23 December 2007

Rope (1948)

...Scorsese's advertisement-fling gave me appetite for watch some Hitchcock. My choice was quite easy: because I'm on my traditional Christmas-tour (at the moment in Belgium) I had to check my laptop which hided a real masterpiece...

First of all you should know (probably you know already) that this is the famous Hitchcock feature film which contains only 11 shots (thanks for Alan Sings to count them). For you it isn't an amazing trick anymore but in 1948 that was really something. I would say the hidden "continuity" cuts (somebody covers the camera's lens, [cut], then the person's movements continuing) were only necessary because of technical limitations (limitations of reels in the camera), but I'm lazy to look after this time...

Via the lack of cutting everything is straight and linear just like a rope. But in a Hitchcock-movie the rope has usually different role, too. I bet you found out already...
The murder isn't motivated too far, Hitchcock is more interested in the psychology around and behind the crime, the joy of excitement on a perfect murder. The ice-cold Brandon's ("Nobody commits a murder just for the experiment of committing it. Nobody except us.") and the chickened out Philip's execution needs to be perfect, at least this is their aim. The simple the more immaculate...

"Murder is a crime for most people, but a privilege for a few." Here we are: the whole perfectionism is supplemented by some philosophical train of thought. Nietzsche and Hitler mentioned by name, Dostoevsky indirectly by Philip ("Stop playin' crime and punishment Rupert!").

Ow, I almost forgot to mention Rupert! Next to the rather weak performances (think on the ridiculous, theatrical conversations, which interestingly doesn't disturb our immersive illusion), Rupert Cadell's figure is the strongest in this film for sure. James Stewart's mistrustful character in Rope is one of his bests. Just think on his entry or the first shadow of doubt in his face: Hitchcock's camera sticks on his seemingly emotionless face for a half a minute, earns as much tension as Jonathan Glazer did when "forget" his camera on Nicole Kidman's face in his Birth (I really hope you know what I'm talking about...).

Even if it's not Hitchcock's best film (my favorite from the master is
Stage Fright, I have my reasons why...), it's absolutely worth to watch. 80 minutes for a film historical but at least film technical cornerstone isn't too much price.

8/10

[the post was motivated by Ákos, the human chimpi]

18 December 2007

Direktøren for det hele / The Boss of it All (2006)

3–2–1, this will be a short review.
The story as simple as the movie is: there is a small company which owned and organized by one of its employee, who is coward to uncover himself front of his colleagues. When the situation is getting indefensible, he needs to introduce The Boss of it all...

Lars von Trier's film is nothing more than a simple situational comedy. Trier is much more than this. He knows this too when he says his reflexive-like apologies at the end:

"I would like to apologize to those who wanted more and to those who wanted less."

I wanted definitely more, especially from the director of Europa (from 1991!). But wait, if I look back, I need to realize that after this masterpiece he couldn't prove his talent anymore (you may not agree with me in this...).

Very briefly about the style: we have everything here what we learned by the Dogma-films. I feel this "random-cinematography" just not enough anymore... Even if you call it Automavision. What is it? Geoffrey Macnab tells it better than me:
"it was made without a cameraman. The director was using a new process, "developed with the intention of limiting human influence", which he has called Automavision. This entails choosing the best possible fixed camera position and then allowing a computer to choose when to tilt, pan or zoom. "For a long time, my films have been handheld," he explains. "That has to do with the fact that I am a control freak. With Automavision, the technique was that I would frame the picture first and then push a button on the computer. I was not in control - the computer was in control."

Let's see some talkative stills:



I suppose you don't need this technical hocus pocus to have this result...

Finally the points. There isn't any chance to influence or motivate the director, otherwise I would give only five out of ten. I'm 100 % sure that he could do better than this.
Anyway, there are always miracles: "Lars, you could do better than this. And you exactly know this..."

5/10

17 December 2007

The Pink Panther (1963)

Funny idea isn't it? Writing about the classic Pink Panther after promoting Rambo...

First of all I'd like to admit that I had better memories about the professional thief called 'Phantom'. I remember when I was a child Blake Edward's film was one of my favourites with its gentleman thief and dumb inspector. Actually Peter Sellers in the role of Inspector Jacques Clouseau is still stunning, but the rest of the film is rather forced and artificial. The scenes are overacted and sometimes made up only for giving convenient context for the stars. The movie is a typical benefit performance for Sellers, David Niven (if the name isn't familiar, his face is more than remarkable...), Claudia Cardinale and the most beautiful Capucine as the dubious wife of the inspector.

Anyway, it's (almost) Christmas, so time to recall the old easy classics from our childhood. The Pink Panther is definitely one of them. Don't expect too much, and don't glorify your faded memories. Just eat a lot, lean back and enjoy your holiday! Hmm, the Christmas is one week from now. Maybe I'm going to watch the other episodes of the series (did you realize that their titles are almost similar with the Star Wars trilogy's episodes? The Pink Panther Strikes Again / The Return of the Pink Panther / Revenge of the Pink Panther :))). 

Stay tuned...


6/10

13 December 2007

Rambo (2008)


"killing as easy as breathing"
My name's Rambo. John Rambo.





Forget the crappy trailers from Youtube,
CLICK here, and enjoy the evolution!

From the First Blood... until the umpteen.

"your call..."

(finally I'll see the Rambo4 which was promised me already around the end of the eighties (by kisSzabó from the gang...))
:))

11 December 2007

The Key to Reserva (2007)


I don't know how to introduce this experimental beauty. If I would say ScorseseHitchcock in 5 minutes? Would you click already?
And if I say the link directs you toward even phylosophical questions of film preserving? Hm?
Or do I need to add that this is the future of advertising? At least in my dreams...
A real, masterful tribute to Hitchcock!
I'm waiting already for the next project...

08 December 2007

Eastern Promises (2007)

Huh... There are films which keep you silent after the screening. There are two extremity: something is too bad or too good. You don't feel anything to say after this, but personally agree with those who almost cannot talk after Klimov's unbelievable Idi i smotri too. Luckily Cronenberg's new film is among the later examples.

I'm saying this despite I'm absolutely not a Cronenberg fan. For example – and now you can start to throw stons against me – the last piece (A History of Violence) from his auteur camera made me really disappointed. Maybe after the new one I will give another try to that one...

"Mom, are you okay?"
"Of course not, it's Christmas."
As you can see it doesn't start as a perfect family movie for Christmas. Actually if you don't like/bare explicit violence/blood/brutality, it's better not to watch (even outside Christmas-period). We are in present London, where the city's backyard full with immigrants who live their own life (everything is behind the touristic scenes of the city, there is only one sequence which refers to London how we know it). I almost said "who live their own life just like at home", but the film makes me sober and pulls me out from my convenient prejudices. The Russian maffia's boss gives the provocative statement: "I think London's blame for what Kirill is." The Western promises give false hopes for the people of the Eastern parts (of Europe). The image what it shows doesn't fit to the reality, to the "normal" reality of these people. They becomes whore or criminal because they are chasing some fake dreams, something which looks better than their former lives. The Western promises are responsible for all the processes which are happening today in Europe. The funny thing is that the Western countries are usually blame the Eastern immigrants because of their way of living, but don't realize that they make them who they are. The city's cultural pot makes some strange mixtures of human behavior, traditions and values. Cultural mutations.

Cronenberg's inquiry in these odd mutational mixtures is an old story. Common knowledge: usually he is interested in the different transformations of the body. Videodrome, Naked Lunch, Crash, eXistenZ,... I really don't need to continue. I feel this time he added a new actual value for these freak-shows: maybe first time he choose something acute, something which isn't timeless. We have the importance of the body here as well: meaningful tattoos, rape, murder, birth and death at the same moment, pulled out teeth, cutted fingers, freezed down corpses, and so on. But everything is embed into the chaotic intercultural "Now". Cronenberg doesn't need to slide into the sci-fi genre anymore, the reality in 2007's London lets his sick imagination look real.

By the way, realism: If you want to show some – for example Russian – authenticity, you don't need to travel East. Like some anthropologist, Cronenberg gives perfect view on the insane world of the globalized traditions. His characters are phenomenal (I hate this word's exaggerations, but this time...), at least the actors and actresses make these figures unbelievable true. If I say Vincent Cassel's language is more Russian than any of my Russian acquaintances, then what should I say about Viggo Mortensen's acting. He is just p e r f e c t! After this post I'm going to watch the scene again, where he defrosts (!) some unlucky dude. You have to watch it and forget all the poisoned background-interests about who and why will win the next Oscar prize...

Cronenberg is back (yes, I believe he climbed out from some crisis). I'm happy, and the sign of my enthusiasm is without any doubt:

10/10

04 December 2007

The Lady from Shanghai (1947)


Two post ago I told that Wong Kar Wai is planning to shoot a remake from Orson Welles' classic The Lady from Shanghai. That moment I realized that although I've seen Welles' film, it was more than 6-7 years ago, and almost didn't remember its plot. Of course you cannot forget the final sequence with the mirror room (already 10/10), but the rest faded away without trace...

Michael O'Hara's character is a classic figure, a simple and honest tough guy, who is getting involved in some higher power's dirty business. As he says: "some people can smell danger... Not me." The source of this danger is a deadly blond again, who is more dangerous than all the blond noir femme fatales together. Why? First Elsa's role played by Rita Hayworth (already 10/10), but if it wouldn't be enough, then I can tell you that she is that kind of type, who makes fool not only from an honest Irish sailor, but from you too. Beyond doubt.
By the way she is really like Laura Harring, alias Rita (Hayworth) from the Mulholland Drive...



The film is a huge setup with twists and turns, just watch this: Mr. Grisby wants Michael to kill Mr. Grisby. And for this favour he would be payed 5000$. By whom? You won't find out: by Mr. Grisby! (did I say already 10/10?)
The trial scene, the characters (sorry Rita, but my favorite is the Bobby Peru-like Glenn Anders as Mr. Grisby), the cinematography (the night scene on the boat is unbelievable), and Welles' genius screenplay and directing, and so on: everything is perfect.
After these what else, than

10/10

03 December 2007

The Kingdom (2007)


"Don't fear my child. We're going to kill them all."

Peter Berg's movie is not too complicated (the director is almost more known as an actor: small thing, but he played one of the films of András Szirtes' in 1989!). It's surfing on the waves of contemporary – American – issues. Of course I'm talking about the oil and terrorism.

The film depicts an investigation after a massive terrorist attack in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the place "where tradition and modernity is in a violent coalition." That's all from the side of the story. The essence of the movie is hidden in the perfectionist mixture of style and action. It's about entertaining, not to give some poetical or wise answers to the political, economical and cultural problems in the background. You got what you expect. The noise of explosions, the pictures of car stunts, blood and cry covers the real questions. We're just scratching the problems' surface, but I have to say we shouldn't expect more from this genre. It's impossible to expose the situation within 100 minutes. So please don't come up with a critic about the shallowness of the film (the oversimplified negotiation between Jamie Foxx and the Saudi ambassador is ridiculous). It is, but it is the best what it can do. And it does pretty well.

A pro pos compression: the first 4 (!) minutes of the film tells the history of America and Saudi Arabia defined by their common denomination, the oil. 'Oil for protection', 'oil embargo' and who knows what else depicts the shaky relation of the two countries. The historical roller coaster just like some mind mapping starts in 1932 and lasts until the present days. The story's "high point" delivered by Osama Bin Laden evoked perfectly: an airplane is heading against two high graphs, one refers to the strongest oil producer country (SA), the other stands for the biggest oil costumer (USA).

As I said nothing special, but what else you need on a snowy Sunday evening? It seems blaspheme to give here 7 after Kar Wai's 5 points, but what can I do? Every film valuated by its own genre.
Brain off / push play: and BOOM!


7/10

30 November 2007

My Blueberry Nights (2007)


"I don't know how the story had begun..." – Norah Jones starts to sing, and we don't need to wait for the new Wong Kar Wai movie anymore. How the story begun? Good question. I join Kar Wai, because I don't know either. Actually I think nobody knows. We just jump into some half worn story, but this isn't the only problem with the film...

I'm not going out too often watch a movie in the cinema. It's too expensive here (€ 9), so I save the occasion for those films which requires the big screen. I think Kar Wai deserves his price, you know, the colors, the soundtrack and the whole feeling (I'm not joking: I ate a blueberry muffin right before the screening too. No, I'm not sick:). And the recent one gives this values, I promise. But I have to say: nothing else. The story didn't start and doesn't go anywhere. I could say it is boring. Some kind of network narrative (those criss-cross paths with different stories which are going to meet) told in linear way, which hasn't got any aim or doesn't plant any interest or real feelings into you. Hey, it's not about a simple story (two people are searching for love: one stays one place – the another travels around to find). I really like those, but here it's just doesn't work. I found the word: weak. Especially weak from Kar Wai. I know, the expectations usually kill the amusement, but this film wouldn't be persuasive from Lajos Koltai neither (Ok, I went too far:))

The legend says that there was a misunderstanding between the director and Norah Jones. Kar Wai asked her to cooperate (writing and singing the soundtrack), and Jones thought that she can act in the film. That's the way how she entered the role. So what. She isn't a good actress. I mean she should have been much better under the hands of Kar Wai and front of the camera of Darius Khondji (if you don't know him, pls check his oeuvre). The rest of the characters are really ok: Jude Law is getting better and better (I feel with him like I did with Hugh Grant), Rachel Weisz is still deadly beautiful, Natalie Portman officially grown up (but still looks like Weisz's small sister), and David Strathairn is one of my new favorites (wish he wouldn't participate of the A Tale of Two Sisters' raping... (original and remake).

But it's still not enough. If you are left by your girlfriend or boyfriend, maybe you will like it, but come on, this kind of aimless sentimentalism just doesn't work in other cases. It's not about that "there isn't meaning". I really don't search desperately the meaning (just look at my Inland Empire-entry), but I like if a film gives at least the minimum within its aimed genre.

If Kar Wai would like to save his reputation, then maybe he should move forward from his earlier well done sentimentalism into some other directions. I have a feeling he gave already what he had from this field... I hope he will, especially with the rumored remake of Welles' The Lady from Shanghai (featuring Nicole Kidman, olala).

I'm gonna watch that one for sure. In a cinema.
I recommend My Blueberry Nights only for the hardcore Kar Wai fans. Or wait: I recommend only those, who doesn't like him.


P.s.: I found this a few minutes ago (here). James Rocchi's words summarizes perfect what I tried to tell above:

"My Blueberry Nights may be a bit more interested in look than feel -- it conveys blue as a color far more effectively than it conveys blue as an emotional state."

5/10

I am Legend


"A deadly virus has taken hold of the world – rejected by a few (the immune), killing many (the dead), and leaving the rest (the infected) – who live on to hunt the living, after dark.

The following are voices paying homage to Richard Matheson's classic novel, this is the experience of a dying mankind and the foretelling of a new world before we meet the legend, Robert Neville."

If you liked The Omega Man (1971), you might see this as well.
Click for the trailer until it's not too late...

29 November 2007

Inland Empire (2006)



Enough. I'm fed up. It makes me really sad how the people are thinking about the "new" David Lynch movie. If you believe that a film equals with the story, this won't be your favorite. I say more: you don't need to watch it. Especially you shouldn't write about it: You don't need to prove your narrowness. To accept my advice is your interest, really.
I have only one wish: Please accept it if somebody (Lynch) is thinking in a different way as you. You should have already recognized that Lynch is not a narrative storyteller. If he is (The Straight Story) then he makes it very lurid. The exception makes stronger the rule...

Here is my contribution to this shallow discussion. Only for Hungarian readers.

Analysis, but at least an article about the Inland Empire in the filmkultura.hu, CLICK!

(The mistake with the footnote isn't my fault.)

10/10

28 November 2007

Rescue Dawn (2006)


Early 1965. Laos. The pre-Vietnamese times, which are actually (but confidentially) already the dawn of the American assault against the Indochinese country. Secret mission, failure, vietkongs, prison. It's the same old story. Or not?

I don't need to introduce Werner Herzog, the important figure of the German New Wave, the director of Fitzcarraldo, Nosferatu or Jeder für sich und Gott gegen alle aka Kaspar Hauser, who at the age of 12 shared his apartment with Klaus Kinski, the worst-looking best German actor ever. Herzog isn't stranger in the American production's system, but without doubt the Rescue Dawn is his first Hollywood(-like) movie. Small remark for all the philologists: his father was a prisoner during the II. World War...
Hmm, Despite of my promise, I almost introduced him, or didn't I?

The background situation is in line with the old recipe too: the story is inspired by true events. You know what does this mean? Yes, it implies the biggest fictions:) Or it isn't?

The plot follows the case of a real person called Dieter Dengler, who's been captured by the vietkongs during his first mission at the early stage of the war. I won't tell more, instead of that I need to stress the qualities of Christian Bale's acting. I convinced about his talent since the schizo skeleton-acting in El Maquinista, but this time he gives even more. He is a protagonist in a war movie without any pathetic character. He is not a hero but a human being. At least he acts as a human being should behave. Not only in a war situation but in our everyday's life. He just doesn't believe what is happening with him, he is just doesn't take serious the whole situation. He just wanted to fly, not bombing in some stupid aimless war.


"The jungle is the prison" says one of Dengler's mate, and Herzog proves brutally the idea. Inside the deep jungle of Laos Michael Scofield would cry very desperately. Your survival skills must be stronger than your brain. This simple fact makes the purest realism what a movie can give. And we know all that the simple stories are the best. Aren't they?

8/10

25 November 2007

American Gigolo (1980)

Another perfect sunday is gone. Easy day – easy movie. I was planning for a while to watch Paul Schrader's American Gigolo, but Richard Gere (brr) in the main role scared me a lot. And today I made the decision – which became a really good one...

Schrader is definitely among the best screenplay writers in Hollywood. Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and the perfect Obsession for Brian de Palma. His movies are not so received – which sometimes underestimates his talent. Just think on the Blue Collar or the American Gigolo. Yes, I believe this movie is much more than Richard Gere's bare ass (actually you can have it too), but a real post noir hit. Just imagine a mixture of Ellis' American Psycho and some film noir classic. Our American gigolo is a typical-cynical noir male, this time a five star hooker (funny that 10 years later Gere changes his side and picks up Vivian from the street). Shiny cars, luxurious apartments, SL Mercedeses (the type which Pamela had in the Dallas – sorry for this), but the prostitution roots always in the deep underground. And as our protagonist encounters with the first blond, and soon the second one, who will be killed, his life turns upside down (ok, the film is full with blonds, but one of them is dead, and another is deadly for sure).

Without saying more it's highly recommended. Just because of its feeling, just because of the character's sunglasses (1980!), just because of Gere's acting (!), who is better than any Patrick Bateman ever, just because sentences from an elite prostitute like "I don't like to play the same numbers too often":)), just because the film's very last shot!


8/10

Murder, My Sweet (1944)

"I felt pretty good... like an amputated leg" – grumbles Marlowe, and we know immediately what kind of movie we are watching.

Today another Chandler classic on the screen from 1944. The title of the original novel of Chandler was Farewell, My Lovely – Dmytryk had to change not to mistaken with a musical with the same title (there are two other film adaptations from 1942 and 1975). Dick Powell played the protagonist's role in the musical as well – maybe better than here in the movie version. Unfortunately in Dmytryck's film he is far not so cynical as I would like to see a Marlowe-like character (even not mentioning Bogart's embodiments). His lines are quite ok, but the acting is weak (I'm not wondering that 70 minutes needs him to earn the first kiss:)). Well, sometimes he just find the right tone, for example when he is attacked by a hothead client:

- I'm afraid I don't like your manner!
- I've had complaints about it. But it keeps getting worse.

but he is not rough and tough enough. That's all my problems which is enough to ruin the whole film.

The story follows the classic film noir pattern: starts with a huge flashback which is the protagonist's, namely Marlowe's fabula itself. Seemingly the last weeks weren't the private eye's best ones. First he is hired by a giant dumb guy, Moose Malloy, who tries to find his lover, Velma, who disappeared 8 years earlier. And the avalanche starts to slide: there are coming other mysterious figures with secretive wishes... I won't give any spoiler if I tell you: all the jobs and names are heading into each other's direction. Now you see: this film isn't as original as for example Wilder's masterpiece, the Double Indemnity. In the Murder, My Sweet we have a cool detective, a deadly blonde, a hostile police chief and a bunch of bad guys, but nothing any genuine idea. The only reason we should watch this film should be Marlowe's character, which – as I suggested earlier – isn't convincing enough. He has 'chandlerish voice' (did you noticed that the voiceover narrator starts to talk as soon as the protagonist left alone?), but this time not so sharp as he is in The Big Sleep (Bogart) or in the unique Lady in the Lake (Montgomery).

Do you want to know how to lit a match-stick with the help of a putto-sculpture's bottom? Watch the movie! Otherwise I'm sure you will find better film noir than this in your collection.


5/10

20 November 2007

The Man from Earth (2007)

I really hate those films which don't look like films. Richard Schenkman's movie is one of them. They are usually look more like theater pieces or radio plays. Most of the cases they are stylistically bad combined with bad characters and their even worse acting. These features are still fit to The Man from Earth.

BUT.

Even these films has a writer who is responsible for the story. And the success of the film starts at this point. I would call more this film Jerome Bixby's movie, who forces us into his genuine story and saves the whole project. He creates a claustrophobic context which just doesn't let you leave (during the first ten minutes it was very tempting to stop watching, if you give a chance, the film pays you off).

The basic situation is very simple. We encounter Professor John Oldman, who collects his colleagues to announce after ten years: he is leaving them. The reasons are mysteriously unclear, but cannot be hidden too long (the followings are not spoilers, and I tell you why: this statement is one from the credible ones...). John contends that he is at least 14.000 years old, and cannot die. Don't laugh:) I'm not joking. But does he make fun from his friends? That's the question in this Twilight Zone-like film.

He states that he is originally a cave man, a cro magnon-type mate. But how could you prove this craziness for your best friends? Especially if there are anthropologists, archeologists, psychologists, biologists, etc. among them? These are hard questions, but not as tricky how the friends test John. For example their and the film's questions are: "Living more than 14.000 years what time would mean for you? Would you feel our lifetime as a second? What would you think about somebody's loss? How could you feel any emotions after the thousands of 'hello'-s and 'good bye'-s? Would you be a genius after the chance to learn through thousands of years?" and so on. If you need answers for these questions, don't afraid, you will get them. But after a funny and practical questions come the real important ones like: "What do you think about the future of the mankind? Are you following any kind of religion?" And this is the point where the story start to choose a really (really) scary direction. And still makes this only with the power of the company's discussion...

I admit it is not the most revealing sci-fi (?) ever written, but if you like(d) the unique atmosphere of the mentioned Twilight Zone, or the episodes of the Tales of the Unexpected, then you found something treasure. Why? Because Richard Schenkman's, I mean Jerome Bixby's movie gives the most close answer for the meaning of life (after the '42' of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...:). Or not.



6/10

19 November 2007

Cloverfield


I had to wait until today when finally we can watch the official trailer in HD quality. Ow, I almost forgot: Cloverfield (formerly known as 1-18-08) is the secret project of J.J. Abrams (the director's name is Matt Reeves). Right, Abrams is one of the brains behind the Lost together with Damon Lindelof.
The insiders say that it isn't another Godzilla-thing. Hmm, we will see – exactly one month before the new episodes of Lost will start. Maybe the whole Cloverfield project is just for keep alive the interest and enthusiasm in the sleeping series? As far as we know Abrams' ability to keep up the suspense I wouldn't be surprised...

(This time I give you only a link - because the YouTube version's quality doesn't give the HD quality which is part of the whole concept)


17 November 2007

High Sierra (1941)



"I was getting nervous, waiting over an hour."
"I've been waiting too, over eight years."

That's the answer which represent the genre and the '40s' Hollywood for me. Especially if we receive this kind of quick riposte from Bogart's emotionless character, just released from the prison. Really, he is just perfect! It is a real luck that he was chosen for the part of Roy Earle, pardon, 'Mad Dog Earle'. I mean literally, because originally it was given for two other actors. After their refusal Raoul Walsh picked Bogart, which became his first major role (still Ida Lupino's name on the top...), and started the avalanche of his career. The same year he made Huston's The Maltese Falcon and a year later, yes, you found it out already, in 1942 he gave his biggest in the Casablanca.

But don't run away from this true masterpiece! I need to admit that despite of this title (masterpiece), not this movie is the best from the half-eyed Raoul Walsh. For me the White Heat (1949) with James Cagney is still the top, but It must be true, that without this Walsh couldn't arrive to his peak.
Actually Bogart is much more complex than Cagney's Arthur 'Cody' Jarret: he gave a perfect mixture of a soft-hearted guy and a tough crime-fella. His role – and especially his talent to balance these personalities of his – fuels complexity into the story as well. There is no doubt about how this story ends: the criminal with the heart, who is searching a 'Home' doesn't live long in Hollywood (if you wouldn't be familiar with the attributes of the genre then there is a strong clue in the story: just "read" the dog's behave – it will tells everything about the coming happenings...).

Before I would say "Go and watch it!" only one small remark connected to the style of the cinematography. We are in 1941, in the year of the 'big' Citizen Kane, which adored because of its camera technique. No doubt, Gregg Toland is one of the biggest reference points in the history of the film style. But if we look closer the camerawork of the High Sierra, we may recognize the similarities between Toland's and Tony Gaudino's way of using the deep focus (the earlier Oscar-winner Italian shot the cultic Hell's Angels (1930) for Howard Hughes too...). Let me show some examples from the film:











This last one reminds me considerably to the famous and cited angle from the Citizen Kane... I don't want to judge in the question who used the first time the deep focus motivated by dramaturgical reasons, but I'd like to point out one of my intuitions in this case: I think Toland became the reference-figure of the film analysts, because he used the technique extremely way, where the word 'extremely' refers to its recognizability.

Now, as I promised one thing remained:
"Go and watch it!"

8/10

15 November 2007

Redacted

"A fictional story inspired by true events, REDACTED is a unique cinematic experience that will force viewers to radically reconsider the filters through which we see and accept events in our world, the power of the mediated image and how presentation and composition influence our ideas and beliefs. A profound meditation on the way information is packaged, distributed and received in an era with infinite channels of communication, REDACTED utilizes a variety of created source material-video diaries, produced documentary, surveillance footage, online testimonials, news pieces-to comment on the extreme disconnect between the surface of an image and the reality of ideas and the truth, especially in times of strife." (source)

In general I'm fed up with the growing number of feature and documentary views on the war of Iraq, but according to this above info and the director, Brian de Palma, I'm getting more and more curious...


14 November 2007

American Gangster (2007)


This is the hit now at every box office in the States. Only this fact made me a bit suspicious about Ridley Scott's epic movie, otherwise every leaked out details enforced my expectations.

American Gangster. That's a statement already. Sounds like The Godfather, the Chinatown or the Gladiator. These titles occupy geographically or grammatically a certain, quite broad area with their clear aim: to visualize, to summarize our views on some wider fields. They stand for some kind of values and common knowledges. They are using and reinforcing these knowledges of ours. They vindicate their place in the history of these knowledges, in the history of film.

And we are not far from this registers: I mean the film is some kind of 'Black Godfather'. I know it sounds very bad, even the cops didn't believe in its possible existence. And this is the point where the movie can work. When we hear the word 'mafia' our associations provide us an Italian Brando- or Pesci-like "pronunciation". But for sure not Denzel Washington. And this way of thinking and a perfect idea give a chance to Frank Lucas (played by D.W.) to organize an invisible crime establishment.
If we have a mob then we need a cop too. Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) is definitely the most honest cop in the (film) history. He isn't as good as he was last time in the 3:10 to Yuma, but still better than thousand of his obsessed predecessors. They are together can't reach the level of de Niro's and Pacino's couple (I think on this and not this), but they are far good enough to keep your eyes on the canvas for more than two hours.

The story starts in 1968, the time when in its Vietnam background America turns into a "super fucking discount store", when "you can't find a heart of anything". In this level it's unnecessary to talk about the perfectionism of the set, characters and atmosphere. If you have ever played with the GTA then you know what I am talking about. (If not, check this picture from the film:)


Of course you should watch this movie even with its unavoidable problems, which are coming from its – above mentioned – summarizing efforts. 'The dignity in business', 'the importance of family', 'the unbreakable honesty', and my favorites: the "never forget where we are come from"-attitude and the worn-out "This is America"-bullshit. These and many other already exploited topics and their typical words of stereotypical approaches sound quite funny in 2007. Everything is too direct, everything showed and said as it is. But hey, it's shouldn't be a documentary or an Armageddon-like heroic blabber in front of an American flag (don't afraid it isn't)!

I almost gave 7 out of 10, but the (almost) final conversation between Frank and Richie forced me to give one extra point. With this and even more points on the imdb (8.4 on 15-11-2007) this epic movie is maybe overestimated. At least it shouldn't be at the 107th place of the all time best movies, especially not 7 places behind Scott's much universal classic, the Blade Runner.

8/10

13 November 2007

Premonition (2007)

Mennan Yapo's (whose??) film earned 5.6 points on the imdb (13/11/2007). Despite I was skeptic about this weak result I always found an excuse not to see this. And then Gábi's suggestion explained that the film might fit into my research on non-linear narratives, so I decided.

"I hate surprises" - tells the first sentence, but from a viewer's position I didn't want to agree with this, especially not in a connection of a thriller. At this point I need to add that I'm really irritated by Sandra Bulldog, so the first impressions combined with the very very average and more predictible 'mysticalthrillerlike' music were quite bad. Then the movie started and I felt some hope.

Don't afraid, I won't tell the story, but without killing any jokes I can summarize the idea behind the plot. The idea which is very challenging: I guess the film tried to elevate the premonition as a mental phenomenon into a narrative. Sooner or later the movie industry will exploit all the medical terms - just think on the Deja Vu (deja vu), Memento (anterograde amnesia), Identity (multiple personality syndrome) and so on. Unfortunately the Premonition cannot grow up next to its predecessors. Its biggest mistake: it changes its genre from thriller to romantic drama. We receive our usual portion of visual and any kind of hints. Let's see two examples:

Ok, thank you,
it's really a puzzle narrative...


And do not push into my face: I recognized Velazquez's Las meninas immediately...

Is the premonition connected to the fate? If it is, is there any chance to change our destiny? Do we have an unreliable narrator? Is Sandra Bullock really a bad actor?:) If you need answers, just watch the movie which is still worth because its tricky narrative.

But on the whole my premonitions didn't fail me about this film. The imdb has right:

6/10

(thanks to Gábi for the tip - and I'd like to ask all my visitors to inform me about the possible movies which could be part of my interest on every kind of non-linearity. thanks in advance)

12 November 2007

Southland Tales

This is the way the world ends.
Not with a whimper,
but with a bang...


Finally. Richard Kelly's (Donnie Darko) new film is here!
But you have still time to read the first three episodes here (the prequel saga is available as a comic).
Then you will enjoy much more the film. Because it's coming soon...

11 November 2007

No Country for Old Men

My most wanted movie at the moment. I hope the post is coming soon... Frendo:)

09 November 2007

Confidence (2003)

"So I'm dead." Impressive start from a narrator. We have seen this kind of beginning before (in one of my top ten movies ever), but...

...I cannot continue because I don't want to ruin your entertainment. To tell the truth I shouldn't say a single word about the movie to avoid giving any help or hint.

James Foley's film from 2003 is one of the biggest surprises for me in the last weeks. Just check down my grade and you will see that I mean this surprise absolutely positive. Please don't look after the director' oeuvre on the imdb otherwise you will miss this movie. It's better if I confess the most painful details about him here. The recent Perfect Stranger (Willis-Berry) is a big shit but cannot be as huge as his third film was back in 1987. I'm not even dare to write the title, the brave ones can click here. BUT as I said forgot all these past and watch the Confidence (or if you like CONfidence) - you won't regret, I promise!

So the narrator is dead - what the cinephile says? "It must be a flashback-movie!" Right. The first flashback asks from our condemned protagonist: "Does your life flashing before your eyes?" And the story starts - not the entire life but the last 3 weeks flickering down during the approx. 90 minutes running time of the film.

The parallelism with the noir classic is not a coincidence: Foley's characters have their predecessors in the best genre ever found out in Hollywood. Of course everybody is contemporalized, but the main features are recognizable (ice-cold gangster he and chain-smoker femme fatale she). Even the style is re-formed, if you interested: Bordwell wrote focusing on this film about the special technique (wipe-by axial cut) of speeding up the movie (The Way Hollywood Tells it, page 175.).

It is almost perfect. One minus point because one time (at least out of ten) I was smarter than a screenplay. The rest I was coned as everybody else in the story.

Günther Butan:)

9/10

08 November 2007

First Snow (2006)

"You've been expected me, right?" - what else we could start our conversation with a fortune teller?

Do you wanna know how you gonna die? I bet everybody was thinking about this question more or less. The issue for Jimmy Starks (Guy Pearce) is getting serious, I mean dead serious.

Maybe you don't know too much about the director. Did anybody hear the name Mark Fergus? The First Snow is his first and – until now – last movie, but his contribution as a screenplay writer gave bigger importance to him. The Children of Men was one of the most brainy film recently and I think nobody needs to introduce the next year's big hit. Yes, as one of its writers he is responsible for the Iron Man too.
But what we have here? Fergus delivers a fate-story of Jimmy, the self confident jukebox dealer, who hasn't got too much time left (Fate movie? My clue is: 'your life is predestined, so it's definitely not a jukebox'. Got it?). The more scepticism of a protagonist, the more dramatic effect when he needs to change his mind... Welcome to Hollywood!
"One thing is certain. [He is] safe until the first snow..." I cannot tell more, because eventually I'd like to convince you to give a chance and watch.
I believe I don't need to mention that in Hollywood every fate and destiny has its reason. Yep: Jimmy's search in his past and limited future is about finding out the cause which delivers the deadly effect. Simple, isn't it? I admit the story is not the most complex what I've ever seen, but the directing, characters (Mahone rulez:)) and some well placed jokes compensate enough.
It's not a 12 Monkeys or Ringu-type fate-brightness, but six (almost seven) out of ten is worth to give.



6/10

05 November 2007

Mysterious Skin (2004)



I don't know where to start. Maybe the best would be like this: Do not watch this "movie"! Or maybe it is enough? Ok, let me explain it a bit more detailed.
Gregg Araki's film from 2004 is a typical independent arty-farty big nothing. I have nothing against the indies, I just really sick of those ones which cannot step over their boring, always repeated topics like "the painful beauty of homosexuality" or "the traumatic childhood's haunting" and so on, you exactly know what I'm talking about. (More about the more and more predictable independent movies by Richard Corliss click here, and shoot here for Bordwell's answer.)
What we have here? We are following the UFO freak Brian's and the teenage homo-hooker Neil's parallel lifes from 1981 until '91 or what, which - you won't find out - will collide during the development of the film. Doesn't deserve more, really. Maybe I should give a """huge""" spoiler about the end to be sure you won't watch it, to save your time (and probably your life).
Anyway, don't listen to others, especially not those who gave 8 (!) points average on the imdb (my try was because of this). Bad directing, even worse acting (the bastards even destroyed my positive view on Chloe). The biggest enjoyment was for me to give 2 points for it.

2/10

30 October 2007

Shi gan / Time (2006)



"Happinet Pictures presents..." - starts the movie which is rather an ironic statement according the later happenings. After his visit in timeless, universal tragedy (The Bow) Kim Ki-duk found his way back to the contemporary South Korean drama. Because what could be more from our period than the horroristic world of the aesthetic clinics and their slaughterhouses?
The very beginning tells already about the director: Nobody can mix better the brutality with the kitsch than Ki-duk. During the credits the viewer forced to watch all the horror of a face operation (actually in reality it is part of applying for such a surgery) and listen some Hisaishi-like soft, overemotional music (Noh Hyung-woo). Ki-duk is one of the only exceptions among film directors whose movies are able to handle this discrepancy. The truism with all its banality somehow fits to him. This time the cliche called "Time will change everything". But who would dare to translate literally this stupid statement? Who would mix together the pain of a lost love with the 6 months recovery pain of a face operation? Who would combine with these to emotions with the healing feature of time?
According to Seh-hee and Ji-woo's relationship Ki-duk doesn't talk about love. In his contemporary metal-cold metropolises love doesn't exist anymore. There is something which reminds us to the love, the movie calls them 'vibration' and 'affection'. But these ruins of the real emotion cannot substitute the feelings of a true and honest love. The affection is rather impersonated: the people aren't in love with the personality but the outlook, the physical appearance. As Seh-hee realizes after an unsuccessful love-making: "It can be boring to look at the same face all the time." And this is the source of the couple's and the film's tragedy.
It is really worth to watch even if you're not the biggest fan of the director. The final loop which opens masterfully the film's horizon is simple perfect!

The realism is more frightful than the horror. Click:



8/10

29 October 2007

Revolver (2005)



I'm definitely on a lucky spree. Even those films gave me an absolute positive surprise which mostly got a bad critics. In this regard Guy Ritchie's "Revolver" (2005) is the biggest amazement during the last weeks!
First of all one very important remark: I don't like his 'famous' movies ("Lock, Stock,..." and "Snatch") very much. They were entertaining and funny but nothing more. Just like some practice for a director who is preparing for the big shot. Interesting to recognize that usually the directors who are working on art projects after a while sliding into the mainstream. Michael Haneke (did you know that he is working on his own "Funny Games" remake in Hollywood?) or Christopher Nolan are coming into my mind (ok, after the "Insomnia" Nolan found himself again). In contrast, Ritchie's case is completely the opposite of this practice: after the easy pieces he could try his real talent in a very complex and deep movie. Of course his efforts went wrong, the film busted up at the box office as it used to be in these cases. After the funny movies of his the audience was trained for Brad Pitt and jokes at every corner. Instead of this they got something completely different. Only the visuals remained: the cinematography and the way of directing is like in the former movies (Ritchie's strenght is the compressed nonlinear told montage-storytelling).
"The only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent" – quotes Ritchie the "Fundaments of Chess" from 1883 and gives the essence of the story and his attitude against his audiences too. The story is rather complicated, it's easier to approach not from the direction of the fabula. It's better to say that the protagonist (Jason Statham - he plays in a good movie which is an exception in his career) is a gambler who - it seems - ownes the ultimate winning formula, some kind of combination of a chess and cons (yes, if you like "Pi", you will love this one too). He is surrounded with gangsters, hitmans, Japanese and any kinds of mobsters, mysterious criminal powers, dumb bodyguards and so on. The characters are perfect, my favourite is the soft-hearted sturrerer hitman called Sorter (!) but maybe you'll like better Avi (Andre3000 (the thin guy) from the Outkast) or Macha (Ray Liotta in his leopard-underwear). No, your favourite will be Lord John, the Japanese drug-dandy!
Anyway, I think you are convinced already that you have to watch this film. The only doubt is how you will answer the regular question: "What was exactly the movie about?" I have a spoiler-like hint: What do you think about the idea, that the real protagonist is not Statham, but Liotta?

[A small selfish note at the end: The old lady's cup is the same as Karolien has. Check the screenshot:]



9/10