Degree7 Reviews

Tár (2022)

In the orchestra pit

[5/10 · 7 November 2022]

Todd Fields made one of the best directing debuts ever in 2001 with "In the Bedroom". His latest feature doesn't quite live up to those standards, but the stylistic undercurrent is still there. The increasing neurosis and paranoia of the of the well-to-do protagonist, seeming to be undone by their toxic environment, is a through line to his previous features.

Howard Hawks once said that a good movie has three great scenes and no bad scenes. Tár has three good scenes, and the rest are tolerable. The opening is middling, and the editing is choppy and lacks a strong pace. But Cate Blanchett's portrayal is enough to bring about the audience's sympathy of being a scapegoat, while some dramatic tension is revealed in the sequences at Juilliard, the deposition, and an unexpectedly creepy moment when Linda is pursued through a dark, dank basement. Unfortunately the film never quite comes together to unify into a cohesive whole.

The Lighthouse (I) (2019)

Willem Dafoe saves the day

[5/10 · 21 November 2019]

Willem Dafoe is perhaps the most diverse mainstream American actor alive, being able to pull his weight in summer blockbusters as well as smaller, indie faire with equal measure. Even as he hams it up, his magnetism is unwavering. Robert Pattinson, on the other hand, does not have the same charisma. The pretty-boy from the Stephanie Meyer vampire romances has partaken one what can only be described as a vanity project.

The Lighthouse has all the trappings of an art school student film. Unconventional aspect ratio, singular setting, unintelligible dialogue, and yes, copious amounts of sex and violence. The film apparently draws inspiration from Hemingway and Edgar Allen Poe stories, although it reminds one of a particular short by science fiction author Ray Bradbury: "The Foghorn" - similarly about two men working in a lighthouse who unintentionally attract a large sea monster (which later became the basis for 1953's "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms"). Perhaps this Eggers fellow would have been better served adapting that story instead, with a tangible antagonist. What we get here is your typical psychological exploration of the monster inside us all, slowly being driven insane on a barren rocky island, as our protagonist grappled with a dark secret, with the light in the lighthouse meant to symbolize... something about the human condition. Perhaps the ending was an allusion to the Greek myth of Prometheus, although it is all very open-ended that you could read anything into it. A film about a man's internal struggle, but nothing much in the way of big ideas.

I must commend the writers for giving the actors what appears to be authentic 19th century New England dialects to work with, but it was disconcerting the director did not have more faith in scaring his audience than using obligatory loud sound effects (an obnoxious piercing cry of a siren or the irritating blare of a fog horn) to make them uneasy. Never mind the blood, gore, and nudity. Subtlety is not Eggers' forte.

One's time would be better spent watching the works of David Lynch or Lars Von Trier if they're in the mood for surreal, postmodern deconstructions of cinematic expressionism. Save this one for die-hard Dafoe fans.

A History of Violence (2005)

An unintentionally hilarious farce of epic proportions.

[5/10 · 5 May 2019]

What else is there to say about this film other than wonder why everyone seemed to drink its koolaid without an afterthought? The Norman Rockwell depiction of America is so on the nose and predictable, you can see the story beats coming from a mile away. It only gets worse once the cartoonishly evil (and classically idiotic) mobsters from "Philly" show up, and start threatening our hero and his family by standing menacingly outside his house in broad daylight. I lost count of the innumerable times they said "Joey" in a faux-East Coast accent, while then letting "Joey" pick them off one by one as they conveniently fumble for their guns.

By the time "Joey" has arrived in "Philly" I had already checked out, but it was entertaining in a B-movie sort of way to watch William Hurt ham his way through the last 15 minutes. But that's all you can take away from it; the picture fails as an action flick by having short, illogical and poorly staged fights, and falls apart as a drama once the camp factor becomes overwhelming. But if you wanted to riff this film for fun, it works splendidly.

Mommy (I) (2014)

Awful

[1/10 · 24 April 2019]

I had to watch this amateurishly made student film in one of my classes. After being tortured with a few minutes of this nonsense, I came to some observations: Terrible overuse of Oasis, and their dreadfully overplayed song "Wonderwall." Watching a kid skateboard down a street while 90s Britpop blares in your ears just screams pretentious hipsterism, and is a poor attempt to galvanize audience investment. The annoying aspect ratio doesn't help either. Overall this "film" is just another example of overrated Western filmmaking. Shocked that this won top awards.

The X-Files: The Jersey Devil (1993) Season 1, Episode 5

Mixed bag of an episode.

[5/10 · 15 April 2019]

I liked the blurring of reality and the otherworldliness that the show does so well, and the idea of a common myth being based on plausible anthropological events is intriguing, as the case takes a serious scientific approach the more evidence Mulder finds. But there is a missed opportunity for true scares. They could have gone a gigantopithecus or Sasquatch route to raise the creep factor, but the actual reveal is somewhat mundane.

The local police obstruct Scully and Mulder throughout the episode, but their motives are unclear - the city want to keep the "devil" alive to draw tourism, but later they are trying to shoot to kill it. Some of the commentary on man's destructive role with nature is also pertinent, but a little heavy-handed, and the subplot of Scully's dating life dragged a little. However important it was to see Scully being torn between the normality of family life and the crazed obsession driving Mulder, too much time was spent over Scully's romantic life. Overall, the episode feels like a wasted moment for something as enigmatic as the Jersey Devil. Maybe Chris Carter didn't want to rip off the "Mothman Prophecies" too much?

The Manchurian Candidate (2004)

Impressive first half, limp conclusion

[6/10 · 30 January 2019]

Why Jonathan Demme's style worked so well was his convincing portrayals of alternate hyper-realities, just slightly tweaked so it's recognizable as a warped mirror of our world. Silence of the Lambs achieved this, and Demme replicates this into a slightly dystopian version of contemporary USA. The public is beset by constant terror threats, news of overseas conflicts omnipresent, this is a much more paranoid society with Orwellian overtones. The first half of the movie is superb in a Alan J Pakuka sort of way as Marco is confronted and slowly uncovers evidence of brainwashing and mind control; the atmosphere gradually grows more and more intense and twisted in a Hitchcock-ian ratcheting of suspense; it almost makes the viewer begin questioning reality along with him, as hallucinations and perceptions become twisted into a guessing game of what is real and what is implanted. The discoveries grow more and more disturbing, but this is where finale becomes predictable. The use of a monolithic corporation pulling the strings is well-worn trope territory as has been said countless times, but that doesn't diminish the fantastic psychological thriller rollercoaster of the first 75 minutes. In particular, Jeffrey Wright gives a wonderful performance as the sadly underused, unhinged plot device that pulls Marco into a nightmarish realm of brainwashing - the sequence in Melvin's apartment is exceptional in its depiction of deranged neurosis. This is where the influence of Silence or the Lambs comes in handy, as it's a convincing portrait of a dark underworld lurking beneath mainstream society's veneer. Washington too gives a superb performance as an anti-hero whose world quickly unravels. What doesn't really develop convincingly is the tragic aspects of the story involving Liev Schreiber's character, and the ending is far too pat even for my unaffected tastes. Streep is given a one-dimensional to work with, but still adds some ham to the proceedings with a Oedipus Rex caricature. But the vision of a corrupted future is nice for fans of science fiction thrillers, and the overall uneasiness of the film gives it some zest despite a lukewarm conclusion.

Wild Strawberries (1957)

The search for meaning.

[6/10 · 29 September 2015]

An aging professor of bacterium embarks upon a day's journey from Stockholm to Lundsk to receive an honourary award for his career work. The night before, he has a Bunuel-esque nightmare that foreshadows his own fate, seeing a watch with no hands, and his own corpse in a coffin. Cleverly, the film hints that he may be out of time before his own mortality claims him, and thus he begins a journey of self discovery where his skeletons reach out from the closet.

For my first Bergman film, I was impressed by the crisp presentation and cerebral story. Its not often that filmmakers explore the aging process in sympathetic ways, and this is helped by the characterization of Dr. Isak Borg as an every man which makes him easier to relate to. He's a successful academic, although happiness in his personal life was sacrificed for concentration on his profession. And so Dr. Borg asks the eternal question of whether his existence has had any significance at all. Along the road trip with his daughter in law Marianne (who resents his emotional distancing), they pick up passengers that each represent and harken back to the failures of Borg's past. An old bickering couple that remind him of his unhappy marriage, and a love triangle between two men and a girl who symbolize a lost love from his adolescence.

As the memories come flooding back, the old doctor descends into his recollections and subconscious dreams, where suppressed issues come hurtling forth from the depths. His clinical nature and lack of interest in relationships led to his first love leaving him for his brother, and later his wife having a bastard child with another man, who Borg still raised as his own. There is a haunting scene where he takes Marianne to visit his lonely, decrepit mother, and there the audience realizes along with her that this lack of zest for life seems to run through the family; Isak's son is too revealed to be a misanthropic bore, who rejects his wife Marianne's request for a child. The result of his resentfulness at having been raised as an unwanted child himself.

The doctor soon learns that the only good he ever accomplished was tied to his medicinal work, but at the cost of living a life of solitude and isolation, a mindset that has afflicted his own son. There is a subtle theme from Bergman that Borg's ignorance of his family and friends has been the result of his turning away from God, as hinted by the young men they pick up (a minister and a doctor, the two sides of Isak's psyche) who fight and debate over its existence. No real answer is given in the end, symbolized by the men's stalemate in the argument. But as said later in the film: "a doctor's first duty is forgiveness." It seems the first step to even beginning to comprehend the question is by forgiving the flaws of those around you and the ones within. And although Borg fears he may be too late to reconcile the animosity between him and his family, the film makes an inspiring statement by the end that it's never never too late to redeem oneself and begin enjoying life. The story is resolved, and the generational cycle of resentment broken, with the rapprochement between two lovers and the potential birth of new life.

Alas, there are flaws in Bergman's work that cannot be forgiven, and he was no God. The first major flashback acts as a crux of the plot, but appears contrived due to Isak being present for an event that was impossible for him to have known. Nor do we ever get to really see this "cold distance" that Isak possessed as a man; only its effects. The director is to be commended for not spoon feeding the audience the philosophical aspects (this is an art film from Sweden after all), but sometimes his high brow obscurity gets in the way of my enjoyment of the story. It's all a little too esoteric for me. While the message may seem a little trite and simplistic at times, this is still a heartwarming and life-affirming fable from a legendary auteur. "Wild Strawberries" has a comforting aura, although like Doctor Isak Borg himself, the film can be rather too pedantic for its own good.

His Girl Friday (1940)

A convincing, satirical comedy on the power of the press.

[7/10 · 28 September 2015]

Howard Hawks, cinematic pioneer of screwball comedy and machine gun, rapid fire dialogue, created an enduring classic whose influence continues to be felt even today. This wasn't the first film to marry romance and newspapers, nor the last, with the likes of Capra and Cukor concocting their own tabloid funny pictures. But the play "Front Page" by Hecht and MacArthur came out years before, and Hawks's film superbly captures the atmospheric mania and chaos of paper journalism. The chatter of reporters relaying the big scoop into their telephones is handled brilliantly through complex, overlapping dialogue that was painstakingly captured by the sound mixing team. The romantic quips between ex husband and wife Walter Burns and Hilde Johnson (Grant and Russell) are entertaining enough, as is the subplot with her hapless fiancé, but it's the hysterics of seeing the characters holding conversations between, say, two candlestick phones and a coworker that provides the real physical and situational gags. You feel the urgency as an inmate is on death row for shooting a cop, only for him to escape, as the myriad of journalists all scramble for a story. The complex plot becomes even more intricately fast paced the further the characters become entangled in the escapades, as political intrigue, a love triangle, and a thrilling manhunt all conflict to create unbridled bedlam. At times it's easy to lose yourself in keeping track of the details but that becomes part of the film's charm; making sense of all the pandemonium is half the fun! But beneath the humour is a sardonic poke at the callous influence of the media, something that affects everyone from innocent bystanders to those who hold office. The story makes a darker subtlety about the manipulation of truth although the satire is softened by the romance inserted by the scriptwriters. Luckily this only means that the film has something to offer for everyone.

It's a real pioneering work, and its impact on cinema can be felt all the way to contemporaries like Aaron Sorkin and Quentin Tarantino (of who the film is a personal favorite). Just be prepared to feel as the characters do; trying to catch onto the story amidst all the madness.

Twelve O'Clock High (1949)

Ponderously dry military drama.

[5/10 · 10 September 2015]

England, 1942. The 918th bomber regiment, flying into Europe to deliver their payload to German targets, is a group suffering from low morale and even worse luck, with many pilots coming back dead, injured, or psychologically scarred from their daylight raids that are only growing tougher. Enter General Savage, played by Peck, who believes the problem lies with their CO, Colonel Davenport, a good soldier who has become too close to his men and thus lacks the necessary strong-arm discipline. Savage relieve the Colonel of his command, and brings the 918th under his wing, attempting to whip this hard luck group into shape. The film deals with the theme of leadership under stress, and how a commander will toe the line between protecting his men and sending them to their deaths.

For a psychological drama on the effects of war on the chain of command, the film is undoubtedly good. Any military buff or WWII geek will get his worth for watching it. But for those interested in the actual bombing missions, bad news, as there is one bombing run and it only lasts for ten minutes in the last fourth of the movie. It consists of genuine war footage spliced in with the actors, and while it's certainly an effective sequence, it arrived too little too late to save the story, as I had already lost interest. The issue I took with the film was my lack of connection with any of the characters in the squadron, save for Savage. In the beginning, we are introduced to a man we think is the protagonist, who has a flashback to the events that sets the plot in motion; but it turns out he's only a side character who hardly has an effect on the story. If any character is the main one, it should have been Peck's Savage, but we don't meet him until twenty minutes in.

There is also a distinct lack of notable personalities in the bomber crews Savage is attempting to win over. Essential scenes that would be obligatory in the telling of the tale are skipped over or told from an offhand source. In a pivotal moment, Savage is convinced his men will transfer out instead of staying. But another officer rushes in and informs him that all the men forgave their transfer orders, and opted to stay with the group. Surely this would have been a case where we should be shown this, and not just told in an anticlimactic fashion. Perhaps seeing the men all threatening to leave, but one brave soul tears up his transfer order, and the rest soon follow in an honourary echo. But because we never see this (indeed, barely see any of the grunts; most of the runtime is devoted to Peck's static character) the result of Savage's salvation is not convincing. Surely this imaginary scene I described would have given me a character in the group with a justifiable personality, who I would later then care about as much as Savage apparently does when they bite the dust at the end.

But no, the 918th are just a faceless mass of men who we get glimpses of, but never get to really know. There are a couple choice scenes of men venting about why he's a bad commander, but we never get to see Savage do anything resentful or in any serious conflict with the group. The moments where bonds are forged and brotherhood is found, the battle scenes, are nonexistent except for one. The worst thing we see him do is close the bar for a night. There is also a subplot where he gives command to a deadbeat officer, in charge of a plane called the Leper Colony, and filled with the worst crewmen in the bomber group. Savage threatens to to rub his "face in the dirt" with this detail. But this relationship is soon forgotten by the director as well. It is at least resolved later in a touching scene at the hospital between Savage and the officer. It is revealed the man went through great personal sacrifice, having had to ditch the plane in the English Channel, and flying three missions with a fractured vertebrae. Again, the film makes a point of not throwing any of this exciting, hair raising action, but are instead just told about it. This starts to make the film bleed into monotonous scenes of indistinguishable sludge after a while. As the movie drags on, we do not get any of the bomber crew members showing up as major characters, and we don't see them struggling to get on with the General even as he flies on offscreen missions with them. All we get is exposition in the officer's club, with the generals and majors deciding on how best to run the unit. It's all very meticulous and cold, but lacks the humanity to make me care.

The climax of the film involves General Savage having a nervous breakdown, as he ironically becomes too attached to his men for his own good. Let me go on to say that this is soon resolved in an almost arbitrary fashion, and the ending is as carefree and bland as could possibly be. For a detailed look into a commander's effort to run a regiment, there is much for the war buff. But the bomber crews seem to take a backseat to one man's struggle, and this just isn't enough to keep me invested for a two hour runtime.

6.9/10

Patton (1970)

Last of the mad-man generals.

[7/10 · 10 June 2015]

Maybe McArthur was a strong contender, but Patton has to be one of the most polarizing military figures in recent US history. His dogmatic approach to war making was akin to a passionate romance; here was a man who lived and breathed the art of conquering.

The character himself is ripe for a multilayered dissection, what with all the complexities that Patton had within himself. He was both brave and sadistic. Incredibly intelligent and stubbornly shortsighted, and because he happened to be fighting for the allies, he is mythologized as fighting for freedom. But as many have pointed out, if he'd been a German he would no doubt have fought to the death for Hitler himself. Unfortunately, the screenplay for "Patton" only offers a cursory glance over his campaigns in WWII. It never really analyzes his more controversial aspects, such as his frothing antisemitism and infamous vulgarity. What the film does touch on is the German high command's respect for him, which is unique for a war picture. But other details of his life, such as his service in WW1, and his untimely and tragic death, are ignored.

A troubling part of the picture is the film's dated-ness. It is very much a studio film, one that takes zero chances with the narrative, and has noticeably aged. The battle scenes are typical of-the-era goofiness, sanitized through its 1960s lense. It really is a shame that fictional movies like "The Dirty Dozen" or "Kelly's Heroes" have more shocking scenes of war than a biography about an army Warhawk. As it is, both the writing and direction are barely adequate and leave much to be desired, but the film is still worth recommending for the glorious portrayal by George C Scott. Where the character ends and the actor begins is impossible to tell, and this is the sign of a truly impressive performance.

Because the story leads through a rather shallow, Spark-Notes recollection of his war-time experiences, Patton falls short of greatness. The critical eye of the writer is closed just as we begin to understand the tragic image of a man who became unhealthily obsessed with a destructive drug. Patton may not be my favorite film involving either writer, director, or lead actor (Godfather, Apocalypse Now, The Conversation for Coppola; Planet of the apes and Papillon for Schaffner; The Hustler and Dr Strangelove for George C Scott), but for a fascinating portrait of an enigmatic individual, "Patton" remains definitive, until they make his next biopic any better.

Se7en (1995)

Urban decay has never been so slickly photographed.

[8/10 · 19 December 2014]

Se7en is one of those films you watch in between long intervals. For me, this was my third rewatch and my last. I don't think I have the stomach for another.

It is essentially a buddy cop flick, but the script touches on deeper issues of the future of human society, sin, apathy, and predestination. The Noir trappings are beautiful to behold, the constant rain, squalor, grimy city that feels like every dystopian metropolis combined into one. But it occasionally veers into fantasy with a plot that relies on a few too many gimmicks to make it flawless. The villain is simply an omnipotent being at times with almost magic powers.

There are moments of genuine humanity that doesn't make it completely hopeless, but the atmosphere is filled with so much despair and nihilism that the grunge attitude of it does begin to wear as the clock ticks by. And by the time the villain of the piece makes his grand entry, I kept expecting him to appear with a leather mask on his face and gloating evilly about eating a census taker's liver with fava beans and a nice Chianti.

Still, the dynamic between Freeman and Pitt is still enticing to watch, and the story works as a parable or even sadistic fable at a rudimentary level. But sometimes I wish the story hadn't been so manipulative and fixed just so that it could punish these characters and push them to insane lengths. I felt like character motivations and development were being engaged at the behest of the plot progression, so certain events begin to seem contrived just so it can reach the shocking conclusion. I assume the writer was trying to teach a lesson, albeit in a clumsy fashion.

I would call it a minor 90s classic, and the dreamlike, twilight zone-esque environment adds a nice surreal atmosphere. For those willing to ignore plot conveniences and the dingy weather, this film will take you along for a horrific trip into the darkest recesses of what men are capable of.

The Usual Suspects (1995)

Somewhat wonderful?

[5/10 · 24 March 2014]

Usual Suspects made a long career for Bryan Singer, and an even larger reputation for itself. A crime-thriller that supposedly pioneered the 'shocking' twist, long before Shyamalan came on the scene. But what about watching a movie without any pre-conceived notions? I took the time to slip it into the DVD player with my old man besides me. After 2 hours of convoluted trickery, he was less than impressed with the film's main plot device. "Well that was clever..... but is that it?"

With a combination of tropes (the dog being the mastermind, crossed with unreliable narrator) the writers try to keep the audience guessing, but somewhat superficially, as the story gradually winds down to a less than mind-blowing finale. The direction is flashy and Scorsese-lite, with bright lighting, wide angles, and mysterious music to let the viewer feel he is being led astray. It works for the most part, but I felt like my buttons were being pressed unwillingly by the filmmaker, to make the mystery seem thicker than it was.

The other problem was the narrator-bound narrative. It was essential for the plot, but also meant we never peek into the lives of these characters we're supposed to be attached to. The history between them is relegated to expository dialogue, and a love-interest's death is dealt out in an offhand fashion right at the climax. It made me realize that most of the story is built around this twist ending, and the rest of what happened in the film, all the mini-adventures the characters had, the elaborate trail they had been lead on, was all window-dressing to get me to the WOW shocker that had been promised all along.

It's neat, artfully told, smooth film making, but the story seems like it could have been condensed into a 20 minute Twilight Zone episode and left at that. Not a 2 hour feature. My time wasn't exactly wasted, but there wasn't much meat to chew on, thematically or character-wise, and all it left me to ponder upon was a quote hijacked from French poet Charles Baudelair; "The devil's finest trick is to persuade you that he does not exist." It doesn't exactly scream originality, does it? Shouldn't the writers have to pay copyright material for using another's work?

Three Kings (1999)

Pretty decent war romp.

[6/10 · 19 February 2014]

The first Gulf War is a neglected subject for movie making, with most choosing to avoid the messy politics of the desert engagement against Iraq. David O'Russell dives head first into a witty satire that simultaneously lampoons and chastises American involvement in Kuwait.

In the most recent Iraq war, there were stories of US Military taking advantage of Saddam's wealth in the confusion of the 2003 invasion. It is somewhat fitting then, that the screenplay opens as a gold hunt in the prequel to the recent Gulf War. When Sergeant Troy (former rapper Wahlberg) and his squadmate Conrad (director Spike Jonze) find a map shoved up the backside of an Iraqi prisoner, deciphering out it leads to Saddam's stolen stash of Kuwaiti bullion in an underground bunker. Soon, Special Forces operative Archie Gates (Clooney) and Chief (former rapper Ice Cube) join to lead a secret heist mission on the stash before they pull out for good, and before their commander finds out.

Right off the bat the premise is intriguing and the actors do a fine job as a rag tag group of thieves. Even better is the sardonic tone of the film, with screwball jokes and inventive, shocking imagery that dispels the myths of the '24 hour news channel war' as it was shown in the US. Unfortunately, caper plot is soon ditched in favour of a more Hollywood message, and with it goes the pacing, replaced with overt social commentary that doesn't always work.

There are still a handful of great scenes in the second half; Wahlberg being captured and tortured by the sadistic Iraqi Guard, and asked why America made Michael Jackson white... Another scene shows the gory effects of what air pressure can do to a collapsed lung... But from then on, the film slows to a crawl in a feel good sentiment for your fellow man that seems out of place compared to the first half. Still, worth watching for the black humour and farce that is so enjoyable in the beginning.

Lost in America (1985)

Great scenes, but thin and missing an ending.

[7/10 · 5 January 2014]

Albert Brooks is a wonderful talent, somewhat of a Woody Allen offshoot, and his script writing is witty and has just the right amount of offbeat humour to it.

The film has a great premise, and the characters are realistic and sympathetic enough to retain attention, but it moves too fast and feels underdeveloped. It starts out with Howard (Brooks) established as a moderately successful advertising executive, who with his managerial wife, plan to put a down payment on a 400k house. But the corporate lifestyle has sapped some of the excitement out of both their lives, and before divorce proceedings set in, they hilariously quit their jobs and set out on the open road to find themselves. And along the way they bring the 'nest egg'.

Unfortunately, things don't go as planned, and the soul searching quickly becomes a trip through hell. With each quagmire the couple finds themselves in, Brooks' character hilariously pleads with the people he sees as obstacles to their luck. The film is built around 3 or 4 of these lengthy, seemingly improvised sketch scenes, and is what provides most of the entertainment apart from the scenario. But after the main twist and conflict happens, the film loses steam and the hijinx quickly dissipitate until the film deflates at the end.

Little soul searching actually occurs, and the film has a realistic, but disappointing ending after much of the build up to their quagmire. The ending just isn't what was promised after the dark hilarity of misfortune that preceded it. The characters feel annoyingly self entitled at first, and start to grate, but the writing and short running times keeps things feeling fresh long enough to want to finish.

Worth watching just for Brooks.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

Star Wars.

[10/10 · 11 November 2013]

Yes, you heard that right. At its essence, Ang Lee's fable of fated warriors and princesses is a resurfacing into the universe of myth and legend. It takes place in Ancient China, perhaps of the Han Dynasty era, but the story is adaptable to any time frame or location. The cast of archetypal characters are our superheroes, Jedi-knights, apprentices, swashbucklers, the martial art of the Wudang is the secret power, the force, the sorcerer's magic, and the sword called 'Green Destiny' is the artifact, buried treasure, or the maguffin.

It is a world of fairytale and high fantasy, brought to vivid life by the imagination of Ang Lee. The character's are multi-faceted and believable, and the tale is one of life affirmation. Good and evil are not painted in broad strokes of black and white, contrary to what many critics have said previously, but legend is transformed into a realistic analysis of the human condition.

They say the film was a massive hit in the US, and a notorious flop in China. This is not so inconceivable, as the film as certain 'anti- Eastern' sentiments and more global, humanist tendencies that put it in league with certain works by Shakespeare. The story doesn't denounce any particular facets of Chinese culture. Tradition and homegrown philosophy are shown to be advantageous to those that live by honour and the sword, and perilous to those that live lives of imbalance and despair. Jealousy and hubris are the undoing of many, and while the Buddhist and Taoist quest for enlightenment is detailed by the protagonist of Mi Lu Bai (Chow Yun Fat), his 'great sorrow' is a symptom of the greatest human emotion known to the world.

Is the film perfect? No, not at all. The plot hops around, and while it doesn't ruin the experience, what needed to be a 3 hour epic was reduced to a 2 hour engagement with a giant detour in the middle that relied on too much back story. But it is a wonderful back story. This is not a film about superpowers, as spectacular, unmatched and jaw-dropping as these effects and scenes remain some 13 years later. But it is a simple coming of age tale and warning against unrequited love. It is a confirmation of companionship, and for that, Ang Lee and his team deserved the highest praises.

The real all-encompassing epic and Best Picture of the year 2000.

The Truman Show (1998)

"How's it going to end?" "I was wondering that myself."

[8/10 · 11 November 2013]

I have heard of the Truman Show to be regarded as a 'reference point' movie, where the general outline of the story is so outrageous and unique (to a point), that everyone knows the film through the phrase "oh, that's the one where the guy is trapped in, so and so....". Not every film is as instantly recognizable as The Matrix or Star Wars, but their set-ups are crucial to the intrigue. As with Groundhog Day, the Truman Show may just be one of the greatest and most intelligent comedies of the 1990s.

Some may find the satire here too heavy handed, thus making it shallow. But the pertinent themes of self-determination, the relationship of institutions like the State, Media, and religion in tandem with the idea of free will, and the concept of what it truly means to be a happy person are all explored for better or worse here.

Some of the imagery is a little too obvious, like Truman literally piercing through 'the edge of the world' and having a conversation with 'God'. The natural source of comedy in Truman slowly realizing his world is a TV set is woefully underused, with only about a third of the screen time dedicated to Jim Carrey's priceless antics among the straight faced actors and television crew around him. The film remorselessly lampoons network television with views inside the control room. A perfectly cast Ed Harris as a maniacal parody of a Steve Jobs entrepreneur/artiste, complete with beret and turtleneck sweater, anchors the story as the plausibly divine instrument of Truman's fate. The use of product placement invading the character's life is another stroke of genius.

The film ends somewhat abruptly, but the tale of a single human life being born out of and fighting against the ratings is something to aspire to, ironically. The metaphor couldn't be more appropriate in this day and age of increasing surveillance and invasion of privacy. Apart from that, this is certainly the best Jim Carrey film after "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind".

Zodiac (2007)

A recreation, not a dramatization.

[5/10 · 11 November 2013]

Complaints about Zodiac being 'too slow' and laboured compared to David Fincher's other thrillers are not unfounded. Repeated viewings have confirmed that while the story as a whole sticks out in one of the most interesting failed manhunts of the 20th century America, Zodiac suffers from too much technicality and not enough characterization.

The filmmakers spend an economical amount of time with the characters, but we never delve into the psychological framework of their minds the same way we do say, with John Doe in "Seven". Even though he spends 90% if the time off screen, the villain of Fincher's sophomore film was more completely and subtly explored using mise-en-scene. When the detectives explore the killer's labyrinthine network of notes and personal possessions in his hideout, it offers a window into his head and how he must observe the world. A hell-ish, biblical purgatory. In Zodiac, we never get that exploration, not with the villain (who remains true to fact, anonymous) nor the many protagonists. We never get long, quiet scenes lingering over their private lives with their families, never a question into what makes them tick other than the simple basis of what their job entails, as reporters and detectives.

Zodiac moves along at a brisk pace, rarely stopping for reflection or contemplation. It is a simple docudrama recounting of the days stemming from the murders, but it is too lengthy and detached to justify its role as a character study, of which there is little studying to be done. The best scenes in the film are the ones that aren't rushed, but dawdle idly with faint sense of foreboding. The killer is never seen, but the Zodiac's innate and disturbed presence can be felt to hover in purse moments. His identity is maddeningly hinted at, but never confirmed. All Fincher can accomplish is lead suspicion towards certain suspects.

While the first hour has a definite drive with the subsequent murders, once the killer leaves the populace' mind and remains as a mark of obsession on the characters, so does the film slowly leave our interests as viewers. The dead ends and blind alleys are a curious enough recounting of the events, but serve more as a reminder of the failed police procedure of the time and the hindrance in the lack of technological assurance of the 1970s.

Zodiac works better as a warning against future failures of the media and police work, than an effective statement of the era. For all it's pomp and self-assuredness, Zodiac lacks a throbbing heart.

Drugstore Cowboy (1989)

Cowboy Junkies.

[8/10 · 11 November 2013]

Based on the autobiographical junkie lifestyle of James Fogle's novel of the same name, this flick is a quick skim-through of druggie Matt Dillon and his crew of bandits that rob, connive, and steal their way through life just to get a fix. The film is quite cold and grim, but also raw and honest, and it doesn't sugarcoat the lives of these grown up kids.

The movie has a more psychological bent to drug use, with psychedelic effects aptly recreating the euphoria of shooting opiates into the arm, and descriptions of the buzz read verbatim from lines in the book. Matt Dillon carries the film as the leading man, and makes a very convincing superstitious junkie who struggles to keep his crew from giving themselves away. Also in for the fun is a slightly amoral cop, whose antics in trying to catch Hughes on a score leads to some suspense and entertainment.

The story takes a turn later on when the protagonist, Bob, tries to go straight. It's here where a glimpse into the mind of the drug user is detailed more eloquently and honestly than the thousands of 'drug movies' that have come out of Hollywood in the past 50 years. A cameo by notable beatnik poet and author William S Burrows offers some poignant social commentary on the prediction of the war on drugs, which makes this film only more timely as the years go on. This turns the film from a good one into a slightly great one.

The feel of the early 1970s Portland is accurately recreated with the wardrobe, grimy on location sets, and script. The off-kilter and jazzy soundtrack provides bounce and rhythm to the film when it threatens to get bogged down. While the ending somewhat tapers off, the indie- direction by Van Sant and assured acting performances by the cast (including a gorgeous Heather Graham when she was young) turn this into a low 8.

Recommended.

Cape Fear (1962)

Not a bad little thriller at all.

[7/10 · 3 November 2013]

Any overview of Cape Fear invariably brings comparisons to the '91 Scorsese remake. While Scorsese perhaps made a more engrossing and colourful adaptation, the '62 original remains tighter and more effortlessly chilling in its execution.

Robert Mitchum was the original Max Cady before De Niro, a ruthlessly intelligent, sadistic felon who pursues Sam Bowden and his all-American family relentlessly. While De Niro in the remake felt more like an slasher movie villain, seemingly unstoppable in his almost supernatural pursuit of the Bowdens like a Michael Myers on steroids, here Mitchum's Cady is more akin to a weasel. He has the ability to squirm his way through every attempt to stop him within the confines of the law, using his knowledge of the system to harass Bowden without ever physically laying a finger on him.

Some critics say that the remake covered up some plot discrepancies, by turning Bowden into Cady's lawyer, rather than just the witness that was Gregory Peck's character. But I for one find the notion of a phsycopath like Cady pursuing those he felt has wronged him in such an arbitrary fashion to be much more terrifying. It shows more how woefully unlucky Bowden was to wander into Cady's path, being picked out as a victim to pay undue penance for helping to put Cady away. Max Cady in this version is a hypnotic, soft-talking, but thoroughly unreasonable monster. Much more so than De Niro's. Perhaps it is a case of apples and oranges.

Are there faults with Cape Fear? Perhaps, but only as a product of its time. Gregory Peck feels like little more than a rerun of his role as Atticus Finch, and the predictable scenario of the child in danger is a well worn plot device.

However, the film more than makes up for any shortcomings with a gripping and suspenseful climax in the swamp of Cape Fear, with silent black and white figures grappling in the dark, muddy waters. The inevitable confrontation between Mrs. Bowden and Cady is a fine slice of close contact acting. Watch Cape Fear mainly to see one of the greatest villains to grace the screen. The scene of Mitchum slithering into the water like a reptile full of evil intent is worth the price of admission alone, whatever that may be.

Jack the Giant Slayer (2013)

Jack the Giant turd....

[2/10 · 1 November 2013]

It always puzzles me as to who green-lights these projects. It seems that producers think that an abundance of computer effects and respectable actors will somehow cover up any gaps in the rest of it, but that amounts to little more than putting lipstick on a pig.

With 200 million plus budget, you'd think they could have found the time to hire a decent script writer, but this was not to be so. Cliché after cliché constantly barrages you, with hammy lines up the ying yang and a story that is even more thread bare than a Pixar film. The original myth of Jack and the Beanstalk, as well as the Arthurian-connection to Jack the Giant Killer, is somewhat scrapped for a more traditional fairytale involving a dashing rogue, a princess, a noble king, and a scheming Lord, adviser to the King. Not a single thing comes as a surprise, so the only entertainment value is left up to the appearance of the giants, who carry the film forward when the human cast remains so lackluster.

When the first giant makes its appearance, the effects are somewhat entertaining, and the attention to detail on some of them border on magnificent, so it shows Bryan Singer was at least somewhat invested. Unfortunately, after a while their antics involving farting, burping, and scratching their nether regions becomes tiresome, and there only remain a few action set pieces involving the giants that amount to perhaps 20 to 25 minutes of actual screen time.

All the shenanigans lead up to a siege of the human kingdom by an army of Giants, as promoted heavily in the trailers, but it's far from exciting and quite predictable. What you see is a poor man's battle from a Lord of the Rings film.

The biggest detractor from the movie is its lack of consistency. The violence is somewhat ad hoc, and doesn't jibe with the tone in the rest of the film. Uncreative cut-aways are used when mutilations or killings involve hapless humans being munched on, along with pigs and sheep, but the filmmakers have no problem showing giants being slain in detail in various gory ways, such as being stabbed with knives, pulverized, impaled with arrows, or squashed by beanstalks.

Most of the actors deliver their lines with the virtuosity of mannequins, and the only one who really seems to have fun with the source material is Stanley Tucci. Fortunately, most of the more annoying characters like Ewen Bremner disappear fairly quickly, so the torture isn't quite as rigorous as it sounds.

The ending battle involves perhaps 3 dozens giants on an empty plain in front of a CGI castle, most of the cast and extras go around looking like H&M models dressed with too many contemporary styles, and the green screen is painfully noticeable 90% of the time. It feels like a small and hastily put together film, and I wouldn't even recommend kids seeing it, even thought it's rated PG-13 for whatever reason. It surely shouldn't be adults watching this. If you do, you're better off just renting Princess Bride or Fellowship of the Ring again.

Papillon (1973)

"I'm still here you bastards!"

[9/10 · 28 October 2013]

So says Henri "Papillon" Charrière as he desperately clings to the bars of his cell, ever defiant in the face of life imprisonment in the French penal colony of Guiana. It is where he and many other inmates of the French prison institution were sent to live out their sentences in the period between 1852 and 1952.

Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman make a fine cinematic pair, two prisoners who seek each other out for mutual benefit in the harsh climate of French Guiana. Hoffman's Louis Dega, the bespectacled bookkeeper looking for protection from the fellow murderous inmates that would like nothing better than to slit open his insides and rummage around for the chargers of money hidden in his rectum. He employs Papillon as his defacto bodyguard, but on the assurance that Dega will fund his escape from the seemingly inescapable prison island system.

Together the pair ride out the grueling boat journey across the Atlantic, weathering harsh working conditions, tropical diseases, sadistic guards, alligators, manhunters, local tribes, and all manner of pitfalls and treachery. With each escape attempt they are punished with increasing severity, until the human depravity is at an almost intolerable peak. At first the prisoners are somewhat shocked by the horrible standards, but as the years go on, death seems to be commonplace, and no one looks twice at a starved or collapsed boy laying in the jungle heat. The colony is akin to a concentration camp, and indeed perhaps that was the intention. The two leads act as perfect complimentary foils to each other, with McQueen representing the freedom fighter that will stop at nothing to escape, and Hoffman the somewhat apathetic submissive, who still has faith in institutionalization and society.

Each escape attempt is more daring and elaborate than the last, and McQueen portrays wonderfully the vibrant human spirit forever in pursuit of his freedom. Hoffman too steals the show with each scene he is in, but it is McQueen that carries and envelopes the story with his relentless defiance. But the tale is not just a telling of a one dimensional, petty criminal. Throughout the film, Papillon is questioned certain existentialist ideas of what worth his life is, he who seeks to escape justice. The film leaves you with a nice moral to not waste your life, never painting the run for freedom with heroics or unnecessary romance. The script is very intelligent compared to the average prison film.

Aside from the screenplay, the costume design, photography, make up, and on location shooting all provide wonderful colour and flair to the adventure. The story provides levels of imprisonment, until they are finally interred on the infamous Devil's Island that housed political prisoners, and the gradual wear and tear of their character and bodies is convincingly realized. You really get the sense that these guys have been through Hell for 20 or more years.

You can feel the films influence on subsequent movies, from Shawshank Redemption, Cast Away, and even Apocalypse Now. The finale should go down in film history as a classic moment, filled with sadness, but always there remains a light of humanity that longs for autonomy. It is no surprise that Papillon means 'butterfly' in French, and the main character is probably the greatest libertarian hero in all of cinema, more so than any protagonist of Clint Eastwood or John Wayne. It isn't flawless, towards the middle it may drag a bit, but any self respecting film goer should watch this on the biggest television possible for the full effect. For such a great movie, it is somewhat under appreciated in today's age.

Leaving Las Vegas (1995)

Worth watching, but hard to get into.

[4/10 · 24 October 2013]

There is a lot to admire in Mike Figgis' "Leaving Las Vegas". An attractive cast. A great on set location. Competent direction. An original soundtrack by Sting. A relatively honest portrayal of alcoholism that refuses to glorify it. But then again, what films do glorify alcoholism?

Compared to pictures like "The Lost Weekend" and "Days of Wine and Roses", LLV seems a little more romanticized in its depiction of an end stage alcoholic. The cast is far too attractive in every respect. Nicholas Cage looks like he's been working out at the gym for five days a week, and yet he is supposed to be a man in his thirties approaching death after years battling a deadly addiction. End stage alcoholics are supposedly bloated or emaciated ciphers, vomiting, bleeding, and fluidly discharging their way through every violent or truncated relationship they can afford to hold on to. By comparison, this film offers a slightly more sanitized sheen to the whole ordeal. Cage got the shakes and DTs down, I guess, but nothing that would make you lose sleep over seeing.

Elizabeth Shue does a solid job as the equally lonely prostitute looking for companionship. But I was never that involved in their supposed 'romance' as I felt I should have been. All of the scenes involving her were a real drag to sit through, and I couldn't help but get the inkling that her character would have been much more engaging if she had been portrayed as a less attractive individual. Maybe more reminiscent of Charlize Theron in "Monster", but retaining the heart of gold. Instead, all I saw was "movie star" whenever she showed up on screen.

Mike Figgis does an admirable job at creating a moody, ethereal atmosphere, but much of the cinematography feels slightly cheap, like this film was made for VHS, and the soundtrack was that typical loungeroom jazz that you'd find in a Casino toilet. Maybe that was a purposeful artistic choice, but it didn't exactly suck me in, except for an excellent montage using Michael McDonald's cover of "lonely teardrops".

As it was, the film really failed to get going, and the director's choice to frame Elizabeth Shue's fantastic rear and perfectly sculpted body as a substitute for character arc was off putting in hindsight.

Would watch once, just for the Cage performance, but not again.

Michael Clayton (2007)

A disquieting thriller.

[8/10 · 20 October 2013]

Michael Clayton is an aptly described 'janitor' that does the dirty work of taking out the garbage for a giant New York legal firm, when cases prove too convoluted and complicated to handle conventionally (or ethically). Those words are pretty good descriptions for the plot, written by Tony Gilroy of the Bourne Series fame, which twists and turns with each new revelation only deepening the quagmire Clayton finds himself in.

It was the cold, indifferent atmosphere that felt like an throwback to the thrillers of the 1970s that they just don't seem to make anymore of. Films such as Sydney Pollack's "3 Days of Condor" and Paluka's "All the President's Men" that dealt with the nihilistic and darker side of the rich and powerful, as well as shades of "Network" and the Noir trappings of "The Third Man". Michael Clayton wears its influences on its sleeve.

What makes Michael Clayton particularly effective, however, is the subtle, heartfelt message of strength in retaining family bonds. The strength of those with a moral code, and the overall weakness of those without.

Many character's achieve an understated redemption as they put their reputations, careers, and even their own lives on the line to seek out something that can only be described penance. While certain characters wash their hands of the ordeal, those that seek to destroy the truth and attempt to get away with it slowly realize how easily their world crumbles around them. The main character remains ambiguous in true noir tradition, but when questioned in a pivotal scene about his identity, he is lead down a rough and slippery path to self-realization.

But it is Tom Wilkinson's character of Arthur Edens that remains the most memorable. A nice homage to Peter Finch in "Network", Arthur is the representation of the moral outrage bursting forth in uncontrollable, bitter resentment that secretly lurks beneath the skin. His performance is breathtaking, as he desperately seeks for atonement and babbles almost incoherently about the evils he's unwittingly taken part in for the case. His high-pressured mental breakdown and psychotic tirades may seem outrageous, but as a catalyst they really get the story moving along, and at certain points it seems like he's the only sane person in the movie.

In retrospect, the plot seems very straightforward, but it is in the story's unconventional timeframe and unusual fragmented structure that really sells the film. The viewer's patience is only tested by how long they are willing to pay attention to important pieces of dialogue and piece the clues together themselves. It is difficult to talk about the plot without giving too much of it away, but taking part is made easy thanks to the impeccable performances of the cast, with stand out roles from Syndey Pollack, Tom Wilkinson, Tilda Swinton, Goerge Clooney, and even down to the smaller parts. The film ends up becoming a cautionary tale that shows, among other things, the devastating effects of a single car bomb, and the lengths some are willing to go to cover up.

This is a gripping and somewhat under appreciated 'legal' drama that is worth watching for the performances alone. But if you are also interested in a tale of very real corruption that goes on in the everyday world of big business, and how it intersects into our quiet home lives, then by all means watch this movie.

Rush (I) (2013)

Surprisingly good!

[6/10 · 7 October 2013]

I flip flopped quite a lot on this film. When I first saw the trailer, I thought it looked like another cookie cutter Hollywood film, particularly because of Chris Hemsworth. Then I read up on the backstory about the great rivalry between Lauda and Hunt, which actually created some anticipation. I went into the theater expecting it to be a modern classic after reading the reviews, but within the first ten minutes I was aware of its flaws.

A slightly insipid music score by go-to-guy Hans Zimmer, a seemingly unnecessary voice over that holds the viewer's hand throughout the opening, and a rather rushed beginning. The computer effects for the recreated stadiums and the car races were below par as well. I didn't even get a good 1970s vibe from the atmosphere of the piece. The period seemed glossed over with some by the numbers pop songs to demonstrate different ups and downs in the character's lives. James Hunt is struggling with his celebrity status, so let's play "Fame" by David Bowie, seems like a good match! The whole experience appeared to be very vanilla, as is usual with Ron Howard.

But I hung in there, and by the second half of the film, it had improved dramatically. Daniel Bruhl's performance as Nikki Lauda was extraordinary. He captured perfectly the raw determination, the slightly misanthropic nature of the Austrian rival. He was a bastard, but relatable, and his emergence as the protagonist made me concentrate more on their relationship, which was really the crux on the film, than my petty remarks about the cinematography or score. Besides, the sound design was top notch. While I absolutely detest montages that were used to artificially speed up time after each competition, the races did improve so that by the end, the tension had reached exponential levels. The tragedy suffered by the characters gave insight into the nature of sport and what makes the daring feats and psyche of these men so alluring.

The performances of Chris Hemsworth and Bruhl, and their likeness to the respective people, were extraordinary. The exploration of their personal lives added verisimilitude to the story as well.

Rush is a good film, and while it isn't the best in the past 10 years like some are saying, nor is it Ron Howard's most accomplished work (that honour still belongs to 'Apollo 13' or even 'The Missing') it's certainly one of the better releases this year and a sure fire Oscar contender.

Down by Law (1986)

The three stooges

[7/10 · 28 September 2013]

Down By Law might just be the definitive independent, low budget art-house flick that defined the movement throughout the 80s and 90s. Folks like Soderbergh, Tarantino, Kevin Smith, and Richard Linklater owe a lot to Jarmusch's farce. The black and white photography is stoic, the acting is self assured, and the story is very bare bones, but never does the film wink or nudge at you to make the viewer notice how cool it is.

The film just emanates cool, precisely because it doesn't think so highly of itself. It just wants to tell its story, and leave.

Tom Waits helps a lot, but John Lurie is also solid as a pimp/hustler, both serving time in a Louisiana prison after being framed by their contemporaries. Robert Begnini comes in later, to act as a foil between the group, and eventually serves as the inspiration for their escape.

While together, the three are resourceful and manage to escape the prison, it is when they separate that they are at their most vulnerable, so the film makes use of a certain sort of vague truth. But I don't think Jarmusch was as concerned with inserting any particularly deep philosophy into this film. He was just telling a simple tale, but what it lacks in intellectual furor, it makes up for in atmosphere and style. And this is one stylish piece of work.

It has the structure more of a five act play, so the dialogue and characters are entertaining enough to maintain your interest even when no real action is going on. There are no heart pounding chases through the swamp, no complex escape plan, and no real tragedy. But the low budget stylistics make the film resemble more of a post-modern Marx Brothers escapade than 'The Shawshank Redemption'.

The soundtrack says it all, really. Slow beat, jazzy, and cool baby, real cool.

If all else, see this movie for one of, if not the, first U.S. performance by Robert Begnini. Before he replaced Peter Sellers in "The Son of Pink Panther", he was a great character actor. For this, Jarmusch should also be commended.