Quicktime Movie Player #2

- The Hours (Stephen Daldry, 2002). An old debt payed again with this film (btw I owned this film earlier already, but borrowed for a friend who forgot to give me back..). Anyways, a friend of mine advised and finally I've spent a time for it (114 mins.). It won't be my favourite, but - let's say - it is worth to watch. At least because of Kidman's nose. I felt a bit forced the multiple timeframe, but maybe this is because of my late watching (today we have far better examples for this narrative).

7/10

- Inside Man (Spike Lee, 2006). Is it summer or what? Another rewatched perfect movie - this time far within the 10 years "repetition limit". My memories agreed what the imdb says "it looked like the perfect bank robbery." It is, and it's more, just as the film is more than a perfect story. Spike Lee's storytelling gives two extra points for the otherwise very well written screenplay. A sequel is coming (screenplay again by Russell Gewirtz) - do I need to be happy? I hope I can.

9/10

- Superman II. (Richard Lester, 1980). During I was writing about the recent problems with the imdb here, I was searching for a perfect, reliable site which gives realistic evaluation about films. I found Metacritic.com, which site has its own best ever movie list (with its problems of missing titles). Lester's Superman 2 was listed on the surprising second position, so after my childhood's fainted memories I gave another chance for it (not to mention the superhero fever around TDK). Sorry to all the Superman-friends but this film is a mediocre try (3 more superman villains from the Krypton.). The only remarkable part from it was Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. I see that I won't rewatch the whole series...

5/10

Quicktime Movie Player #1

(This new approach represents the survival period of the blog. Since my duties are obtaining more and more time from my precious blog (noo, not from watching movies!), these quickies will substitute longer reports on my movie experiences. Hope you'll ike them too. Let's see the last days crop.)

- Night and the City (Jules Dassin, 1950). I've thought it's gonna be another noir (not if I would have any problems with film noirs), but it turned out as a very well directed whirlpool drama of Harry Fabian, a small time hustler with ambitious plans but an overwhelming imagination. The culminated end I'll never forget. Give extra attention to the otherwise underrated Gene Tierney, Preminger's (and my) darling actress!

8/10

- The Sure Thing (Rob Reiner, 1985). Classic, at least in terms of my socialization: This movie is one of my favourite ones from my teenagerhood. And it's still working. It seems that John Cusack's early appearence convinced not only me. It was really worth to watch again: the scene when Walter receives a compliment about his shirt was mistranslated in my early VHS version. The original sounds even funnier:)

10/10

- Boogie Nights (Paul Thomas Anderson, 1997). Another re-watched classic. If every tenth year I decide to watch my favourite movies soon I'll be in trouble, but at least I won't have time to watch new ones. And here comes the beautiful surprise info of the day: PTA's regular cinematographer, Robert Elswit (got deservedly an Oscar this year for There Will Be Blood) was the photographer of Reiner's above mentioned The Sure Shot! Pow! No new words about the film, if you missed it until now, you'll have a movie of the day. 

Small remark: please check the version of the copy you're planning to watch: "DO NOT BUY REGION 2 EDITION!!! For starters, it has been heavily cropped. Originally filmed in 2:35:1 widescreen, some numbnuts has decided to crop it to 1:85:1, meaning it loses a lot of the picture. Along with that, the colour has been muted heavily, which makes it look pretty shoddy." Thanks for the info to SandyRing85.

9/10

Cinemania (2002)

"What is the difference between like it or understand it?"

I was referring several times to one of my favourite blogs owned by our time's best (another entry should / will prove this statement) film critics David Bordwell. Today he made my day again when in his latest post was talking about the possible differences between cinephilia and cinemania. If you're interested in the topic just click on him, here I'm just briefly mentioning that cinemania is a cinephilia on steroids, an almost sick obsession in movies. A cinemaniac watches several (3 to 7) movies per day, I mean every day! He or she organises his or her day around the screening times (with complete plans included the travelling schedule between the cinemas), collects tickets, leaflets, soundtracks and every kind of memorabilia, knows everything, let's stress it again, everything about movies! They have seen even all the B movies at least 3 times (for Harvey the Attack of the Crab Monsters (1957) is already an obvious classic), they are living in another world (most of the time immersed another film-reality), spending all their money for tickets (no matter how poor they are - usually they are, cos' watching films day and night doesn't let them work for living), washing their 1cm thick glasses before every screening, having the projectionists' phone numbers, and so on...

Angela Christlieb's and Stephen Kijak's documentary about New York's five unbelievable passionate (addicted) movie buffs is one of the best I've seen recently. You might think they are crazy (probably you judge right), but they are the happiest people in the world. They look like kind of sad bunch of losers, but at the same time you're becoming envious because of their freedom and true love for moving images. You feel pity but you'd like to be one of them - at least for a week (or a month, or...).

"Film buffs do not socialize, film buffs get together see movies, they do not to get together to having parties they do not to get together to know each other."

If you like movies, you'll love these guys and the film's exactly (!!! :) 83 minutes.

9/10

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]