Seraphim Falls - 2006 - Dir. Von Ancken

I feel like I look back on my viewing of this movie in a not particularly fond manner. I want to like it. I mean, two bad ass leads chasing each other through the wilderness with the revenge and whatnot. What could go wrong!? Everything, you friggin' idiot! Don't you know how hard these movies are to pull off!? It's really hard! And this one just doesn't cut the mustard. I don't care how god damn beautiful it is (It is pretty damn beautiful)! First of all, the movie sort of oversells Brosnan's badass-ness right away. The amount of insane survivalist shit he pulls in the first act is too ridiculous for the movie's tone. It doesn't help that it feels like it was directed in a somewhat blase manner. Neeson's consistent (dull) grimace matches the movie's restrained (dull) tone much more than Brosnan leaping out of a dead horse, which would be the high point for a better/goofier movie. It's attempts to be ponderous and interesting by the third act felt just tired and considering I wanted the film to be over at this point, were pretty unwelcome. I guess the movie just felt like it bit off more than it could chew. I'm all for ponderousness... but the movie couldn't hit that bar... and tried so hard that it washed away any thrilling or excitement that could have occurred.

Blornd, Jorms Blornd.

I Love You, Philip Morris - 2009 - Dir. Ficcara/Requa

It's a strangely produced movie. Without Carrey and McGregor's presence, the movie probably would have ended up as a slight more subdued indie, I suppose. A much more understandable beast in that context too. I mean, it makes sense why Big Names would want to get on board with this. It's High Concept with outrageous characters. McGregor's gentle southern boy/belle is simultaneously eye rolling and probably the best part of the movie. I think that's where I fall in my feelings... I felt like it was broad, aiming for the lowest common denominator, but I was entertained I suppose. It's nice to see Carrey being big as hell again and he's still real good at it. And you know, it's nice to see a movie that is just Sweet in some sense. Even if it's cheap and familiar. And yeah, despite the homosex and the prison and the con games, it's a pretty basic story. You know how things are going to go down. And in some sense, I feel like the Direction was plopping the camera down in the most reasonable place and tell the actors to be as big as they can. So, I can't say there's a ton of inspiration behind the scenes. In fact, I will tell you, the best thing the movie has going for it are the performances of the leads. Everything else... Meh!

Hey boys! Leave some room for me!

The Goods - 2009 - Dir. Brennan

I just threw this shit on one night. It's one of those movies that would probably be straight to video if it didn't somehow attract a bunch of names to it. It's just one of those loud, crude comedies the kids seem to get such a kick out of these days. It's based around Jeremy Piven being a wise-ass loudmouth. Everyone else has the appropriate amount of quirks. James Brolin wants to have sex with David Koechner. Katheryn Hahn wants to have sex with a Man-Child. Ed Helms is in a Boy band. Basically the movie just works by repeating those jokes until 90 minutes passes. It's sad because I really do like the cast. There's no one in it that I don't think is fully capable of being hilarious but the script is just so broad, so obvious. Jokes are cheap and based on being outrageous and shocking. Even Piven, who seems pretty good at jazzing up lousy writing, flounders as the leading man. There's not nearly enough steam in the character to push through the movie. There's not nearly enough steam in any aspect of the movie to push it through, which I suppose is why it ends up resorting to being loud. But you know... I guess, I dunno. I like Loud. The sequence where everyone is just screaming is great. But I feel like the movie doesn't earn the Loudness. It's not a choice to the people who made it, it's the only thing they can think of.

The Goods staring Jeremy Piven's Face

Harry Brown - 2009 - Dir. Barber

I sort of accidentally watched this movie. Just sitting around one day, I popped it on. I mean, who doesn't wanna see Caine go all vigilante in his old age? But the results... MEH. The movie itself doesn't really bring anything new to the genre. Death Wish and all. But being that it's Michael Caine, you know? He's kind of the man... And I'm becoming a bigger and bigger Emily Mortimer fan... even though she's not really doing much in the film. Generic cop who is good but also on Caine's trail. She IS displaying a really bitchin' range, though. Oddly enough, I think I liked the movie more before Caine got all Death Wish on everyone. It's a little over the top especially when the quiet moments are done as well as they are. Like, the youth feel close to Schumacher style gangs. A hair's breadth away from Neon Pants and Make-up. They are so vulgar and awful... it sort of reduced the depth of the film. Rather than illustrating anything interesting morally about vigilantism or old age v. the youth, it's just Caine deciding to kill awful assholes and then trying to not getting caught. It's not all that interesting once you get past the performances. And I can't say I cared too much for the look of the film. Story telling, yes. Very nice. But the lightning and cinematography? FEH. I could feel how hard it was trying to be beautiful and poignant.

Michael Caine doesn't give a FUCK about the Sun exploding behind him.

Duplicity - 2009 - Dir. Gilroy

So I liked Michael Clayton... thought it was a pretty neat movie. So I had reasonable hopes for Duplicity. I know it wasn't received as well and it didn't really look as good either but hey... I'd give it a shot... eventually. And it's okay. There's some funny ideas in it and it is a reasonably good time, I guess. It feels like its aiming a little low, a little too cheap, than it should have been by trying to be a "It's-A-Con-But-We're-All-Having-A-Good-Time" type movie. We've already got plenty of those. And being that the romance in the movie is one laced with betrayal and witty banter, it's not exactly romantic. And since a function of the movie is to just reveal how complicated the Con is, the movie boils down to witty people doing things we don't exactly understand. The thing is, I really like this movie on paper. I think it has great ideas and it handles them in a way that I'd get a kick out of. Just the execution feels insincere... it doesn't take it's plot seriously and the characters don't take themselves seriously, but despite all the not being serious, it still doesn't come off as fun. I suppose it's sort of mean... but that's not right. So I guess that's how it ends up feeling insincere. It feels like there's nothing to pull us into the movie.

Beautiful people... Loving one another...

The Kid Stays in the Picture - 2002 - Dir. Burstein

I didn't care for this documentary. To some degree, I felt like I was just listening to Robert Evans tell me about himself... something I'm sure he enjoys and has had a lot of practice doing. Considering the doc is based on his autobiography, and features his voice, I think it's safe to say we are very much on Robert Evan's turf in this movie. And I'm not sure I really enjoyed feeling that way. There's a kind of manufacturedness about the story to begin with. Like he so badly wants it to fit into the normal story-telling arc, a nobody to somebody story with him exploding and learning his lesson and then an eventual redemption. No matter how hard he tries though, he can't hide the obvious. His life is not a movie and he never is as sympathetic as much as he would like to be. For example, he talks about his true love: Ali McGraw and how he loses her to Steve McQueen. We're told this was important emotional event for him. The film neglects, however, his six other wives that came before and after. So it just feels like it is there because they needed to have a Girl in the story. Stir up some sympathy for the dope. He's also pictured as extremely passive. Like his discovery is indicative of the rest of his life, he just hangs out near famous people and great shit happens. I dunno, I feel like I could go on and nitpick how the thing continues to fail on several levels... but I think you get the point. It's just very cold and empty.

Robert Evans will make you pay.

The Constant Gardener - 2005 - Dir. Meirelles

I had always kept this film in mind. Knowing it made a big splash when it came out but I never really knew anything about it and never pursued viewing it in anyway. After seeing Tinker Tailor, I figured "Hell! Might as well see some other adaptations!" Obviously, they are pretty different. In fact, Constant Gardener is not your usual spy flick. It's a lot more of a... romance? Or Drama? Set in a world of espionage and Big Pharma with a Kenyan backdrop. The mystery and conflict arises more through the relationship between Fiennes and Weisz. Confusing? Well, it's got a few different faces. Thankfully, they are work together pretty well. In fact, pretty damn seamlessly now that I think about. You'd think it'd be wwwwaaaaayyyy more confusing and fractured than it is. Perhaps because Fiennes and Weisz provide such a sturdy emotional backbone for the film and the tone maintains itself throughout. Even as Fiennes is fleeing Raiders, we don't feel like we've suddenly been jerked into action movie territory. So yeah, it's an engaging enough and well made picture. It didn't exactly blow my socks off, but I got involved and liked it enough that I didn't feel cynical about the dream-y close-ups and occasional overly-ponderous moments.

Hey now, Pete! Button up!

Sweetgrass - 2009 - Dir. Castaing-Taylor

"Anthropological" gets thrown around a lot when I hear talk of this movie, which I dunno... I find that term to be a little... iffy? I suppose it applies, but I feel like the word is used as an attempt to remove the film from the arena of Cinema and into Science, as if that makes it more trustworthy or reputable. True, it would be hard to call the film biased, but like anything and like science, IT IS. It has an argument, a perspective. One of those. Of course, since the director is an Anthropologist... it seems even more apt. But let me refrain from continuing this non-argument that I've already wasted so much time with. You can call the movie whatever the fuck you want (Let me just point out what a waste of time all those sentences were). The movie is about Sheep. Sheep being led across mountains. Which is not done anymore. I watched it for two reasons, 1) I like Sheep. I think they are fun and great to watch. 2) It promised to be minimal. I love a good minimalist documentary. I just want to watch stuff happen. No voice-over or wonky editing. I don't want some fat prick telling me what he thinks and then cracking wise. The movie delivered on both fronts. Therefore, it is a slow movie. There's very little explanation of what is going on. Almost none. So you spend a lot of time watching farmers do stuff. I would also say that it is a beautiful movie, though. There are some gorgeous shots in it. There are these strange protuberance of humor in the film, especially around the halfway point. But you know... it's not laugh out loud or anything. NO LULZ HERE. You know, I'd say, you probably know the kind of movie this is. If you're in that mood, DO IT.

Sweet, grass.

The Paranoids - 2008 - Dir. Medina

For some reason, I was really excited about this, even though the trailer set it up to be a kind of run of the mill, artsy loner type movie. And it is. From the overly ponderous opening shot, which I feel really only has a tenuous connection to the movie. It's the kind of opening shot where I feel like I can hear the director say "Wouldn't it be cool if..." From there we get to explore our Protagonist and how much his life is shit. He's shy, with a crappy job, and he can't do what he loves cause he's screwed up, and he also does too many drugs. It's the usual bag. I think Hendler does a really good job doing that and it's directed well, but it's familiar territory. Throw in an old friend who has become successful and is a complete douchebag, things get slightly more interesting, but not much more. Some familiar story-telling tropes get thrown into the mix. I shook my head when the experienced older fellah started giving advice. It's kind of like an Urban Argentinian Garden State, which has good points and bad points to it. It was never an unenjoyable experience and I certainly didn't feel like the film spoke down to me or insulted my intelligence, but I don't feel like it really pushed or pulled me any one way.

Oh yeah, babe, blur your arms for me some more!

Graveyard of Honor - 2002 - Dir. Miike

A Miike remake of a Fukasaku film seems like an appropriate enough thing to exist. The two men certainly have their similarities. Although, let's not fool ourselves, this is a Miike movie. It is unendingly violent, loud, and strangely enough slow and boring. The man just seems to want to show us someone who can't not hurt people all the time. So, you know, we're never really rooting for the guy. We're just waiting for him to hit the wall. And good god, does it take forever... more than two hours of this jackass screaming and doing insane shit, getting fucked up on drugs. There's an arc of a kind. But the film is like a Punch and Judy show, where the character is a vehicle for violence and that is kind of the long and the short of it. We don't really get many insights into why or even a goofy quirk (like say Ichi the Killer might throw that our way). We're just dealing with a violent dude in a violent movie. This isn't Miike at his strongest. It's not his worst. There's some fun sequences... but they can be pretty far apart. Pretty, pretty far apart. So, I dunno. If you wanna watch a lot of fighting and blood and screaming (that actually sounds more appealing then the movie is), check it out. I think you could do better though.

Guys! I'm Batmmmaaaaaann?

Lars and the Real Girl - 2007 - Dir. Gillespie

I had put off this film for a while, fearing it would be a two hour examination of how pathetic and delusional one man can be. Sort of like an emotional car crash, where you can't turn away from the wreak of a man in front of you. It's actually more like a really nice bus ride with old people. It's charming, slowly paced, and any bawdiness is enveloped by it's charm. Assuming the old people aren't the filthy disgusting type of elderly people. The film rarely gets mean, rarely gets too sentimental. It doesn't really take many risks once you get past the premise. It actually ends up just being a much nicer movie than one might expect. Lars' delusion never gets cringe worthy and is often more about his progress to healing than his illness. Sure... I dunno. I suppose if you're looking for hard drama or... well... anything harder. You won't really get it from Lars. Solid performances from the main cast keep it from feeling to light and fluffy. They play it honestly and rarely cheap. The harder to swallow moments come from the townspeople... who as less developed characters, often highlight the Hallmark Card sentiment line that the film is toeing. It was a pleasantly light surprise, the kind of film that really sets out to do a certain job and does it very well.

Get the hint, Gosling! She's trying to read!

Capturing the Friedmans - 2003 - Dir. Jarecki

If you like movies about Child Molestation, then this is the documentary for you! It creeped me out, which I suppose isn't a stretch considering it's subject: the convicted Father-Son team of child molesters in suburban Long Island. Perhaps what ends up being the most disturbing aspect of it is the film's own ambiguity in regards to whether or not their guilt is justified. It doesn't take a strong stance exactly, but simply repeatedly suggests that all is not what it appears. So by the end of the film, we're left hanging, having either seen the up close and personal lives of a family where two of the members committed awful acts OR the jailing of an innocent. To be honest, the family dynamic exposed by the plethora of home video the Friedmans' kept is unnerving enough but to have the insinuations of child molestation underneath is the Icing on the cake. The terrible, terrible cake. Their constant clowning throughout the process, either as a bizarre way of coping with the situation or just... I don't know what, becomes pretty surreal at times. Either way, it's a well-crafted documentary and Jarecki seems to have pretty surprisingly open access considering the situation (that he got the home videos and interviews at all seems lucky). Worth the watch if you want to feel unsure and unsettled.

GOOD TIMES!

The Machinist - 2004 - Dir. Anderson

It's funny to have watched this and Shutter Island so close together because each film plays with our protagonist's sanity as the film goes on. My problem with The Machinist is that I feel like we come to the conclusion that our protagonist is nuts long before the film is willing to admit such a thing. I never bought that Reznik was the victim of a conspiracy. He's a nobody, who is obviously unhinged. So the film becomes more about how much damage is this guy going to do, how much has already been done, and how crazy is he going to get? The problem with this is that Trevor spends most of the movie alone. So the movie is watching Christian Bale lose his mind. Bale is a fine actor. He can be pretty muted/distant/cold at times, and this is not an exception. Sometimes it works, but it also makes it a little hard to feel for him. The strongest aspect of the film are the repeating motifs, sequences, images. In fact, they work REALLY well. When everything comes together, it's pretty satisfying. It does have an ending that redeems all the BS you go through from the start and the movie is good with Red Herrings, perhaps because our attention is drawn in several directions at once. And I just wanna throw it out there, John Sharian is awful! So, an engaging enough distraction with some storytelling issues, but satisfying nonetheless.

STOP. THAT.

Dreamcatcher - 2004 - Dir. Kasdan

Doesn't Kasdan make real movies? I mean... that's a thing, right? Well, I guess everyone is allowed to fuck around in the snow with a bunch of other dudes. This movie is harmless. Completely empty entertainment. Probably too empty? Yeah. It gives in to certain level of goofiness that just betrays the movie. From the get-go, we're asked to believe in an extraordinary level of fantasy. Hurled from mind-reading to a goofy, sudden suicide. The movie just doesn't take a breather, barreling forward, adding more and more details, more and more ideas. It's like four different movies. If anything, it's impressive that it manages to somewhat explain it all, but the bar is so low that really, any explanation would do. It's kind of sad considering the level of talent involved in the picture. There isn't one person in the movie that I don't enjoy watching... and I don't enjoy watching any of them. AND WHY THE FUCK DOES THE ALIEN HAVE A BRITISH ACCENT!? The movie is full of fine ideas, fine characters, a fine premise. You have a monster that bursts out of asses and the good sense to call it a Shit Weasel (that's just good horse sense [probably also my favorite portion]). It just had to PICK one and stick with it. God knows, the movie is too long as is. It's sort of a good illustration of Stephen King at his worst. You've got packs of childhood friends being brought together to fight a vast evil but then man just goes and doesn't know when to call it quits and then all of a sudden you've got a thousand page book with a villain with giant white eyebrows shooting at an alien dying of leukemia from a helicopter. Evil clown, I can handle. Freeman's eyebrows, NO SIR.

EEERRRRR!!! ACTING MOVIES!!!

The Most Dangerous Man in America - 2009 - Dirs: Ehrlich/Goldsmith

Knowing absolutely nothing about Daniel Ellsberg, I was wondering how he became the most dangerous man in America. I suppose leaking Top Secret documents revealing some of America's secrets about the Vietnam war would do that. The documentary follows Ellsberg's early life as a fine, upstanding Patriotic American, who enthusiastically and voluntarily served time in Vietnam to his eventual shift to becomes an Enemy of the State. I feel like there is a somewhat uneven storytelling issue when is comes to Ellsberg's family life, if only because it can be pretty focused on how he met his wife (which was, naturally, a great sea change for him) but then I feel like I miss chunks of it and then all of a sudden he's divorced with two children. I don't mean to be a Nosey Nancy by any means but there was a lack of narrative smoothness in that respect. The rest of the doc is smooth as smoothed butter. Oh! Except for the animated sequences, which are rare but stick out like a shitty looking sore thumb. Anyway, Ellsberg's story is particularly potent because of his 180 degree change and I feel like it's rare to get such an indepth look into the whistleblower and the whistleblowing in general. The subject matter is especially interesting these days with all the wikileaks and talks of transparency and whathaveyou. It's strong documentary except for such nitpicking and certainly leads to some pondering about our relationship with our government (Man, Nixon sure was a hostile SOB!).

DANGER!

ABC Africa - 2001 - Dir. Kiarostami

I've only seen one other Kiarostami film previous to this, it was not a doc so they don't exactly compare. It feels a little funny to critique the documentary about children dying of AIDS but I thought this could have been a little better! I guess, really my primary issue is that it looks like Kiarotstami just edited together a mildly organized vacation. The reason it looks that way is because that's what it is (sorta, he went location scouting and ended up just using that footage). This does two things, one bad, one good. On the bad, there's a kind of haphazard feel to many portions of the movie. It just FEELS like something that wasn't intended to be a movie. On the flip side, however, it also seems to convey a kind of atmosphere that perhaps a planned doc might lose. There's a spontaneity about it as if we're wandering side by side with Kiarostami. Even the portion that takes place in complete darkness contributes to this flow. He doesn't interrupt it with voice overs or heavy handedness, letting his footage speak for itself. The film is especially adept at capturing moments when it's at its best. However, I am of two minds because when occasionally it fell into moments of Kiarostami home videos, I felt like it was doing injustice to a topic that deserves far more respect.

Lucky kid... I wish I had a hoop...

Exiled - 2006 - Dir. To

I had a bit of a To exploration phase in college. It wasn't long-lived. I think I went through three or so before losing interest. His movies were the epitome of confusion for me. I rarely could follow what was going on. I could rarely keep track of the action. There were a lot of spinning and smoke and crap flying everywhere. It certainly seemed nicely directed, but the movies felt like 90's action movies that were a chore to follow. Naturally, I popped this on my queue because of it's western like description and deciding to give the man a chance after so many years. Exiled still has the 90's action movie feel but seems to be a lot more simply told than To's other films. I could follow what was going on in the movie. One of the reasons for that is probably because it's not hard to guess what WILL happen in this movie. Everyone does the thing they should. Unless it was an action sequence in which case it was all spins. He seems to get close to a ballet type choreography but I feel like most of the time, it's just spinning. They're visually nice, but I have absolutely no kind of emotional reaction to those sequences. I just wait until they are over to have figured out what has gone on. So it felt like a pretty good movie to get someone started on To. It's fun, charming at times, has an equal share of good and confusingly directed action sequences, and it's easier to follow than his others despite some goofy plot divergences. Probably if you can't stomach that or don't want to, I imagine you should stop right here.

You guys wanna have a shoot out or something?

Tears of the Black Tiger - 2000 - Dir. Sasanatieng

Recommended to me by a friend who knew I liked strange westerns, this certainly fits into that category. Campy and melodramatic, it follows the love of a notorious henchman and a governor's daughter. As expected, their love causes conflict in their respective circles. Bloodshed and tears ensue. I found out afterward that I was watching Miramax's heavily edited version (apparently they kinda gave the movie the shaft). Apart from a rather sudden ending, I didn't clue in on it but I think like... twenty minutes or so were cut out (I saw a 90 min release where the running time is listed at 110). It's a fun, playful movie, dipping now and then into some classy melodrama. It moves along swiftly enough, although the flashbacks feel a little tedious now and then. The action is certainly well done, exciting or silly enough in the beginning, then pleasantly violent at the end. Visually, it's very strong. The real gem in the film is the acting. Everyone treads the line between camp and silliness, never crossing over too far in either direction. My particular favorite is Mahasuan, who has an overly masculine voice and the SILLIEST fucking mustache. Silly moustaches aside, the movie generally shows a bit of restraint. Now and then it explodes (see below) but it always good enough to reign itself back in and be a real film. It's not exactly mind-blowing or spectacular, but just a very satisfying and visually appealing entry in the world of Camp.

Sunsets are FUCKED UP in Thailand.

Kairo - 2001 - Dir. Kurosawa

Kiyoshi Kurosawa is one of my favorite directors, but Kairo/Circuit/Pulse always tripped me up a little. It was one of his more talked about films, kind of making a cult splash over on this shore resulting in what was probably a shitty remake. I've seen it once before and was bored. It didn't seem nearly as interesting as his other movies. I had always kind of assumed I missed something or that I was a little distracted during my viewing (which I was). So I gave it another shot, years later... this time around, my opinion is about the same. The initial premise of the Spirtual World leaking into our own through electronics as well as the theme of disconnection in our MODERN WORLD are interesting but they don't really seem to manifest in an interesting way. I'm willing to admit that many of my favorite Kurosawa films share similiar problems with Pulse. For example, the plot develops strangely, often making it difficult to keep up and causing some pacing issues. He often blends genres but it doesn't seem to work out this time around. He hops back and forth between horror and drama without really giving either the attention they might deserve, resulting in sudden horror sequences (that to be honest, didn't really get me all that much) and pretty on-the-nose dialogue as characters consider their mortality. I think to some degree it feels too much like a straight J-Horror movie. There's no real playfulness about it. Not that I require playfulness, but it helps and always felt like something he did very well when handling tough or intellectual subjects. It's clearly a Kiyoshi Kurosawa movie and in that, it's probably more interesting than your usual J-Horror fare, but I feel like it's a poor example of what he can do

AAAUUGGHH!!! C'mon man, clean up after yourself!

Bright Star - 2009 - Dir. Campion

I don't know Fuck all about Keats! Or them POEMS they keep talking about. I ended up seeing this primarily because I'd seen Campion's Passionless Moments in school and it had always really stuck with me. I'd figured it was time to see her larger body of work was like. I think what appealed to me about her short film was what I liked most in Bright Star. Just short, quiet moments. Beautifully shot. And there is plenty of time allotted for those moments. Especially when they are first falling in love, which threw me for a loop. The parts I liked most were the Romantic parts. When Keats begins to die, I got pretty bored. Maybe because it becomes so clear that he will die so early on, so... I dunno... I wanted him to get on with it. Oh! But I did get a kick out of Paul Schneider as Browning. Schneider just pops up all over the place and he always does a fantastic job! Abbie Cornish does a good job of being somewhat unlikable at first and then seemingly growing on us. Ben Whishaw seems to have a somewhat easier job of being the tortured artist heartthrob. I'm not sure I really emotionally connected with the film. I would often find myself a little confused and distracted by the actions of the characters, but I was so out-of-place in this world that I think I struggled to keep up. Nonetheless, I enjoyed most of the film. It's just very visually satisfying and I feel like the plot is subdued enough to let our eyes just hang out and enjoy.

The Agony of being a Poet...