Anamorph (2007)

"The truth depends where you stand."

The above statement is a common truth, but what is happening if we have to understand it literally? What is happening if it refers to a certain perspective, point of view, a determined optical viewpoint? Our limited view on the story is part of the information distributing game of every plot, especially the crime or mystery film's syuzhets. At the same time there is another important "perspective": In the movies, - in this case - more precise in the cinematic theatres the position of the audience is crucial. What you see and what you know are usually hand in hand. But what is happening if a director takes this common knowledge serious? Then comes H.S. Miller's film, where the narratively restricted view's knowledge merging with an information rationing of the perspective. The narrative's only truth reveals only from a certain, defined geometrical angle. The truth depends where you stand.

"Anamorphosis is a Renaissance painting technique which uses the principles of forced perspective to construct an alternate image within the frontal composition." [more here]

I suppose at this point I should stop to talk more about the unique idea of the film (I'm talking about an 'unique idea' but not an 'unique narrative', no, not at all), rather I'll explain the starting point of the story. There are extremely strange and mysterious murder cases scare New York. The used adjectives are not for dramatizing the situation but to depict the reality: some Bacon-like horrific artistic-killer (he removes the body's inner parts, painting over it, hang it over the way around just to fit for a presentation by a camera obscura) threatens the people and even more the police, whose biggest fear materializes by the serial killer: the one time solved (...) Uncle Eddie's case came back (...) by this "copycat artist"...

"An artist never stops working. He always gathering material, preparing a new study."

A blog called 'bobbyperu' has to have a special attention on Willem Defoe (as detective Stan Aubray), who unfortunately becomes really old (the coloured hair doesn't help), and who is definitely better in a negative roles. Maybe next time... I have to mention Clea Duvall's performance in a tiny role (for me she is the new Tilda Swinton), Peter Stormare's short appearences ... and Paul Lazar' scary moments as the medical examiner (his face is more brutal than all the murders:).

Maybe the anamorphose technique "cancelling out all that you've learned about fixed perspective", but H.S. Miller's promising debut movie with its trendy sephia-brownish overcontrasted colours won't overwrite the existing patterns on serial killer movies. If you've seen The Silence of the Lambs, Se7en or Zodiac, then go and check it out. If not (huh?), then ... you know what to do.

6/10

Hawaii, Oslo (2004)

Leon wants to meet Asa. He hasn't seen her for 11 years. They made a silly agreement: they are going to be married if they remain single until being 25 years old. Tomorrow is the day. Leon is waiting for Asa.

Ok, an honest confession: I really don't know so much (anything) about Norwegian films. The only thing I remember that Christopher Nolan's Insomnia (2002) is a remake of Erik Skjoldbjærg's movie with the same title from 1997. We, or at least I have my homework.

Nonetheless I've never heard of Erik Poppe, maybe it's worth to remember his name. Not because his second movie, Hawaii, Oslo would be some kind of masterpiece, but because he is carrying a chance to be a setting talent. His film's plot is much more complex as I mentioned above, actually he is using a trendy network-narrative structure, moreover a "caleidoscope-plot" (between sequences (and in the poster) it appears literally as well) (for safety some of the network-narratives: Amores Perros, Bobby, Babel, Magnolia, and maybe the origo by Altman: Short Cuts). Seemingly independent storylines crossing each other time to time in order of a final culmination where all of them meet during a hot (!) Norwegian summer night. You might pat, but wait a second! There is something more. Leon, who is mentally rather unstable is in danger. His therapist has a special ability: he sees the future. Never failed with his predictions. By the end of the day Leon will be hit by a car. We have just seen it in the beginning of the film. That is sure. Is that sure? The only question is how our heroes will reach that end, or - and I'm slightly slipping into a spoiler zone - how that end could be avoidable? Is there such a thing like fate, or is it possible to make a trick on it?

My haunting question during watching network-narrative movies with a clear flash forward is 'Why causes amusement if we know (e.g. by our extradiegetic knowledge, see Bobby) or literally see the end of the events right at the beginning of the film?' The question leads us to the problematics of the suspense which isn't as easy as we might think. The suspense is usually tied to the knowledge rationing of the certain film. Holding back information creates uncertain, suspensful feelings in the audience. That is true, but then how is it possible to feel suspense during watching second or more times the same film by Hitchcock / during watching an actualization about a known historical event? The answer (anomalous suspense), explained by the cognitive theory opens up exciting discussions - if you're interested in them please visit here (and follow the whirpool of the page's links..)

But back to the actual topic: The biggest virtue of Poppe's film is the success of establishing a traditional network-storyline (builds up a working anomalous suspense (we know what will happen, but still feel hope..)) in order to destroy it's "built-in" fate by a simple but beautiful turn. The only allowed spoiler here is the film's visual help - right from its very beginning:

In my growing enthusiasm I almost gave 7 out of 10, but I rather reserve some for later.

6/10

[... nr. 2.]

You might have noticed my efforts writing posts every second day. It had its reason. Yes, I'm leaving again for a while..

I can assure you that the next days in Finland nobody will work. Juhannus, the longest day of the year is coming on Friday, when everybody is leaving the cities heading for the countryside. I'm doing that with friends, too. Moving to Viitasaari, having a mökki at the shore, enjoying the sunny midnight, fishing from a boat, making fire (see the photo) and trying out my personal Kuksa:)

See you next week, have a nice Juhannus, careful with the drinks, and stay tuned!

[10/10]

Cassandra's Dream (2007)

"- I think it's a very moral play, don't you think?

Moral? In what way?

- Well, about evil, about fate."

This brief conversation about a theater piece in a movie is actually about the film, about Woody Allen's new, well tempered situational movie itself. Somehow everything is so simple as this conversation is - but it's not a wonder if we are in Allen's hands. I would say just another perfect story, but unfortunately we can't say this about his films nowadays. It's not like he forgot to create perfect situations which are crying for a story, it's more like he is still easily mastering all the psychological elements of a comedy or drama (whatever for him, but mostly the former one), but somehow these situational games don't fit into a coherent narrative. I was - as I used to in cases of a Woody Allen film - really enjoyed all the conversations, the actors' performances and this time even the created story too. Although I felt a bit longer than necessary the installation of the situation (the actors compensated for that easily), but somehow even enjoyed that in the hope that the ending will pay off my patience. As you already realized, I wasn't amazed about the ending - and I won't flatter: you won't be either.

As I claimed the sory is more than promising: two brothers, Ian's and Terry's otherwise lovely characters impersonate both sides of our self's weaknesses. Ian (Ewan McGregor is brilliantly natural in his role as he used to be. He can hold a glass of beer the most convincing among all the actors from Great Britain) wants to be more than he is: he wants to establish his own ideas, to impress a girl with higher expectations, to get part of a one size bigger business. He is getting frustrated, desperate. Terry's (Colin Farrell convinces me more and more about his acting talent. Funny coincidence that he is experiencing almost the same trauma in this film what he received in McDonagh's In Bruges)  passionate addiction of gambling, and what is more dangerous, his true belief on his winning streaks makes him desperate... Two desperate guys need to solve their situations. Two desperate guys are reaching a "line". They exactly know: if you cross that line, there aren't ways back:

"then was then, and the now is now."

Do or die? Die or do? Both? 

Perfect team (Allen, McGregor, Farrell, Philip Glass, Vilmos Zsigmond) for a simple (Allen uses the myth of Cassandra elegantly, without any obtrusion), almost perfect story. Just watch it (if it helps: better than Allen's last movies. If you're not convinced yet one more argument: he is not playing any parts in the film (on the picture he is instructing out of scene)). 

7/10

Logan's Run (1976)

"Sometime in the 23rd century... the survivors of war, overpopulation and pollution are living in a great domed city, sealed away from the forgotten world outside. There, in an ecologically balanced world, mankind lives only for pleasure, freed by the servo-mechanisms which provide everything. 

There's just one catch: Life must end at thirty unless reborn in the fiery ritual of Carrousel..."

Another classic, but at least sci-fi cult film from 1976 (I mean from 2274:) by Michael Anderson about the possible future: at least in its above quoted prologue it encounters all our actual threat which might lead to the depicted utopia (the film definitely made influence on such movies like the Polish cult Seksmisja, but even Verhoeven's Total Recall or Bay's The Island). Our protagonist, Logan 5 (Michael York, who sometimes looks pretty much like Guy Pearce - see the pic) is a "sandman", a member of a special unit who are collecting and killing the so called runners, the ones who doesn't want to "renew" when they turn into 30.

"One is terminated, one is born. Simply, logical, perfect."

One day the 26 years old Logan gets a special mission: his superiors transform him 30 to create a runner from him in order to infiltrate and search for the secret place of the runners called Sanctuary. Why do they run? Why is it wrong to run? Logan's run is more a process of his awake, the realisation of the cruelty of their "well balanced" system.

After the first scene and the initial tune of the atmospheric soundtrack (omg Jerry Goldsmith was a genious! (he wrote the score for The Omen (best st. ever), Chinatown (or this would be the best?) from the same year, and later - not accidentally - for Totall Recall, too)) you feel Anderson's effort to make a "big" film; whish I could watch these classics on a big canvas...

Anyway, Logan's Run isn't a flawless film, for example the middle part is definitely longer than it should be, but if you're a sci-fi fan, then it is a real delicacy. Otherwise: you decide.

6/10

In Bruges (2008)

(I'm gonna be quick this time 'cos the next match (CRO-GER) from the Euro2008 is coming soon...)

"After I killed them, I dropped the gun in the Thames, washed the residue off me hands in the bathroom of a Burger King, and walked home to await instructions. Shortly thereafter, the instructions came through. »Get the fuck out of London, youse dumb fucks. Get to Bruges.« I didn't even know where Bruges fucking was. It's in Belgium."

The Oscar winner (!) Martin McDonagh's first feature film (!!!) is about two hitmen, Ray (Colin Farrell, who is really Irish!) and Ken, whose last action turned out in a wrong way, therefore they need to hide in some "shithole" ("Bruges is a shithole. Bruges isn't a shithole" - offers the options the film, pick your choice), trying to keep some low profile until further instructions. Do I need to mention that they aren't able to sit nicely in their hotel room? And the real conflict is far from their Bruges visit: Harry (essentially I hate Ralph Fiennes, but here he is just good), their principal from London asks for an impracticable job...

After the fact that the film wasn't advertised enough, and then suddenly overhyped by all of the critics I became extremely interested (my personal interest's source is that I really like the city - within a month I'm gonna visit there again:). I have to say the story is over the average but far from being the "movie of the year" and other kinds of enthusiastic reactions I could read. Sometimes I had the feeling that the otherwise really funny conversations were much more important than the story itself (which is perfectly balancing between seriousness and comedy - extra point for the score which enhance this). Farrell is Acting (I appreciate him since the genious Michael Mann's brutally cool Miami Vice), but the biggest merit of the film is the view on Bruges, and Belgium. Drinking Leffe from a bottle (a "gay beer"), making jokes about the country's pedophile cases, or - which is more offensive - about its chocolate could have been some negative image on Belgium and its most touristic city, but somehow between McDonagh's hands and Ken's loveable character (Brendan Gleeson) still working as an effective advertisement.

Definitely worth to watch - if nothing else for, then because it invokes one of my favourite films, Don't Look Now by Nicolas Roeg (which will receive a remake in 2009...). A strong 8 out of 10.

8/10

The Oxford Murders (2008)

"Can we know the truth?"

Yes we can, and I'll tell you now - at least about Álex de la Iglesia's new movie, which fits to the series of the thousand times mentioned - and as I believe highly overestimated -  new wave of Spanish cinema (and where the best try is still Sánchez-Cabezudo's Noche de los girasoles!). Iglesia, just as the other directors from contemporary Spain has the knowledge about how to make movies in the new millennium. They especially mastering the style, the way how to build atmosphere and tension, but as far as I see they have obvious problems to tell an otherwise well chosen story. They want more than they can cope, their incontestable cinematic talent is just not enough to translate a well written material to the silver screen (see here mostly Amenábar).

Guillermo Martínez's book (Crímenes imperceptibles, 2003) seems to be too big byte for Iglesia. Sometimes what is working in written form does not the language of the moving pictures. Or we might have not the real film director. But what kind of story we have here to bear? The plot sounds simple: we have a serial killer in Oxford (to avoid spoilers I have to formulate my review like this). Simple as I said - maybe that's why had the author and the director the drive to make it complicated. And usually here lies the problem of all these movies: the necessary complication of the plot kills the real story, but what is more apparent, the wannabe complexity kills the way of storytelling, the reasonable logic of the narrative. And that's the real serial killing in these contemporary films...

Iglesia has another "wise" movie, which uses but more exploits all the merits, unsolved mysteries and eternal questions of mathematics, phylosophy, language theory, physics and who knows what kind of other sciences. It's kinda sad to see how these exciting thoughts serve an otherwise simple murder(ish:) story. I wouldn't say that I guessed right about the film's twisted end (at least 1 point goes for that), but my surprise doesn't mean that I enjoyed the outcome. On the contrary: if the very beginning of the movie cites Wittgenstein: "there isn't truth outside mathematics" - then I really expect something more hidden, unsolved, abstract ending than a clear and "aha" explanation what we finally got. Sometimes leaving something open gives more than close it for one single "truth". Chance is sometimes stronger than a sober logic. After all:

"It's always possible to find a rule, a justification which allows a series to be continued by any number. It all depends on how complicated the rule is."

To accept this otherwise undeniable rule is the problem with The Oxford Murders, and all the contemporary "wise" films.

5/10

Be Kind Rewind (2008)

"I'm Bill Murray. You're everybody else."

I really don't remember when I started to laugh first time during watching another funny stuff by the overtalented Michel Gondry, but at this point (re-shooting Ghost Busters), definitely. Because this film is a funny one (the imdb says comedy & sci-fi), funnier than the contemporary so-called comedies. But at least wiser, shows more respect for its audience, gives more chance for the imagination. Actually these are the keywords to describe Gondry's oeuvre.

The director claimed in an interview that he is still a child who physically grown up and has a chance now to transform his childish imagination and weird dreams into a movie. This wouldn't guarantee anything yet but his milestone-like videoclips (the best videoclip ever made is from him too: Cibo Matto: Sugar Water) and more and more convincing films (from the "Björk-like" Human Nature (2001) until this one) proves his real talent over and over again. But what are the elements of this talent? His latest Be kind Rewind summarizes all of them. To understand them I need to admit that his movies are far from being perfect (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was the closest to that). What I really like in him is the way, the mode how he is approaching the realm of moving images. In his case we are definitely talking about moving images: his attitude towards the material is that sympathic-naive but more honourable one which almost died out from the film business. He is that kind of child which helps us to be a child again. And that is good.

"Solo mission!"

To be a child is a feeling full with nostalgy. Rewind in time. Watching Jerry's (first the Tenacious D and now this... I'm really afraid that I'm gonna like this idiot Jack Black) and Mike's (Mos Def, who is getting better at front of the camera than the microphone) crazy story we are in 2008 but our imagination goes back in time to remember the rule of the VHS video stores (rewind!), to meet Dr Venkman from the Ghost Busters (1984!) again (Sigurney Weaver's comeback is a perfect reference), or to chew over the question of the DVDs as a "future" threat on our most precious VHS collection.

"I don't need it on DVD. I need it on... I need it on VHS. Yeah, well, you know, they said that about laser discs too so..."

This would be already funny in a movie which plays its story in the '80s, but Gondry's idea is far better than that. Jerry and Mike represent ourselves from the eighties who have to prevail in 2008. They are like Poiré's heroes in Les Visiteurs (1993), but somehow in the videofreaks' characters the fun is less important than the nostalgy mixed with homage for a fainting period of our lives (which is at the same time a slight reference to our situation between continously changing technical formats, too). The almost overemotionalized end of the film doesn't leave any doubts about these feelings.

As I said, the film isn't perfect at all. It is "just" creative (among the uncountable innovative ideas my favourite is an extra-diegetic joke of magnetizing Gondry's camera), enthusiastic (I'm preparing to write an essay about the connection between Gondry's attitude and the cult phenomenon), funny (check the "Robocop" picture) and ... visually plus even emotionally beautiful. And I even didn't talk about Fats Waller...

(for more "sweded films" check out this)

9/10

42nd Street (1933)

"Johns and Barry are doing the show!"

The classic 42nd Street about the 42nd street dance theatre at Broadway is Lloyd Bacon's film, but everybody knows because of Busby Berkeley and his stunning staging talent and dance choreographies. To know this you won't expect too much from the story - I bet 4 out of 5 movie fans are watching these films because of Berkeley and the damn good music from the '30s.

Thus if you expect some weak, subservient, shallow story you'll have a positive surprise: "It's a musical comedy with dancing" - says Julian Marsh, the obsessed production director (similar character as Roy Scheider's amazing Joe Gideon in Fosse's All that Jazz (1979)) in the film, but the whole is more than a musical within a musical. The story gives insight into the darkest years of the American great depression. The camera almost never leaves the music theatre, but within its walls, within the desperate effort staging a huge show in five weeks, explicitely emphasizing the weight of the show on people's lifes gives extra values to Lloyd's film.

As I said above the film is about staging a 'never seen before' show (Pretty Lady) with the beautiful Dorothy in the leading role. Not I'm the only one who admires her beauty: as it used to be, a rich but old and dumb fan of her sponsors the whole show, and I won't kill the joke if I tell you the source of the suspense: a former lover of Dorothy endangers this "perfect" cooperation between the show business and the sponsor's wallet...

Dorothy is a more than classic beauty of the '30s, but the real eyecandy is the way how the cinematographer (Sol Polito, see more from him here) and Berkeley created the visual style of the film. Actually the camera is training together with the dancers preparing for the show finale (carefully avoiding to show the most exciting angles and settings to reserve them until the end). Very brave camerawork from the lowest to the vertigous heights, optical tricks (sometimes the choreography is able to imitate these caleidoscope-like tricks (see the picture)), moderate cutting (the performances and the dances are more real / the viewer sits in an imaginary perfect position), and so on...

One more thing: Ginger Roger's "mistake" ("bel... tummy") can't be a mistake - see the revealing discussion about it here.

Even if it's a true masterpiece (within its genre!), you should decide about watch it or not yourself. I did and don't regret.

8/10

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

I suppose you know everything about Spielberg's movie and familiarized yourself with all the film critics' opinions on Indy's new adventures, so here are my subjective feedbacks, right after coming out from the screening in telegraphese way:

1. It is not the "same" anymore.

2. Ford is too old to be Indiana Jones.

3. I'm too old for this movie.

4. Spielberg made a movie for children. I definitely need to re-watch the previous Indiana Jones films to see who changed more: Spielberg or me?

5. I understand and salute the efforts to make some old fashined CGI to serve stylistic continuity with the earlier films, but it is just doesn't work for me.

6. Speilberg shouldn't continue the series (He claimed that the fans wanted to have another episode. We know he was thinking about the box offices. I regret that I encouraged him with my movie ticket). The Indy-hat fits only on Ford's head...

7. The jokes were weaker than ever. Or see point nr. 4.

8. The action scenes were ridicuously too much - reminded me on the Mummy-shit.

9. I was happy to hear mentioning Marcus Brody. I wasn't for seeing Marion.

10. 10? No, sorry, this is only 6. At highest. And two points is out of nostalgy.

It's really hard to accept, but I have to say the Crystal Skull is a strong disappointment. The same happened with the late continuation of the Star Wars-series. It was ok, I had to watch them, but the feeling, the atmosphere, the "whole thing" is just not the same anymore. You might say that my complaints hasn't righteous, and probably you have right: during the couple of passed years I changed, the films changed, even the cinemas changed. But if you want to continue something classic, something cult, then you have to calculate with these changings too. And at this point Spielberg definitely failed. He just made the same professional movie as before. I hope you understand - but what I really hope, that Spielberg will understand this.

6/10

American Graffiti (1973)

"Well, I've gotta go.

Where are you going?

Nowhere.

Will you mind if I come along?"

George Lucas' early film is on my old debts' list. When I was a child I watched it on tv without any deeper effect on me, so this time I was curious how it will work a cult (or already a classic?) story from the early '60s which decade is more about my parents than me.

The story is simple: Curt (an amazingly sympathic character by Richard Dreyfuss) and Steve (!) finally get a chance (a scholarship) to leave their small-time hick town. They have one night to say good-bye to all their memories, loves, friends and everything what they loved and hated the place where they grew up. So the diegetic time is limited to one long night but the doubts and the changing emotions of their characters fill out easily the two hours of the film.

"Where were you in '62?"

If your younghood is from the sixties then it's a must. Otherwise it is a strong 7 out of 10: You'll love the music (the film with its continous music is actually a video clip of the age), the characters (our heroes are exactly between the small town road king and the dork "Toad"), the hair gel, the huge pimped cars, the rollerskater drive-inn waitresses, the cool radio jockeys, the high school balls and so on. A generational nostalgy on the fifties when somehow the roads were longer and wider and when The Beach Boys' shitty surfin' music didn't poison yet the real rock 'n roll...

I emphasized the word "exactly": if Lucas isn't the best director, which is undoubtedly true, he is (together with Spielberg) still one of the most talented to choose and form characters with whom the audience can identify. Offering easy identification is among the most decisive attribute in experience a story, and maybe the most important cinematic value of their movies which serves Curt Henderson's, Han Solo's, Indiana Jones', and all the characters of Tom Hanks' success. Just think on Harrison Ford's tiny part as a horny Bob Falfa - he is so "real" that you wanna watch all his movies immediately.

Finally an easter egg:

Are you a nostalgic or a competitive type?

7/10