imdb - the movie (2008)

Sorry for the bad joke - the following meditation is about every movie-buffs Bible, the Internet Movie Database, and its recent problems, how I see them.

For me imdb represents the dreamjob (pity that I'm not a software developer), and was always my most visited site, long time it appeared as a home page when I started my internet browser. A perfect origo, an authentic guideline. But these good, reliable times seems to disappear. Imdb becomes the tool of advertising a movie, to build a hype, to encourage fight between fans and trolls, to ... to earn more money.

This entry was almost necessary, since I complained enough for example here, here, here and here about losing faith in the database's informations. And then came Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight (my opinion is here) which made unavoidable to talk about the recent problems of the site, namely how hype kills the very meaning of its rating system. It's not a question that recent movies are way too over-rated. Just look at my examples. You might explain with this a lot of ways (economically: extremising marketing strategies, sociologically: changing internet audience, plus there are conspiracy-theories about paying for / hacking the numbers), I accept those, but not to react on these changes is the site's fault (except the conspiracy theorists have right: in 1998 Amazon bought the imdb to improve its selling numbers. Do you need a perfect thesis topic: "How changed the Amazon's selling features according to the rates on the imdb?"). Here is a chart about the ratings on imdb by release year of the rated films:

Let's look at the TDK's example. After its appearing in the cinemas it jumped immediately to the first position in the famous imdb 250 list, topple down classics like The Godfather or the - other over-rated - The Shawshank Redemption. And it stays there (at least until today (9.5/10 after 124.766 votes)). What does it mean? Everybody shouts that we have a new all time best movie ever made. No, it doesn't mean this at all. It means that we have a movie which has the most votes approaching the highest available score. I gave several 10 out of 10s before too, but for example I still like Fellini's Otto e mezzo far better than Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder.

So, there are people who gave 10 for TDK, because it's one of their favourite movies. Not the best, but which deserves a 10 among others. This would be the ideal case. But.

The reality says something different. If we don't believe in the above mentioned conspiracy theories we have still a problematic explanation, namely most people gives 10 for the TDK, because they are hypnotised by the unbelievable marketing mechanism of Nolan's otherwise good movie, and last but not least because they are touched by Heath Ledger's sorrowful death (it was funny to see how people cries for an Oscar to Ledger before the premier, which means before they actually seen the film..). Of course there are other people who driven by some inexplicable nostalgy for the(ir) classics vote with a ridiculous 1 for TDK. I suppose they would have vote with 1 for The Godfather in 1972 just to save their precious Citizen Kane's first spot in the non-existing imdb list in the seventies:) (imdb launched on October 17, 1990). Another funny fact that the blind TDK fans - driven by a revenge - started now to vote with 1 for The Godfather and The Shawshank Redemption - to make themselves more pathetic and to spoil our interest in the imdb forever.

That was the cry-part, let's see some hope, a solution if there are at all. What you need is only a reliable source to choose a good movie for the evening (cos' you're supposedly not interested in the fight between the hypnotized fans). Then, sadly I have to say forget the imdb and go for Metacritic.com, the site, where professional (?) film critics' average opinions decide about the films. They have their all time list too, here the 200 best with a rather complicated rating system than the imdb uses (note that TDK isn't among the best 200 (yet), and look, who is on the 2nd spot? Superman II., another superhero!). I almost forget to tell the imdb's formula, here it is, the True Bayesian Estimate:

Ok, we have a reliable source, what is the problem then? The problem is that the Metacritic's database is far from being full. There are several important movies which are missing from the site and among the ratings (after quick try for example Taxidermia / Hawaii, Oslo, / Aaltra / or even as big classics as the cited Otto e mezzo / etc.). That's too bad, go back to the imdb and search for solution there. There is an ingenious idea - not surprisingly emerged after TDK's obscure success. Dalton 1962's idea (appeared among the imdb's message boards on TDK (should I mention that the numbers of messages about TDK beated all the previous records as well?)) is interesting enough to take into consideration: he suggest a double rating system which could "filter our irrational enthusiasm or hate", which would divide the hype from the "real" rating of a certain film. There would be a so called Short Term Voting which would measure the level of a hype (hype-meter?), and on the other hand there would be a Long Term Voting, which would be available approximately 2-3 months after the premier of a movie, and which would tell much soberly about the "real" qualities of the given film. Ok, I see the limits of this idea (a lot of valid votes would disappear in the STV), but I believe it is a good path to approach the solutions for the existing - and growing - problems of reliability of the imdb (more about its history, rating system, and business background see the good ol' wiki).

There isn't any moral at the end of this post since it's long enough already:) Maybe you'll make one point in the comments? Welcome!

The Dark Knight (2008)

[Ok, the holiday is over, bobbyperu is back, but I tell you already now that my future entries won't be as frequent as they were before. I'm busy - no more words about it.]

But the return should be impressive, and wouldn't be more effective in 2008 summer than to write SPOILERFREE about the best movie ever (according to imdb, today). I tell you something immediately. It can be your best movie (ever:), but it isn't mine for sure. It is a very good movie, but not the best I've ever seen, definitely, moreover I won't give 10 points for it because of the following reasons.

Prudently sayin' "the less sometimes more." I understand that if you want to be the best you need to give more, I mean more than usual. More action, more drama, more surprise, more emotions, more moral. But what happens if you have a chance to enter a sweet-shop without any limitation of eat cakes? You gonna be sick after a while. I came out from the cinema, biked home and during the trip I felt myself dizzy, the effectively rolling soundtrack looped continously in my head and I was watching constantly around from where Batman will suddenly appear and save me (at the last moment of course) from some until now hidden danger.

Secondly. The Batman Begins is a better one and I tell you why. I just watched it again two days ago to prepare the today's screening. I remembered the story very well, but what is more important, I remembered the feeling after first time watching it. It was a real revelation in terms of a resurrection of a genre. Before of that film from comic books were wether some kind of salute of their original materials, or some childish fantasies with a story deeply rooted in the Hollywood action film genre. And then came Nolan, one of the biggest talent in the contemporary film business (I swear I told this already after his Memento (which is a better movie for me than the TDK)), and stylishly crossed all these saint rules. He (re)created Batman for the original fans and for a non-comicbook fans (just like me) too, he balanced the mentioned childish fantasies with a realistic moral story, he found equilibrium between seriousness and irony, genre rules and reflexion of the these rules, between imagined and real. The TDK has all of this without any doubt. Moreover it gives all these balanced values more intensified than ever. But doesn't give something else beyond this. Doesn't give the same mentioned striking feeling what the BB gave in 2005.

But what it gives then? Let's go through some details, start with the most important according to the film's unbelievable hype: Heath Ledger. Some of the enthusiastic fans claim already a posthumous Oscar which feelings - be realistic - are coming from the sad death of an otherwise really talented acter. Ledger's Joker is perfect, just as good as Nicholson's was in 1989. For those who are seriously debatting over this question I would say that Nicholson's Joker was representing perfectly a threat according to 1989, and Ledger's terroristic Joker gives a perfect example of our current "enemies." I hope I don't need to detail this further. Back to Ledger, he is good, I mean absolutely bad, rotten and cruel. He is perfect just as other 10 other actor and actress every year waiting for their Oscar statues. If he gets it's ok with me. We'll see, what we already see is how the cult shapes its form...

About the screenplay. Actually I gave my opinion about it with the candy-shop metaphor, but let's emerge one very important detail. The moral, more precise the moral of being a superhero. A superhero - derived from a comicbook - usually needs to have special physical abilites. Harder, better, faster, stronger. One of the biggest virtue of TDK is that it exposes, explains what it means exactly. His film is full with heroes, but only one superhero. Nolan builds up his film's moral from this simple but elementary difference. To be a superhero you need to be more than a simple hero (this evidence is explicitely appears in the film as I good remember), and in the TDK this difference, this more is not about a physical speciality at all. Already in the BB we had to face with the truth that superheroes aren't physically invulnerable. Now Nolan showed how morally vulnerable they are, when he questioned the essence of being a hero. Sometimes the real (super)heroes doesn't look like heroes... After this sentence I would step on the spoilers' paths which isn't my intention.

I won't read back what I wrote to ensure giving you the real first impressions' taste. Maybe my words sound a bit negative but if it is the case it must be because of the expectations which this time were so extremely high which couldn't be fulfilled. Just to make it right: TDK worths all the money you'll spend on it in the cinema; it will be one of the best movie in 2008. Not a question, watch it! (But don't be foolish so please don't clap after the screening. It seems the hype makes people follow some rituals which culminates in a ridiculous clap:)

"Why so serious?"

9/10

[off]

telegraphese way:

I'm on "holiday". I thought I'm gonna be able to maintain the blog during these days, but it seems that I overestimated myself and my possibilities (3 weeks, 3 different countries, back and forth).

I've been for example In Bruges. This is the view what Ken saw from the tower before he decided to ... 

Watch the film during the suspension of the blog.

That's all. See you soon, when I'm coming back with Nightwatching, Greenaway's "new" (2007) Rembrandt-movie...

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