French New Wave style. I expected to respect the film, but I was in no way prepared for the emotional firestorm that it is. My preconceptions about my favorite "type" of film have been shaken. I've never loved something with this level of satire. The archetype of the strictly dark melodramas has been shattered. This moment seems to almost signify a rite of passage for me. I feel like I'm beginning to understand what makes films great.
I'd love to reach this point in books. It'll take some time, but I'd like to begin completing a book every two weeks or so. If I could do this while watching 2-3 movies a week, there could be balance, which is ultimately what I strive for.
8 1/2
Persona
Breathless
It's rare that I have a week like this one: Three tour de force viewings in a row. I was previously apprehensive about entering into classic cinema, but now I'm on course to to go full criterion. I'm undoubtedly going to watch significantly more of Bergman, Tarkovsky, maybe more Fellaini, and perhaps even Kurosawa. I also hope to continue with von Trier, Vinterberg and more Dogme-type realism.
But my most profound discovery of the week was Godard, specifically the pleasure of the French New Wave style. I expected to respect the film, but I was in no way prepared for the emotional firestorm that it is. My preconceptions about my favorite "type" of film have been shaken. I've never loved something with this level of satire. The archetype of the strictly dark melodramas has been shattered. This moment seems to almost signify a rite of passage for me. I feel like I'm beginning to understand what makes films great.
I'd love to reach this point in books. It'll take some time, but I'd like to begin completing a book every two weeks or so. If I could do this while watching 2-3 movies a week, there could be balance, which is ultimately what I strive for.
5.30.2015
My Relationship With Cinema; Breathless
This blog has been the source of much deliberation lately. I'm unsatisfied with much of its content and wish to improve it. This improvement isn't in quality (but I hope so anyway) but in its utility to myself. I despise the notion of writing for the sake of writing, and that's what I feel I've been doing. I've been trying to fulfill some fantasized obligation. I want to leave this fantasy.
Many of the films I've watched lately have had plots which I didn't entirely understand. Because of this it's been difficult to articulate the nature of my emotional response to each. This may also be due to my minimal experience and skill as a writer. Because of my difficulty to convey my emotions, I may stop trying to convey it to others altogether. At least in this form. If I write, I sincerely hope there'll be value, intrinsically.
All these thoughts culminated after a week of 8 1/2, Persona, and most prominently Breathless. I embarked on these largely to diversify my film palette. As it turned out they were so much more. 8 1/2 displays the battle for the true artistic subjective. Persona is...well, I have no idea. It just works. The way the avant-garde techniques are mixed with plot is quite unexpected. What I mean is that it doesn't seem like it should work, but it does! Breathless is the first addition to the Pantheon since February. I'm still astonished by it. Why did I like it? It seems so light, so easy. Godard created a film with ease. The ease is not in the process of creating the film, it's a feeling the film exudes to the viewer. I seem to be predisposed to be more enthralled by females in cinema, so naturally I was more moved by Jean Seberg's performance than Jean-Paul Belmondo's. But Belmondo's scene at the end, dear God, it was incredible. I cannot believe this was created in 1960! Someone save me from this elation!
Breathless culminates with a black screen imprinted with white letters saying "FIN." So wonderfully perfect. The momentum this film has accumulated is incredible, it's approaching 4.5!
Note: I'm morally against 4.5.
Many of the films I've watched lately have had plots which I didn't entirely understand. Because of this it's been difficult to articulate the nature of my emotional response to each. This may also be due to my minimal experience and skill as a writer. Because of my difficulty to convey my emotions, I may stop trying to convey it to others altogether. At least in this form. If I write, I sincerely hope there'll be value, intrinsically.
All these thoughts culminated after a week of 8 1/2, Persona, and most prominently Breathless. I embarked on these largely to diversify my film palette. As it turned out they were so much more. 8 1/2 displays the battle for the true artistic subjective. Persona is...well, I have no idea. It just works. The way the avant-garde techniques are mixed with plot is quite unexpected. What I mean is that it doesn't seem like it should work, but it does! Breathless is the first addition to the Pantheon since February. I'm still astonished by it. Why did I like it? It seems so light, so easy. Godard created a film with ease. The ease is not in the process of creating the film, it's a feeling the film exudes to the viewer. I seem to be predisposed to be more enthralled by females in cinema, so naturally I was more moved by Jean Seberg's performance than Jean-Paul Belmondo's. But Belmondo's scene at the end, dear God, it was incredible. I cannot believe this was created in 1960! Someone save me from this elation!
Breathless culminates with a black screen imprinted with white letters saying "FIN." So wonderfully perfect. The momentum this film has accumulated is incredible, it's approaching 4.5!
Note: I'm morally against 4.5.
5.24.2015
Film: 5/17-5/23
Under the Skin, Jonathan Glazer: 2.5 / 4
I wanted to understand. Why is this so acclaimed? I didn't have a particularly enjoyable during my initial watch in January, but I felt I should've. So I embarked again, hoping to emotionally attach to Scarlett Johansson's character. I didn't get there. This film's artistry is admirable, a select few scenes are extremely powerful. But the universe was too relatable, the Scottish-realism mixed with ScarJo's search for some sort of existential answer didn't work for me. I'm not sure what they could've done differently, they seem to have made the movie they wanted. The only rewarding parts were the beach scene and the conclusion.
Solaris, Andrei Tarkovsky: 3 / 4
Whatever evaluation I could possibly put here is premature. This film's layers are too extensive. All I can say: God save us.
I wanted to understand. Why is this so acclaimed? I didn't have a particularly enjoyable during my initial watch in January, but I felt I should've. So I embarked again, hoping to emotionally attach to Scarlett Johansson's character. I didn't get there. This film's artistry is admirable, a select few scenes are extremely powerful. But the universe was too relatable, the Scottish-realism mixed with ScarJo's search for some sort of existential answer didn't work for me. I'm not sure what they could've done differently, they seem to have made the movie they wanted. The only rewarding parts were the beach scene and the conclusion.
Solaris, Andrei Tarkovsky: 3 / 4
Whatever evaluation I could possibly put here is premature. This film's layers are too extensive. All I can say: God save us.
5.17.2015
5.10.2015
Film: 5/3-5/9
Groundhog Day, Harold Ramis: 2 / 4
A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night, Ana Lily Aminpour: 3.5 / 4
Black Swan, Darren Aronofsky: 3 / 4
Avengers: Age Of Ultron, Joss Whedon: 2 / 4
The Sacrifice, Andrei Tarkovsky: 3.5 / 4
A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night, Ana Lily Aminpour: 3.5 / 4
Black Swan, Darren Aronofsky: 3 / 4
Avengers: Age Of Ultron, Joss Whedon: 2 / 4
The Sacrifice, Andrei Tarkovsky: 3.5 / 4
5.03.2015
Film: 4/26-5/2
The Grandmaster, Wong Kar-wai: 2 / 4
Crimes and Misdemeanors, Woody Allen: 2 / 4
Tracks, John Curran: 3 / 4
Glengarry Glen Ross, James Foley: 2.5 / 4
Crimes and Misdemeanors, Woody Allen: 2 / 4
Tracks, John Curran: 3 / 4
Glengarry Glen Ross, James Foley: 2.5 / 4
Film: 4/19-4/25
The Razor's Edge, John Byrum: 3 / 4
Oslo, August 31st, Joachim Trier: 3 / 4
I Used To Be Darker, Matthew Porterfield: 2.5 / 4
Oslo, August 31st, Joachim Trier: 3 / 4
I Used To Be Darker, Matthew Porterfield: 2.5 / 4
4.20.2015
Film: 4/12-4/18
The Conjuring, James Wan: 2.5 / 4
review
La Strada, Federico Fellini: 1.5 / 4
This was a tough one to get through. I was unable to connect with any of the characters. I felt significant discomfort watching Gelsomina's life unfold, and each of Zampano's actions felt like a gut punch. It was a uniquely dark, discomforting film which on paper should've been a slam dunk. It just didn't work for me. Fellini's style did nothing for me, the only token I got from this was a solid final scene. That is it.
Preservation, Christopher Denham: 2 / 4
review
The Piano Teacher, Michael Haneke: 2 / 4
A deeply dark, disturbing film from Haneke, but that's not really surprising. After watching two of his films, his deeply psychological style seems engrained in both. In this, Isabelle Huppert does a masterful job portraying the dark side of excellence. To truly be great, Erika must raise her intensity to inhuman levels. She becomes consumed by desire, by lust. Her extreme mastery at piano must be equalized, brought to equilibrium. This can occur only if she herself becomes sexually mastered and controlled. Yet once this occurs she feels pain; it's not the relief she'd hoped for. Yet she goes back again. It's a dark spiral into the depths of hell. The story is surprisingly human, but not in the ways we'd wish; it reaches deep into areas of humanity whose existence we deny. This film is uncomfortable not because of the violence, but because of its confrontational nature.
review
La Strada, Federico Fellini: 1.5 / 4
This was a tough one to get through. I was unable to connect with any of the characters. I felt significant discomfort watching Gelsomina's life unfold, and each of Zampano's actions felt like a gut punch. It was a uniquely dark, discomforting film which on paper should've been a slam dunk. It just didn't work for me. Fellini's style did nothing for me, the only token I got from this was a solid final scene. That is it.
Preservation, Christopher Denham: 2 / 4
review
The Piano Teacher, Michael Haneke: 2 / 4
A deeply dark, disturbing film from Haneke, but that's not really surprising. After watching two of his films, his deeply psychological style seems engrained in both. In this, Isabelle Huppert does a masterful job portraying the dark side of excellence. To truly be great, Erika must raise her intensity to inhuman levels. She becomes consumed by desire, by lust. Her extreme mastery at piano must be equalized, brought to equilibrium. This can occur only if she herself becomes sexually mastered and controlled. Yet once this occurs she feels pain; it's not the relief she'd hoped for. Yet she goes back again. It's a dark spiral into the depths of hell. The story is surprisingly human, but not in the ways we'd wish; it reaches deep into areas of humanity whose existence we deny. This film is uncomfortable not because of the violence, but because of its confrontational nature.
4.15.2015
Preservation, Christopher Denham
I struggle to evaluate this film. It begins stereotypically as a horror film does, with characters quipping about the impossibility of what's about to occur. The dialogue is subpar, and anything interesting about the characters is never delved into deeper. It's set up in a certain way, yet nothing comes from the set-up. The deaths feel unearned, insignificant, except perhaps for the final.
This film is almost two films. The first part is standard for a horror film, with the set-up, the psychological conflicts, then the deaths. But new ideas are introduced once Wit transforms from the hunted to the hunter. The film switched emphasis to the adolescent killers, sort of attempting to dissect their motives. Yet this dissection isn't through dialogue; it's through text messaging. Through their communication we're able to see their sort of bipolarity, acting like innocent children and deranged killers simultaneously. This film is almost some sort of political statement about this new "tech" generation. It's unique in the cinematic shift, yet I found it to be incredibly unintelligent at times. I feel like half this movie was wasted; whichever way they were gonna go, they should've stayed consistent through its duration.
Also, was not expecting Pornstache and Kenny Cosgrove! Kenny weirdly was the same character as in Mad Men. Pornstache (or Nick Sobotka if you're cultured) was terribly underutilized in this film, so disappointing.
2 / 4
This film is almost two films. The first part is standard for a horror film, with the set-up, the psychological conflicts, then the deaths. But new ideas are introduced once Wit transforms from the hunted to the hunter. The film switched emphasis to the adolescent killers, sort of attempting to dissect their motives. Yet this dissection isn't through dialogue; it's through text messaging. Through their communication we're able to see their sort of bipolarity, acting like innocent children and deranged killers simultaneously. This film is almost some sort of political statement about this new "tech" generation. It's unique in the cinematic shift, yet I found it to be incredibly unintelligent at times. I feel like half this movie was wasted; whichever way they were gonna go, they should've stayed consistent through its duration.
Also, was not expecting Pornstache and Kenny Cosgrove! Kenny weirdly was the same character as in Mad Men. Pornstache (or Nick Sobotka if you're cultured) was terribly underutilized in this film, so disappointing.
2 / 4
4.12.2015
Film: 4/5-4/11
Like Someone In Love, Abbas Kiarostami: 2.5 / 4
This film tells a story in a distinctly. The humans are so interesting; the emotions of the student and the actions of the professor are puzzling, yet sensible. This film has really grew on me, as I reflect a week later. It was peculiar and unique. Some scenes were magnanimous, really....incredible. Kiarostami's got a Palme d'Or, and it's not completely unexpected after watching this film.
It Felt Like Love, Eliza Hittman: 2 / 4
Here's another dark and devastating teen drama which is just a pain to watch. Is it really that bad? I guess that's what Europeans ask about Mean Girls. But really...I hope it's not like this. I read on wiki that it took place in Brooklyn. I was amazed; it didn't seem American at all. It didn't seem attached to any sort of place. It was some dark alternate universe where everything is shit. My evaluation of dark movies is usually quite simple: What did we gain from our descent into darkness? The answer here, is nothing. It was dark for the sake of being dark. The only time that's acceptable is if it's Refn or something. The darkness must be beautiful. The Hunt is an example of a film that descends into darkness and pulls something out. That something, it oozes humanity. That film offers an interpretation of humanity. There's none of that here.
Days Of Heaven, Terrence Malick: 3.5 / 4
With this film, Malick has leapfrogged into my director hierarchy, probably somewhere around 5-7. I'd seen The Tree Of Life, but never really understood it. I understand what this is, and why it's great. It's shot beautifully, with a clear understanding of how to make things look beautiful. Of the main characters, there is ambiguity, because we don't see their emotion, but it's there. Trying to figure out Bill and Abby felt like an intellectual experience. This film had a certain glow to it, and I'll certainly continue with Malick to rekindle that glow. I anticipate to embark on To the Wonder within the month.
This film tells a story in a distinctly. The humans are so interesting; the emotions of the student and the actions of the professor are puzzling, yet sensible. This film has really grew on me, as I reflect a week later. It was peculiar and unique. Some scenes were magnanimous, really....incredible. Kiarostami's got a Palme d'Or, and it's not completely unexpected after watching this film.
It Felt Like Love, Eliza Hittman: 2 / 4
Here's another dark and devastating teen drama which is just a pain to watch. Is it really that bad? I guess that's what Europeans ask about Mean Girls. But really...I hope it's not like this. I read on wiki that it took place in Brooklyn. I was amazed; it didn't seem American at all. It didn't seem attached to any sort of place. It was some dark alternate universe where everything is shit. My evaluation of dark movies is usually quite simple: What did we gain from our descent into darkness? The answer here, is nothing. It was dark for the sake of being dark. The only time that's acceptable is if it's Refn or something. The darkness must be beautiful. The Hunt is an example of a film that descends into darkness and pulls something out. That something, it oozes humanity. That film offers an interpretation of humanity. There's none of that here.
Days Of Heaven, Terrence Malick: 3.5 / 4
With this film, Malick has leapfrogged into my director hierarchy, probably somewhere around 5-7. I'd seen The Tree Of Life, but never really understood it. I understand what this is, and why it's great. It's shot beautifully, with a clear understanding of how to make things look beautiful. Of the main characters, there is ambiguity, because we don't see their emotion, but it's there. Trying to figure out Bill and Abby felt like an intellectual experience. This film had a certain glow to it, and I'll certainly continue with Malick to rekindle that glow. I anticipate to embark on To the Wonder within the month.
The Conjuring, James Wan; Musings on Horror
This movie provokes fear; it makes the viewer to imagine the worst, and then the worst occurs. The supernatural activity in this movie is truly terrifying; in fact, it's probably the scariest movie I've watched (This isn't too significant, I haven't seen much). There's a distinction I should make here; I've been more uncomfortable during a film (Nymphomaniac, Antichrist), but these moments were more of pure disgust. Back to The Conjuring. I contemplated stopping it several times, asking myself why I wanted to endure. Yet I continued. There're just enough breaks to get through it. This movie feels well done, but I didn't really gain much from it. A story was told, but with no deeper significance. Essentially my insight from this film: "don't fuck with demons." Compare that with Rosemary's Baby, for instance, which has Mia Farrow's character, whose plight is so emphatically devastating. That's more psychological horror. Another horror film I really enjoyed: You're Next. This is more of the Scream ilk, but smarter; it's somewhat satirical and scary, yet it's comfortable. This felt like the maximum potential of a more commercial horror film. Characters were caricatures of those in our lives, yet those caricatures were twisted and deformed to something completely different; This film flips tremendously.
I'd recommend all three of these films, but my ratings indicate a certain emphasis. It's quite interesting, after so long with little consumption of horror, each film in this genre feels like a revelation. I'm excited to continue on with The Babadook and eventually It Follows.
The Conjuring 2.5 / 4
Rosemary's Baby 3.5 / 4
You're Next 3.5 / 4
4.10.2015
Film: 3/29-4/4
Antichrist, Lars von Trier: 2.5 / 4
The reputation of this film was intimidating, and I wasn't sure if I'd ever endure it. Much of it was riveting, and there were parts, two specifically, which utterly disgusted me. But von Trier's style makes the experience worthwhile. This marks my completion of the Depression trilogy. If there's any consistency in all three films, it's Charlotte Gainsbourg: her performances are spectacular, each in a different way.
The Unbelievers, Gus Holwerda: 1.5 / 4
A film about two prominent scientists promoting the acceptance of rationalist views over religious. It merely grazes the surface of arguments, nothing meaningful is presented. Much too "macro" for my taste.
Going Clear, Alex Gibney: 3 / 4
If you were wondering about all the fuss regarding Scientology was about, it's all laid out here. Everything about this "religion" and its followers is incredibly terrifying, yet also riveting. Tom Cruise, whose personality seems very likable commercially is revealed in a different light here. This film definitely showcases darkness in religion and ultimately humanity.
A Serious Man, Joel & Ethan Coen: 3 / 4
Another highly entertaining Coen brothers film, one that really showcases the absurdity the Coens see in the world. The comedy seems less "in-your-face" than, say, Burn After Reading, but it's prominent. Everything works in this film. The line between drama and comedy is towed, but choices are made at the end which really make it a comedy.
Fast & Furious 6, Justin Lin: 2.5 / 4
People watch this because of the characters. They want to share a couple hours with Dom, Brian, and the gang. This series understands itself perhaps more than any other I can think of. The absurdity of the action is embraced and emphasized. I heard on a podcast the comparison of the characters to superheroes and let me tell you: Dom Toretto is a superhero. He's indestructible, and so are his chums, because of family... Let me tell you, this film is pure escapist.
Selma, Ava DuVernay: 2.5 / 4
I watched this in a theater, and couldn't hear enough of the dialogue well enough to put much weight on this rating. This film is standard, yet still thought-provoking. Once I watch it subtitled I'm sure I'll have a stronger (and hopefully better) evaluation of this.
The reputation of this film was intimidating, and I wasn't sure if I'd ever endure it. Much of it was riveting, and there were parts, two specifically, which utterly disgusted me. But von Trier's style makes the experience worthwhile. This marks my completion of the Depression trilogy. If there's any consistency in all three films, it's Charlotte Gainsbourg: her performances are spectacular, each in a different way.
The Unbelievers, Gus Holwerda: 1.5 / 4
A film about two prominent scientists promoting the acceptance of rationalist views over religious. It merely grazes the surface of arguments, nothing meaningful is presented. Much too "macro" for my taste.
Going Clear, Alex Gibney: 3 / 4
If you were wondering about all the fuss regarding Scientology was about, it's all laid out here. Everything about this "religion" and its followers is incredibly terrifying, yet also riveting. Tom Cruise, whose personality seems very likable commercially is revealed in a different light here. This film definitely showcases darkness in religion and ultimately humanity.
A Serious Man, Joel & Ethan Coen: 3 / 4
Another highly entertaining Coen brothers film, one that really showcases the absurdity the Coens see in the world. The comedy seems less "in-your-face" than, say, Burn After Reading, but it's prominent. Everything works in this film. The line between drama and comedy is towed, but choices are made at the end which really make it a comedy.
Fast & Furious 6, Justin Lin: 2.5 / 4
People watch this because of the characters. They want to share a couple hours with Dom, Brian, and the gang. This series understands itself perhaps more than any other I can think of. The absurdity of the action is embraced and emphasized. I heard on a podcast the comparison of the characters to superheroes and let me tell you: Dom Toretto is a superhero. He's indestructible, and so are his chums, because of family... Let me tell you, this film is pure escapist.
Selma, Ava DuVernay: 2.5 / 4
I watched this in a theater, and couldn't hear enough of the dialogue well enough to put much weight on this rating. This film is standard, yet still thought-provoking. Once I watch it subtitled I'm sure I'll have a stronger (and hopefully better) evaluation of this.
3.28.2015
Film: 3/22-3/28
God's Not Dead, Harold Cronk: 1 / 4
This film is propaganda. According to its creators, the artistic value of this film is secondary to the viewer's experience. And this viewer is not a critical film goer, but a commoner. The commoner must extrapolate the world of this film to his/her own reality. They must become a Christian.
Hulk, Ang Lee: 1.5 / 4
This one missed, which is surprising considering my high regard for Ang Lee (for Brokeback). The story seemed to be there, but it wasn't executed in a way that evoked any sort of emotion. It wasn't too great visually either, but that was based on their lesser CGI at the time. So any Marvel fan, feel free to skip this one.
The Master, Paul Thomas Anderson: 2.5 / 4
There are some phenomenal performances in this film, notably PSH, Joaquin, and Amy Adams. Lancaster Dodd's self-delusional personality displays what's required to lead a cult. Freddie's a sex-obsessed, emotionally-broken degenerate who finds solace in Dodd's companionship, and solely that. Amy Adams is the rock, the structure that keeps the cult from falling apart. Her affirmation seems to keep Dodd from spiraling off into the abyss. This film is a character study, a phenomenal one. I couldn't think of better prep for the upcoming Scientology doc: Going Clear. Who knows? Maybe I'll read the book too.
This film is propaganda. According to its creators, the artistic value of this film is secondary to the viewer's experience. And this viewer is not a critical film goer, but a commoner. The commoner must extrapolate the world of this film to his/her own reality. They must become a Christian.
Hulk, Ang Lee: 1.5 / 4
This one missed, which is surprising considering my high regard for Ang Lee (for Brokeback). The story seemed to be there, but it wasn't executed in a way that evoked any sort of emotion. It wasn't too great visually either, but that was based on their lesser CGI at the time. So any Marvel fan, feel free to skip this one.
The Master, Paul Thomas Anderson: 2.5 / 4
There are some phenomenal performances in this film, notably PSH, Joaquin, and Amy Adams. Lancaster Dodd's self-delusional personality displays what's required to lead a cult. Freddie's a sex-obsessed, emotionally-broken degenerate who finds solace in Dodd's companionship, and solely that. Amy Adams is the rock, the structure that keeps the cult from falling apart. Her affirmation seems to keep Dodd from spiraling off into the abyss. This film is a character study, a phenomenal one. I couldn't think of better prep for the upcoming Scientology doc: Going Clear. Who knows? Maybe I'll read the book too.
3.27.2015
Ranking Revisions
I've decided to modify my favorite actors/actresses pages. They'll now be displayed in a single page of favorite performances.
Here is the inaugural edition, in some sort of order:
Saskia Rosendahl in Lore
Saskia Rosendahl in Lore
Naomi Watts in Mulholland Drive
Mads Mikkelsen in The Hunt
Mads Mikkelsen in The Hunt
Kirsten Dunst in Melancholia
Ryan Gosling in Only God Forgives
Ryan Gosling in Only God Forgives
Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds
Also, I've dropped my superficially-thought-out tier system.
Film: 3/15-3/21
Cinderella, Kenneth Branagh: 3 / 4
The Silence, Baran bo Odar: 3.5 / 4
Mulholland Drive, David Lynch: 4 / 4
Upstream Color, Shane Carruth: 2.5 / 4
Shame, Steve McQueen: 3 / 4
Europa Report, Sebastián Cordero: 3 / 4
Blue Velvet, David Lynch: 3 / 4
Saw, James Wan: 2 / 4
The Silence, Baran bo Odar: 3.5 / 4
Mulholland Drive, David Lynch: 4 / 4
Upstream Color, Shane Carruth: 2.5 / 4
Shame, Steve McQueen: 3 / 4
Europa Report, Sebastián Cordero: 3 / 4
Blue Velvet, David Lynch: 3 / 4
Saw, James Wan: 2 / 4
3.22.2015
Bloodline, Season 1
Although I consume a considerable amount of television, I hadn't really considered writing much on it. That is, until I watched Bloodline. Netflix dropped Season 1 in its entirety Friday morning and by about 11:30 Saturday night, I'd made it through all 13 episodes. It's an odd thing really; despite the magnitude of the binge, this isn't really an experience I'm satisfied with. I was drawn to this series by a reply on twitter, one that identified this show as a better version of "The Killing." (Upon re-reading that twitter reply, Bloodline was identified as "much better" than TK rather than a better version)
3.18.2015
Film: 3/8-3/14
Sharknado, Anthony C. Ferrante: 2.5 / 4
This film film basks in its own absurdity. A tale of shark-filled tornados in Los Angeles, the ultimate location for cinematic disaster. I actually laughed out loud several times. Each of the characters was a stereotypical horror movie character and did stereotypical things. I watched this movie because I needed a light escape, and that's what I experienced. There is no level below the superficial here, pure sensory experience.
The Graduate, Mike Nichols: 2.5 / 4
Dustin Hoffman's character is weird here. His accomplishments don't seem to match his personality. Anyhow, watch this film, even if only to analyze the final scene.
Prozac Nation, Eric Skoldbjaerg: 3 / 4
The depths of mental illness are addressed in this film. Christina Ricci's character is portrayed honestly. The most profound event in this film was her transformation under medication. There is a legitimate question about the merits of using antidepressants. This question isn't medical, it's about identity. What will you sacrifice for stability? Is life worth continuing if identity is lost?
Another bright spot is Jason Biggs....never thought I'd say those words. He completely elevates above his standard character (OITNB, American Pie), becoming likable! Unfortunately the end isn't successful; an attempt to generalize Christina Ricci's character's story to everyone, identifying a "Prozac Nation," completely fails. It seems as though it's a book concept without enough explanation, just thrown in to sort of finish the story.
I Heart Huckabees, David O. Russell: 3 / 4
This is something that's experimental, yet was offered to the mainstream. It's a testament to Russell's reputation that he was able to create this. I'm writing this awhile after the fact and it seems I've over-rated this film. I don't recall anything profound, it was simply an interesting idea, a brief moment of philosophy entering the mainstream. Yet the philosophy felt mainstream, it's feeding the stereotype of what a philosopher is, possibly. There are certainly absurdist ideas here. In terms of the performances, Mark Wahlberg stood out; he captured the attention of every scene he was in. Also, for all its identification as a comedy, not that funny.
Lore, Cate Shortland: 4 / 4
review
This film film basks in its own absurdity. A tale of shark-filled tornados in Los Angeles, the ultimate location for cinematic disaster. I actually laughed out loud several times. Each of the characters was a stereotypical horror movie character and did stereotypical things. I watched this movie because I needed a light escape, and that's what I experienced. There is no level below the superficial here, pure sensory experience.
The Graduate, Mike Nichols: 2.5 / 4
Dustin Hoffman's character is weird here. His accomplishments don't seem to match his personality. Anyhow, watch this film, even if only to analyze the final scene.
Prozac Nation, Eric Skoldbjaerg: 3 / 4
The depths of mental illness are addressed in this film. Christina Ricci's character is portrayed honestly. The most profound event in this film was her transformation under medication. There is a legitimate question about the merits of using antidepressants. This question isn't medical, it's about identity. What will you sacrifice for stability? Is life worth continuing if identity is lost?
Another bright spot is Jason Biggs....never thought I'd say those words. He completely elevates above his standard character (OITNB, American Pie), becoming likable! Unfortunately the end isn't successful; an attempt to generalize Christina Ricci's character's story to everyone, identifying a "Prozac Nation," completely fails. It seems as though it's a book concept without enough explanation, just thrown in to sort of finish the story.
I Heart Huckabees, David O. Russell: 3 / 4
This is something that's experimental, yet was offered to the mainstream. It's a testament to Russell's reputation that he was able to create this. I'm writing this awhile after the fact and it seems I've over-rated this film. I don't recall anything profound, it was simply an interesting idea, a brief moment of philosophy entering the mainstream. Yet the philosophy felt mainstream, it's feeding the stereotype of what a philosopher is, possibly. There are certainly absurdist ideas here. In terms of the performances, Mark Wahlberg stood out; he captured the attention of every scene he was in. Also, for all its identification as a comedy, not that funny.
Lore, Cate Shortland: 4 / 4
review
3.15.2015
Lore, Cate Shortland
This is one of the most human films I've seen, one I'd recommend to anyone with a somewhat mature understanding of human emotion or humanity. The central character, Lore, is extraordinary. She's one of the many victims of Hitler's cult of personality. The struggle of this film is hers; she must deal with loss, both physical and emotional. The nature of her actions is ambiguous, yet entirely understandable. Her world is turned upside-down, and she's forced to rely on herself with the absence of her parents. The innocence she once had is entirely gone; she must face the bleak remnants the Third Reich alone. Her struggle in this film is strangely valiant, an attempt to return to her previous state, one of both innocence and of victimhood.
4 / 4
Shortland's style in this film perfectly meshes with the plot. The film flows seamlessly; each moment is significant. Her depiction of the desolation of the German state is pure, blunt realism. The unexpected close-ups and the camera's shifting focuses, fully expresses the disarray of the subject matter; the world is fragmented.
This is peak cinematic adaptation. Shortland modified a screenplay adaptation of The Dark Room to maximize its artistic potential. This film defines profound.
4 / 4
3.07.2015
Film: 3/1-3/7
Cool Hand Luke, Stuart Rosenberg: 2.5 / 4
My first Paul Newman film didn't disappoint. His character is incredibly likable, and immediately establishes his unwillingness to conform. Prisons are built to conform. The inhabitants are conditioned to act a certain way, to be parts of a machine. And most all comply, but Luke immediately rejected what they, his fellow prisoners, considered to be common sense. His individual attempted to transcend the universal. There was a shift in his persona following two failed attempts to escape; he was broken down, physically and emotionally. When he became the animal-like being, serving the overseers, it was undoubtedly the most terrifying part of the movie. It signified the loss of his former identity, which was the source of his likability both to the viewer and his fellow prisoners. He lost any distinctive human characteristics. When he flipped to his former persona, he rejected the idea that the servitude was a planned charade, stating that he'd never planned anything in his life. Some say the ending of this was depressing, but it was certainly less depressing than what his potential return to the road prison would've been, considering the punishment after his second escape attempt. It was merciful, and Luke sort of recognized this in those last moments in the church with Dragline, and embraced his oncoming death.
King Kong, Peter Jackson: 2.5 / 4
I watched this separated over two nights, and didn't regret it. There was some extremely ambitious CGI which didn't totally flop. It looks weird at times, but it's transfixing. Naomi Watts plays Ann well, as one with a simultaneously ambiguous and unambiguous relationship with Kong. (It's certainly cooler to call him that) Everyone else is fine, whatever. Yes, there's the slow Jack Black zoom-in with the slight eyebrow raise. There's also some terrifying (and massive) insects. Probably the scariest insects I've seen. There's cool stuff in this, watch it.
My first Paul Newman film didn't disappoint. His character is incredibly likable, and immediately establishes his unwillingness to conform. Prisons are built to conform. The inhabitants are conditioned to act a certain way, to be parts of a machine. And most all comply, but Luke immediately rejected what they, his fellow prisoners, considered to be common sense. His individual attempted to transcend the universal. There was a shift in his persona following two failed attempts to escape; he was broken down, physically and emotionally. When he became the animal-like being, serving the overseers, it was undoubtedly the most terrifying part of the movie. It signified the loss of his former identity, which was the source of his likability both to the viewer and his fellow prisoners. He lost any distinctive human characteristics. When he flipped to his former persona, he rejected the idea that the servitude was a planned charade, stating that he'd never planned anything in his life. Some say the ending of this was depressing, but it was certainly less depressing than what his potential return to the road prison would've been, considering the punishment after his second escape attempt. It was merciful, and Luke sort of recognized this in those last moments in the church with Dragline, and embraced his oncoming death.
King Kong, Peter Jackson: 2.5 / 4
I watched this separated over two nights, and didn't regret it. There was some extremely ambitious CGI which didn't totally flop. It looks weird at times, but it's transfixing. Naomi Watts plays Ann well, as one with a simultaneously ambiguous and unambiguous relationship with Kong. (It's certainly cooler to call him that) Everyone else is fine, whatever. Yes, there's the slow Jack Black zoom-in with the slight eyebrow raise. There's also some terrifying (and massive) insects. Probably the scariest insects I've seen. There's cool stuff in this, watch it.
2.28.2015
Film: 2/22-2/28
Annie Hall, Woody Allen: 3 / 4
I watched this twice in three days, although the second viewing was in preparation for an essay I wrote regarding Kierkegaardian themes in the film. This film centralizes around a compelling relationship between Alvy and Annie. Their relationship seemed to be a manifestation of Alvy's dream/fantasy relationship; at least it's what we'd expect someone like Alvy to fantasize about. Annie was someone fun-loving, semi-mainstream who'd listen to Alvy's wannabe-hipster-but-actually-solidly-left-establishment ramblings. Diane Keaton played Annie's character wonderfully, I'm not sure what more we could ask for. This film is also loaded with cultural references, which I found delightful. It's also heavy with absurdist/existential themes which is the Kierkegaard tie-in. Two of the scenes really stuck in my mind. The scene right at the beginning with Alvy and Annie in line for The Sorrow and the Pity was phenomenal. As Alvy loathed the man behind him, who was spewing oral magnificence I was elated. Even sophistry can be beautiful. My favorite scene was Christopher Walken's, the one where he slowly released a tide of insanity that was entirely relatable and perhaps entirely sane. One should watch this film, and detach from the atmosphere of it, if only for that scene.
The Seventh Seal, Ingmar Bergman: 2.5 / 4
This was an involuntary watch for a course, but one I may have stumbled across anyway. It was released in '57 so there were definitely things which I haven't quite come around on. (some serious Rashomon-style acting) But the thematic elements here are profound. It's crusades time, it's 'all the people buy into the Deuteronomic Equation completely' time. The idea of God in this film is powerful. The knight engages in a chess match with death, to find answers, to understand the idea. The people possess fear, fear of their eternal damnation, so the equation is upheld, and enforced by themselves. Be prepared for the darkness in this film, for it is all-encompassing.
Only God Forgives, Nicolas Winding Refn: 3 / 4
Following my first viewing, (this was my third) I immediately read the plot summary on wikipedia (fuck imdb btw) because I was sure I'd missed something.... I hadn't. This was style. The plot lacks, but with Refn's magical use of the camera and Cliff Martinez's score, there's barely a need for one. The slow-motion sequences, the lighting, the colors.... it's all outstanding. What's actually happening is secondary. Refn also engages in some aestheticized violence which requires a bit of a stomach. I love Gosling and he's a very similar character to Drive and The Place Beyond the Pines. [incoming spoiler] He's reserved and mysterious, but most importantly: he's got an Oedipal complex, and not in that Freudian subconscious way; it's outwardly visible. So if you're feeling Tarantino but stylistically superior and without dialogue, here you go, you'll thank me later.
Renoir, Gilles Bourdos: 3 / 4
An instinctual viewing, one I'd hoped would turn into a Lore-type. It was nothing of that sort, a modified biopic of Pierre-Auguste Renoir, the French Impressionist. There were three characters who seemed to be the lead at different points in the film: Pierre-Auguste, his model/actress Andrée Heuschling, and his son Jean Renoir. This film explores the relationship between these three characters as their situation becomes quite intriguing. However, upon seeing the end result, there is much left to be desired. Pierre-Auguste is an intriguing character, as is Andrée (to a degree), but Jean's character just didn't do it for me. Perhaps because this is based on a true story, they're limited, but the plot mostly failed. The film makes up for it stylistically, an atmosphere for transcendence is created, even if not utilized.
21 Grams, Alejandro González Iñárritu: 3.5 / 4
I've somehow gotten through them all, Babel, first, then Biutiful, Amores Perros and Birdman, and now 21 Grams. I consider this an achievement considering the depressive nature of Iñárritu's film. (not you Birdman! you uplifting ___________) Of the Death Trilogy + Biutiful (why not? it totally fits.) my favorite is this one, 21 Grams. Maybe it's the star power, the trifecta of brilliance from Penn, Watts and del Toro. Death is a central theme here, as each of the three is dealing with it from a different perspective; there is the guilty one, the grieving one, and the dying one. In classic Death trilogy and Crash (forgive me, once guilty pleasure) format there is the convergence, the intersection, and the reconciliation. The critical moment that shapes this film, the car accident, is filmed indirectly, reflecting Iñárritu's greatness. I was reminded of the techniques of Haneke in Funny Games. It's tough to pinpoint my reasons for loving this film, they're all macro, yields of the collective work. I'm looking forward to The Revenant, whether its style is similar to this or Birdman's it doesn't matter, I'll be thrilled either way.
I watched this twice in three days, although the second viewing was in preparation for an essay I wrote regarding Kierkegaardian themes in the film. This film centralizes around a compelling relationship between Alvy and Annie. Their relationship seemed to be a manifestation of Alvy's dream/fantasy relationship; at least it's what we'd expect someone like Alvy to fantasize about. Annie was someone fun-loving, semi-mainstream who'd listen to Alvy's wannabe-hipster-but-actually-solidly-left-establishment ramblings. Diane Keaton played Annie's character wonderfully, I'm not sure what more we could ask for. This film is also loaded with cultural references, which I found delightful. It's also heavy with absurdist/existential themes which is the Kierkegaard tie-in. Two of the scenes really stuck in my mind. The scene right at the beginning with Alvy and Annie in line for The Sorrow and the Pity was phenomenal. As Alvy loathed the man behind him, who was spewing oral magnificence I was elated. Even sophistry can be beautiful. My favorite scene was Christopher Walken's, the one where he slowly released a tide of insanity that was entirely relatable and perhaps entirely sane. One should watch this film, and detach from the atmosphere of it, if only for that scene.
The Seventh Seal, Ingmar Bergman: 2.5 / 4
This was an involuntary watch for a course, but one I may have stumbled across anyway. It was released in '57 so there were definitely things which I haven't quite come around on. (some serious Rashomon-style acting) But the thematic elements here are profound. It's crusades time, it's 'all the people buy into the Deuteronomic Equation completely' time. The idea of God in this film is powerful. The knight engages in a chess match with death, to find answers, to understand the idea. The people possess fear, fear of their eternal damnation, so the equation is upheld, and enforced by themselves. Be prepared for the darkness in this film, for it is all-encompassing.
Only God Forgives, Nicolas Winding Refn: 3 / 4
Following my first viewing, (this was my third) I immediately read the plot summary on wikipedia (fuck imdb btw) because I was sure I'd missed something.... I hadn't. This was style. The plot lacks, but with Refn's magical use of the camera and Cliff Martinez's score, there's barely a need for one. The slow-motion sequences, the lighting, the colors.... it's all outstanding. What's actually happening is secondary. Refn also engages in some aestheticized violence which requires a bit of a stomach. I love Gosling and he's a very similar character to Drive and The Place Beyond the Pines. [incoming spoiler] He's reserved and mysterious, but most importantly: he's got an Oedipal complex, and not in that Freudian subconscious way; it's outwardly visible. So if you're feeling Tarantino but stylistically superior and without dialogue, here you go, you'll thank me later.
Renoir, Gilles Bourdos: 3 / 4
An instinctual viewing, one I'd hoped would turn into a Lore-type. It was nothing of that sort, a modified biopic of Pierre-Auguste Renoir, the French Impressionist. There were three characters who seemed to be the lead at different points in the film: Pierre-Auguste, his model/actress Andrée Heuschling, and his son Jean Renoir. This film explores the relationship between these three characters as their situation becomes quite intriguing. However, upon seeing the end result, there is much left to be desired. Pierre-Auguste is an intriguing character, as is Andrée (to a degree), but Jean's character just didn't do it for me. Perhaps because this is based on a true story, they're limited, but the plot mostly failed. The film makes up for it stylistically, an atmosphere for transcendence is created, even if not utilized.
21 Grams, Alejandro González Iñárritu: 3.5 / 4
I've somehow gotten through them all, Babel, first, then Biutiful, Amores Perros and Birdman, and now 21 Grams. I consider this an achievement considering the depressive nature of Iñárritu's film. (not you Birdman! you uplifting ___________) Of the Death Trilogy + Biutiful (why not? it totally fits.) my favorite is this one, 21 Grams. Maybe it's the star power, the trifecta of brilliance from Penn, Watts and del Toro. Death is a central theme here, as each of the three is dealing with it from a different perspective; there is the guilty one, the grieving one, and the dying one. In classic Death trilogy and Crash (forgive me, once guilty pleasure) format there is the convergence, the intersection, and the reconciliation. The critical moment that shapes this film, the car accident, is filmed indirectly, reflecting Iñárritu's greatness. I was reminded of the techniques of Haneke in Funny Games. It's tough to pinpoint my reasons for loving this film, they're all macro, yields of the collective work. I'm looking forward to The Revenant, whether its style is similar to this or Birdman's it doesn't matter, I'll be thrilled either way.
2.25.2015
2.17.2015
Film: 2/8-2/14
Rosemary's Baby, Roman Polanski: 3.5 / 4
This is an exceptional horror flick. One that showcases the greatness of Mia Farrow. Her character is intensely lovable, yet there aren't any characters who consider her best interests at all. As the suffering of Rosemary (Farrow) builds, Polanski takes us through a devastating trail of anguish. Rosemary sinks deeper and deeper, until she reaches a point at which there is truly no escape. The result: an inexpressively grand statement on ideas of hate, and especially love.
Funny Games, 1997, Michael Haneke: 2.5 / 4
The viewer is forced into a perpetual state of discomfort. There's no other way to explain this film. The terror never ends. I experienced little to no enjoyment from this film, yet some of its defining characteristics cannot be overlooked. Haneke expanded the boundaries that a truly great film is permitted to work from. His choice to showcase violence prominently through sound was entirely powerful, if only for the potential of such an idea. His use of the camera was undoubtedly unique, searching deeper within characters to find even more. The style used seemed to force improvisation by the actors/actresses. But the idea that had the most influence on me, led to an occurrence that was utterly shocking. The villians' complete control of outcome, their ability to literally rewind, it left me with a certain emptiness.
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, Stanley Kubrick: 2.5 / 4
I watched this in a more social environment, also without subtitles. I wasn't able to follow the film to the degree that I would've liked. But based on my prior viewing of this film, I can attest to certain great qualities. The idea of the "Doomsday device" is fascinating to think about. Dr. Strangelove himself is an incredible metaphor for something, I'm not sure what. I feel a strong desire to watch this again, after all, Can one really regret watching a Kubrick?
Midnight In Paris, Woody Allen: 3 / 4
For some reason, I've yet to see Annie Hall, the pinnacle of Woody Allen; I continue to watch some of his other films. I chose this one simply because of the great cover and my continuing journey through Léa Seydoux's work. Her role really isn't significant here and I found myself loving this film for other reasons. I loved the idea of Owen Wilson's character, a former sellout turned aspiring artist. Once Gil (Wilson) enters into the past and encounters some of the great icons of art (I use art loosely here, capturing literature as well), I was in. The interactions of the greatest minds of our time is peak cinema (at least idealistically). This film made me want to read Hemingway. This film showed an idealized Paris, but nonetheless one that seems to offer the highest potential for an artist. Although this film lacked transcendence, its execution of the premise alone wins serious points.
The Great Gatsby, 1974, Jack Clayton: 2 / 4
possible Gatsby piece, exploration of two films, novel.
Blue Ruin, Jeremy Saulnier: 3 / 4
A well-executed revenge flick that modifies itself into a tale of two distinct families. It's a creative screenplay that's exactly as the title suggests it is. The interesting aspect of this film is the elevation of one man to levels he probabilistically shouldn't have achieved. One he's there, it makes for an incredulous situation where soul-searching must occur.
12 Years a Slave, Steve McQueen: 3 / 4
possible review incoming
This is an exceptional horror flick. One that showcases the greatness of Mia Farrow. Her character is intensely lovable, yet there aren't any characters who consider her best interests at all. As the suffering of Rosemary (Farrow) builds, Polanski takes us through a devastating trail of anguish. Rosemary sinks deeper and deeper, until she reaches a point at which there is truly no escape. The result: an inexpressively grand statement on ideas of hate, and especially love.
Funny Games, 1997, Michael Haneke: 2.5 / 4
The viewer is forced into a perpetual state of discomfort. There's no other way to explain this film. The terror never ends. I experienced little to no enjoyment from this film, yet some of its defining characteristics cannot be overlooked. Haneke expanded the boundaries that a truly great film is permitted to work from. His choice to showcase violence prominently through sound was entirely powerful, if only for the potential of such an idea. His use of the camera was undoubtedly unique, searching deeper within characters to find even more. The style used seemed to force improvisation by the actors/actresses. But the idea that had the most influence on me, led to an occurrence that was utterly shocking. The villians' complete control of outcome, their ability to literally rewind, it left me with a certain emptiness.
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, Stanley Kubrick: 2.5 / 4
I watched this in a more social environment, also without subtitles. I wasn't able to follow the film to the degree that I would've liked. But based on my prior viewing of this film, I can attest to certain great qualities. The idea of the "Doomsday device" is fascinating to think about. Dr. Strangelove himself is an incredible metaphor for something, I'm not sure what. I feel a strong desire to watch this again, after all, Can one really regret watching a Kubrick?
Midnight In Paris, Woody Allen: 3 / 4
For some reason, I've yet to see Annie Hall, the pinnacle of Woody Allen; I continue to watch some of his other films. I chose this one simply because of the great cover and my continuing journey through Léa Seydoux's work. Her role really isn't significant here and I found myself loving this film for other reasons. I loved the idea of Owen Wilson's character, a former sellout turned aspiring artist. Once Gil (Wilson) enters into the past and encounters some of the great icons of art (I use art loosely here, capturing literature as well), I was in. The interactions of the greatest minds of our time is peak cinema (at least idealistically). This film made me want to read Hemingway. This film showed an idealized Paris, but nonetheless one that seems to offer the highest potential for an artist. Although this film lacked transcendence, its execution of the premise alone wins serious points.
The Great Gatsby, 1974, Jack Clayton: 2 / 4
possible Gatsby piece, exploration of two films, novel.
Blue Ruin, Jeremy Saulnier: 3 / 4
A well-executed revenge flick that modifies itself into a tale of two distinct families. It's a creative screenplay that's exactly as the title suggests it is. The interesting aspect of this film is the elevation of one man to levels he probabilistically shouldn't have achieved. One he's there, it makes for an incredulous situation where soul-searching must occur.
12 Years a Slave, Steve McQueen: 3 / 4
possible review incoming
2.08.2015
Melancholia, Lars von Trier
My first (and only) experience with Lars von Trier began in the wee hours of 2015, when I embarked on Nymphomaniac: The Director's Cut Vol. I. It was an immediate desecration of any film innocence I had left. When I finished Vol. II the next night, (Sorry, the only way I could rationalize watching it was by separating it) I was somewhat disgusted with myself. For any future emboldened souls, please steer clear of the director's cut, especially Vol II. There is one scene which I barely had the fortitude to endure. I still am unsure how I made it through. In Nymphomaniac, it's like Lars von Trier's out to get you; no viewer can escape. This film watching experience gave me reluctance to experience any of von Trier's other work. But several days ago, as I chose Melancholia over Coppola's The Conversation, I began one of the greatest film experiences in my life.
Note: There will be spoilers. Please watch before reading; let your experience be pure!
The opening montage's beauty evoked memories of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. From there, it was a blur. Each character was acted magnificently; each scene was saturated with emotional gravity. The premise: the parallel disintegration of Kirsten Dunst's character Justine and life itself, as the rogue planet Melancholia approaches Earth. Justine has a perfect life in front of her: a creatively satisfying job and an extravagant wedding with her attractive and caring soon-to-be husband. Yet she's lost, lost in her own mind. As her behavior becomes increasingly erratic, she attempts to find someone to cope with, but everyone's just beyond her grasp. Her evening becomes a real-life nightmare. The hopeful moments of her existence are her gazes into the sky, as if a savior resides in the stars. After the wedding Justine loses control; her depression emerges and consumes her. The morning following the wedding begins the second half of the film, where the characters' reactions to the incoming planet, Melancholia, are explored. Justine's caretaker, Claire, played by Charlotte Gainsbourg, is her anxiety-riddled sister. Claire's terrified of Melancholia's potential collision with earth, while her husband John reassures her the worst will not occur. John, played by Kiefer Sutherland, is a scientist whose calculations conclude Melancholia will not collide, but simply fly by. He's convinced that this moment will be aesthetically beautiful and will spur great advances in science. This view is assuredly explained to Leo, John and Claire's son. Upon discovery of the inevitability of planetary collision, each of the characters' reactions is disparate. John commits suicide, as everything he lives for will soon cease. His calculations were in err, the advancement of science is for nought, his son will be dead. Claire entered survival mode, her purpose became prolonging Leo's life, even if there was no rational method of doing so. Justine experienced serenity; she finally understood, her savior had arrived. The end was coming, it was present, and it was beautiful. The beauty was more than sensory, it was contextual. Each moment's significance was magnified. Sensationally, the beauty of life lies in its finiteness, its eventual death.
4 / 4
2.07.2015
Film: 2/1-2/7
The Kids Are All Right, Lisa Cholodenko: 3 / 4
It's a non-traditional family dramedy, one that needs to be watched. The dynamic of a two-mom household was an intriguing idea to me, and its portrayal in this film certainly seems accurate. My two favorite performances in this film were Mark Ruffalo and Mia Wasikowska, but Julianne Moore's also deserves recognition.
Liberal Arts, Josh Radnor: 3 / 4
As I re-entered the universe of this movie, hours after its completion, I raised its rating from 2.5. This film raises questions about how one can find happiness in his/her life. This idea is explored prominently by the characters portrayed by Josh Radnor, Allison Janney, and Richard Jenkins. I also spent much of the movie trying to figure out what book Dean was reading. When it was confirmed to be David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest I was elated. This book was perfect for the context of the issues being discussed. Dean's character also felt legitimately intelligent, even if only based on vibe. There's nothing I hate more that a faux-intellectual in a movie (hyperbole, but whatever). See Tommy Lee Jones' character in The Sunset Limited. I only managed to watch a half-hour of that. Anyway, Liberal Arts is a pleasant surprise from HIMYM's Ted. I'm looking forward to watching Happythankyoumoreplease.
Stoker, Park Chan-wook: 2.5 / 4
Upon discovering access to this film, I immediately watched. I had high expectations, largely because of the involvement of Mia Wasikowska and Nicole Kidman. Mia's character India was baffling and I spent the entirety of the film trying to understand her. The conclusion didn't offer much help. While I appreciated Park's style in the way this was filmed, I didn't feel the fear I expect in this sort of film. Maybe that's largely due to Wentworth Miller's screenplay, [SPOILER INCOMING] but I couldn't sense any danger for India's character; it just seem like Charlie threatened everyone but her. I didn't really care about Nicole Kidman's character, although she was well-acted. The eventual complete revelation about Charlie felt pretty standard; I thought there was potential for more.
Sister, Ursula Meier: 3 / 4
My descent into Léa Seydoux's work left me with this....I'm not sure how it should be classified. There are two central characters: Louise, played by Seydoux, and Simon, her younger brother. Their relationship is tragic, but distinctively human. This film also explores an astonishing class distinction at a tourist point. Initially, I rated this 2.5, but that's largely a product of my rating system. The ratings I give are based (perhaps disproportionately) on the immediate emotional response I have. The darkness in this film made me uncomfortable, but in retrospect, I can see this film's greatness.
Melancholia, Lars von Trier: 4 / 4
review
Fish Tank, Andrea Arnold: 3.5 / 4
possible review incoming
The Interview, Seth Rogen & Evan Goldberg: 2.5 / 4
An instinctual watch, one I surprisingly didn't regret. Its satirical nature allowed me to simply enjoy the comedy rather than obsess over its political statement. I particularly liked the slo-mo shot of the helicopter explosion with Firework playing in the background. This movie was 3 / 4 if it ended with [SEMI SPOILER] Dave and Aaron leaving N. Korea with Seal Team Six. I thought the turmoil it left N. Korea in would've been perfect. Dave's book was meaningless, I despised the announcement of democratic elections in N. Korea: PEAK HAPPILY EVER AFTER. For some reason, the last few minutes of this felt like a bullshit (may I add, unneeded) political statement. The people in N. Korea immediately flocking to a concept like democracy is laughably unrealistic. Trying to determine what would happen in this scenario is nearly impossible, that's why I'd have advocated for it ending with Dave and Aaron's departure.
Note: I'm still deliberating over how to format my reviews. I feel certain films deserve a more thoughtful review. The three possible films I could review:
It's a non-traditional family dramedy, one that needs to be watched. The dynamic of a two-mom household was an intriguing idea to me, and its portrayal in this film certainly seems accurate. My two favorite performances in this film were Mark Ruffalo and Mia Wasikowska, but Julianne Moore's also deserves recognition.
Liberal Arts, Josh Radnor: 3 / 4
As I re-entered the universe of this movie, hours after its completion, I raised its rating from 2.5. This film raises questions about how one can find happiness in his/her life. This idea is explored prominently by the characters portrayed by Josh Radnor, Allison Janney, and Richard Jenkins. I also spent much of the movie trying to figure out what book Dean was reading. When it was confirmed to be David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest I was elated. This book was perfect for the context of the issues being discussed. Dean's character also felt legitimately intelligent, even if only based on vibe. There's nothing I hate more that a faux-intellectual in a movie (hyperbole, but whatever). See Tommy Lee Jones' character in The Sunset Limited. I only managed to watch a half-hour of that. Anyway, Liberal Arts is a pleasant surprise from HIMYM's Ted. I'm looking forward to watching Happythankyoumoreplease.
Stoker, Park Chan-wook: 2.5 / 4
Upon discovering access to this film, I immediately watched. I had high expectations, largely because of the involvement of Mia Wasikowska and Nicole Kidman. Mia's character India was baffling and I spent the entirety of the film trying to understand her. The conclusion didn't offer much help. While I appreciated Park's style in the way this was filmed, I didn't feel the fear I expect in this sort of film. Maybe that's largely due to Wentworth Miller's screenplay, [SPOILER INCOMING] but I couldn't sense any danger for India's character; it just seem like Charlie threatened everyone but her. I didn't really care about Nicole Kidman's character, although she was well-acted. The eventual complete revelation about Charlie felt pretty standard; I thought there was potential for more.
Sister, Ursula Meier: 3 / 4
My descent into Léa Seydoux's work left me with this....I'm not sure how it should be classified. There are two central characters: Louise, played by Seydoux, and Simon, her younger brother. Their relationship is tragic, but distinctively human. This film also explores an astonishing class distinction at a tourist point. Initially, I rated this 2.5, but that's largely a product of my rating system. The ratings I give are based (perhaps disproportionately) on the immediate emotional response I have. The darkness in this film made me uncomfortable, but in retrospect, I can see this film's greatness.
Melancholia, Lars von Trier: 4 / 4
review
Fish Tank, Andrea Arnold: 3.5 / 4
possible review incoming
The Interview, Seth Rogen & Evan Goldberg: 2.5 / 4
An instinctual watch, one I surprisingly didn't regret. Its satirical nature allowed me to simply enjoy the comedy rather than obsess over its political statement. I particularly liked the slo-mo shot of the helicopter explosion with Firework playing in the background. This movie was 3 / 4 if it ended with [SEMI SPOILER] Dave and Aaron leaving N. Korea with Seal Team Six. I thought the turmoil it left N. Korea in would've been perfect. Dave's book was meaningless, I despised the announcement of democratic elections in N. Korea: PEAK HAPPILY EVER AFTER. For some reason, the last few minutes of this felt like a bullshit (may I add, unneeded) political statement. The people in N. Korea immediately flocking to a concept like democracy is laughably unrealistic. Trying to determine what would happen in this scenario is nearly impossible, that's why I'd have advocated for it ending with Dave and Aaron's departure.
Note: I'm still deliberating over how to format my reviews. I feel certain films deserve a more thoughtful review. The three possible films I could review:
Come and See
Melancholia
Fish Tank
2.01.2015
Film: 1/25-1/31
Although I put up ratings immediately after I watch, I figured I'd write summaries for the movies I watched each week. So here goes...
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), Alejandro González Iñárritu: 3.5 / 4
I went to the theatre not knowing what to expect. I'd seen nearly all of Iñárritu's previous films (save 21 Grams), but this is a comedy, and certainly doesn't have the bleakness of his other films. I was particularly interested in the idea of a movie about theatre. The performances of Michael Keaton, Ed Norton, and Naomi Watts were particularly memorable. This is a film I'll surely re-watch.
The Social Network, David Fincher: 2.5 / 4
review
Aguirre, the Wrath Of God, Werner Herzog: 2.5 / 4
I watched this movie almost solely because of its supposed influence on Apocalypse Now. While there's certainly obvious plot similarities, I didn't enjoy nearly as much. Aguirre is unquestionably a complex and interesting character, just wasn't able to get emotionally invested in this movie. I found the depiction of animals in this movie to be perhaps the most unique facet of it. There was a particular camera shot near the end which reminded me of Nicolas Winding Refn's Valhalla Rising. So I'll potentially re-watch after I view Valhalla again.
Come and See, Elem Klimov: 3.5 / 4
I'll write a review on this one eventually.
The Untouchables, Brian De Palma: 2.5 / 4
I'll recommend this movie for two performances: Sean Connery (critics agree) and Robert De Niro (critics disagree). I can understand one's distaste for De Niro's performance, but I was certainly intrigued by his depiction of Capone; I certainly found his character more interesting that Costner's.
Palo Alto, Gia Coppola: 3.5 / 4
review
Django Unchained, Quentin Tarantino: 3 / 4
I chose to watch this movie because it's purely enjoyment. It's a great example of Tarantino's greatness in the humor (opening scene) and aesthetic (first Candyland shootout) in his depiction of violence. There are many good performances in this movie, two that stood out were Bruce Dern (albeit brief) and Samuel L. Jackson. Jackson's Uncle Tom was incredibly fascinating, especially in his interaction with Calvin Candie. Despite the setting, I find this movie to be very light, mostly because of the satirical nature of Tarantino's work.
The Grand Budapest Hotel, Wes Anderson: 3 / 4
This is the second Wes Anderson film I've watched; the other being Moonrise Kingdom. I liked this one less, mostly because of my attachment to the characters in Moonrise. This movie was pleasant stylistically, but that's about it. I enjoyed Léa Seydoux's character, the maid, and Agatha, especially her birthmark resembling Mexico. Also, the snow chase is phenomenal.
American Sniper, Clint Eastwood: 2.5 / 4
This movie really shifted my day. I spent several hours trying to determine my feelings on it. I wish I'd watched this movie without any prior knowledge of the actual story. That way I wouldn't feel obligated to have certain opinions about the movie. I certainly thought Kyle's (I'm speaking of the character) moments of indecision in pulling the trigger, notably the RPG kid, were valuable. I thought Bradley Cooper's Chris Kyle was well-acted. I just wish there'd been a better attempt of trying to portray the actual Chris Kyle. From what I've read he seemed like an great complex character that could've been written (at least better).
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), Alejandro González Iñárritu: 3.5 / 4
I went to the theatre not knowing what to expect. I'd seen nearly all of Iñárritu's previous films (save 21 Grams), but this is a comedy, and certainly doesn't have the bleakness of his other films. I was particularly interested in the idea of a movie about theatre. The performances of Michael Keaton, Ed Norton, and Naomi Watts were particularly memorable. This is a film I'll surely re-watch.
The Social Network, David Fincher: 2.5 / 4
review
Aguirre, the Wrath Of God, Werner Herzog: 2.5 / 4
I watched this movie almost solely because of its supposed influence on Apocalypse Now. While there's certainly obvious plot similarities, I didn't enjoy nearly as much. Aguirre is unquestionably a complex and interesting character, just wasn't able to get emotionally invested in this movie. I found the depiction of animals in this movie to be perhaps the most unique facet of it. There was a particular camera shot near the end which reminded me of Nicolas Winding Refn's Valhalla Rising. So I'll potentially re-watch after I view Valhalla again.
Come and See, Elem Klimov: 3.5 / 4
I'll write a review on this one eventually.
The Untouchables, Brian De Palma: 2.5 / 4
I'll recommend this movie for two performances: Sean Connery (critics agree) and Robert De Niro (critics disagree). I can understand one's distaste for De Niro's performance, but I was certainly intrigued by his depiction of Capone; I certainly found his character more interesting that Costner's.
Palo Alto, Gia Coppola: 3.5 / 4
review
Django Unchained, Quentin Tarantino: 3 / 4
I chose to watch this movie because it's purely enjoyment. It's a great example of Tarantino's greatness in the humor (opening scene) and aesthetic (first Candyland shootout) in his depiction of violence. There are many good performances in this movie, two that stood out were Bruce Dern (albeit brief) and Samuel L. Jackson. Jackson's Uncle Tom was incredibly fascinating, especially in his interaction with Calvin Candie. Despite the setting, I find this movie to be very light, mostly because of the satirical nature of Tarantino's work.
The Grand Budapest Hotel, Wes Anderson: 3 / 4
This is the second Wes Anderson film I've watched; the other being Moonrise Kingdom. I liked this one less, mostly because of my attachment to the characters in Moonrise. This movie was pleasant stylistically, but that's about it. I enjoyed Léa Seydoux's character, the maid, and Agatha, especially her birthmark resembling Mexico. Also, the snow chase is phenomenal.
American Sniper, Clint Eastwood: 2.5 / 4
This movie really shifted my day. I spent several hours trying to determine my feelings on it. I wish I'd watched this movie without any prior knowledge of the actual story. That way I wouldn't feel obligated to have certain opinions about the movie. I certainly thought Kyle's (I'm speaking of the character) moments of indecision in pulling the trigger, notably the RPG kid, were valuable. I thought Bradley Cooper's Chris Kyle was well-acted. I just wish there'd been a better attempt of trying to portray the actual Chris Kyle. From what I've read he seemed like an great complex character that could've been written (at least better).
1.30.2015
Louie: Pilot, Poker/Divorce, Dr. Ben/Nick
Louie's undoubtedly my favorite comedy on television, so I went back and re-watched the first three episodes last night. My enjoyment was equally as good, if not greater than my initial watch. The show's protagonist, Louie, is played by Louis C.K., who's essentially playing himself. Each episode rotates between Louie's stand-up and his actual life. In these first three episodes, the absurdity of his life is emphasized, and we're left with his hilarious instances of awkwardness. That's what made me fall in love with this show. But upon re-watch (actually third watch of these specific episodes), I'm also increasingly enjoying his stand-up. This change in taste likely correlates with my recent shift in philosophical ideals. I've found my sense of humor to be less constricted by constructions of morality; I decide what to get out of this show. The show's ideas aren't imposed on me; I select which themes/ideas to hold onto. His stand-up seems to tow the line of immorality, notably with the use of the words 'faggot,' 'cunt,' and 'nigger.' In the first scene of Poker/Divorce, a dialogue arises surrounding the use of these words, specifically 'faggot.' Although the scene ends in a seemingly dismissive joke, I think it revealed some answers about how to tow that line of immorality. The idea was that one must be cognizant of the meaning/origin of word, then must make the judgement on whether its use is justified in stand-up; one shouldn't plead ignorance.
The other facet of this show, Louie's daily life/adventures is tremendous. The peak of these three episodes was certainly Ricky Gervais' cameo as Dr. Ben, who's treatment of Louie left me awestruck. The seemingly perpetual bewilderment Louie experiences during this show is astonishing. I'd highly recommend this show, although a certain level of maturity is required.
Note: I haven't found a suitable rating system for television, mostly because I'm not sure how to rate it. So don't expect television ratings anytime soon. If I do put come up with some, it'll likely be ratings for seasons rather than individual episodes.
The other facet of this show, Louie's daily life/adventures is tremendous. The peak of these three episodes was certainly Ricky Gervais' cameo as Dr. Ben, who's treatment of Louie left me awestruck. The seemingly perpetual bewilderment Louie experiences during this show is astonishing. I'd highly recommend this show, although a certain level of maturity is required.
Note: I haven't found a suitable rating system for television, mostly because I'm not sure how to rate it. So don't expect television ratings anytime soon. If I do put come up with some, it'll likely be ratings for seasons rather than individual episodes.
1.29.2015
Palo Alto, Gia Coppola
Yes, that Coppola. Gia is the granddaughter of Our Great Francis Ford, director of Apocalypse Now, which is in my Pantheon of movies. This film doesn't reach that level, but it's certainly an achievement considering it's her feature-film debut. It's an adolescent drama about four teenagers who're trying to get through life......to live. It feels genuine. April, who becomes entangled in a relationship with her soccer coach, is unsure of what she wants. Teddy's simply there, repositioning after some mistakes. Fred's flamboyant nature seems to be a front for an identity crisis. Emily is a tragic figure, one whose search for love has left her used and alone. Amidst the darkness there is hope, at least for April and Teddy, as their romance seems inevitable. Their interactions seem real; mannerisms indicate feelings as much as words. Gia's style combined with the score creates a seamless flow of scenes. We're left with a deeply relatable film that signifies the emergence of another great Coppola.
3.5 / 4
1.27.2015
The Social Network, David Fincher
The nearly universal acclaim of this film has always confounded me. For this reason, I embarked on a second viewing last Sunday night. The opening scene between Eisenberg and Mara is quintessential Sorkin. The bombardment of dialogue establishes the arrogance of Zuckerberg, who is the central, and perhaps the only meaningful character in the film. Throughout the film, I found myself searching for Zuckerberg's motivations, desires. What does Mark Zuckerberg want? He appears to be on a sort of anti-establishment crusade, as first evidenced by the facemash fiasco. Zuckerberg has a dichotomous relationship with Eduardo. Eduardo aligns himself with the establishment, immediately wanting to capitalize on their idea through advertising. Zuckerberg disagrees asserting: "We don't even know what it is yet." When that line is repeated by Sean Parker, the departure of Eduardo seems inevitable. Parker's character is an idealized version of Zuckerberg himself. He certainly is anti-establishment, but also outwardly appears to have that social exuberance that Zuckerberg lacks. Zuckerberg wants to be loved, both by the populous and by the individual. This individual undoubtedly is Erica Albright. The final scene, Zuckerberg refreshing his Facebook page, is powerful solely because of this idea. This was a film of two scenes; the first and the last. I'm reminded of a quote from the immortal Avon Barksdale.
"You only do two days, the day you go in, the day you go out."
2.5 / 4
Baseline formation
Here are my favorite actors.
Henrik
Michael Fassbender - The Counselor, 12 Years a Slave, Jane Eyre
Ryan Gosling - Drive, The Place Beyond the Pines, Blue Valentine, Only God Forgives
Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds
Adam
Mads Mikklesen - The Hunt, Valhalla Rising
Idris Elba - The Wire, Luther
Matthew McConaughey - The Wolf Of Wall Street, True Detective
Leonard
Brad Pitt - Inglourious Basterds, The Counselor, Babel
Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood
A Baseline; Introduction to Tiers
As my interest in film has expanded, I've identified some favorites. I organize my favorites in a tier system:
Top Tier: Henrik
Secondary Tier: Adam
Third Tier: Leonard
Before I summon chaos, let me identify the criteria.
Criteria! My choices reflect each object's personal meaning; they're knowingly subjective! The choices will likely change as time passes. I'll try to keep it updated!
I'll begin with actresses.
Henrik
Naomi Watts - Birdman,
Mulholland Drive: I'm hard-pressed to find a character more lovable than Betty. When her vibrance transformed into the obsessive Diane Selwyn, I was transfixed.
Mia Wasikowska - The Double, Jane Eyre
Adéle Exarchopoulos - Blue Is the Warmest Colour
Saskia Rosendahl - Lore
Adam
Jessica Chastain - The Tree of Life
Nicole Kidman - Eyes Wide Shut
Carey Mulligan - Drive
Leonard
Jennifer Lawrence - Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle
Cate Blanchett - Babel
Rooney Mara - Side Effects, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Her, The Social Network
Michelle Williams - Blue Valentine, Synecdoche New York
Tatiana Maslany - Orphan Black
Expect more descriptions to be added in the future.
1.26.2015
Fragments of Thought; Inspiration
This blog is a cloud of ideas on a variety of disciplines. My goal is to transcend, through whatever means available. Initially, the focus will be on films, actors, actresses, and directors. There isn't an established pattern for posts, they'll appear only when inspiration's present. Expect variance in length, format, and subject matter.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)