Change Your Image
db_in_uk
Reviews
Mine vaganti (2010)
Unexpected reality?
Overall, not bad, but...
There are two issues I had with the film. Number one: based on the trailer, I was anticipating a happy-clappy Italian comedy. Although the film has comedic moments, it is more a film about lost opportunities and regrets through to the very last scene. Comedy rarely comes into it, and by the end I was down-right depressed.
Number two: was I right in assuming that the way that the main hub of the subject matter (a son's coming-out to his wealthy and successful family) was played out was out of step and out of date by a couple of decades? Certainly it is compared to English (and even! North American) films of the same ilk.
Recently, I had a conversation with an Italian friend and questioned him on the perceptiveness of the Mine Vaganti screenplay. He confirmed that for southern Italy, the family's shock reaction was an accurate, expected and up-to-date portrayal - and wasn't the movie hilarious!
I trust him on the accuracy of the portrayal. I still question the hilarity as I still believe there to be a lack there-of.
However. With this new understanding of southern Italians in mind coupled with re-adjusted expectations of what kind of movie to expect, perhaps the film is worth a second look.
Heroes (2006)
Still waiting...
I grew up in North America, and quality shows like Heroes were a staple. Now having lived in Europe for a few years, I find it difficult to watch American serial dramas. Heroes is an excellent example of a great story, a great cast, and certainly great potential. Unfortunately, American TV stipulates that the story must be dragged out over 23 episodes. What this means is that, in every episode, not much happens. Wait another week and still not much happens. I am now on episode 8 and am ready to bail. I'm not sure I have the patience to last another 15 episodes.
Series like Heroes deserve better. The story deserves to be told for the sake and quality of the story. It does not deserve to be tampered with for the sake of filling a season, because what you get is what we've got with Heroes. A lot of filling and not much substance.
I think what Britain could have done with this. Probably made a cracking good series over 3-4 hours where the story is the focus and the audience is the viewer. Not the advertisers and TV executives.
Casino Royale (2006)
Bond grows up
Admittedly, I have never been a big Bond fan. Increasingly, the films are trite and childish. Bond is nothing more than an action superhero who can never be beaten. His character is nothing more than a caricature that is 2 dimensional and forced to go through the same mundane action sequences without consequence.
Enter the new Bond. A Bond film with a 3 dimensional character! One that has (aghast) feelings, one that gets bruised, one that has the suave Bond touch but a whole array of character underneath.
In spite of the odd flickering of old Bond habits (especially in the character Mathis), the film works and works well. Well done to those involved in putting together a decent script with actors who can act beyond pinup status.
This Bond is for grown ups.
One Hour Photo (2002)
Interesting Premise
The premise of a photo developer becoming emotionally attached to a family through a lifetime of photos is an interesting one, and nicely played out. There is a lot of well thought out moments, albeit fairly obvious - the stark contrast between Sy's bland off-white and light grey world to that of the family which surrounds its moments in colour as an example. Nothing overly spectacular here, but not all to familiar either, which is refreshing in today's suspense films. If I had any main criticisms, it is I wish the producers would trust the audience a little more with their own conclusions. We recognise that Sy is nearing the insanity of dillusion, we don't need it spelled out to us in the last shot. Get rid of the bookends, and the strength of the film increases.
L.I.E. (2001)
Brave story telling
There is something about good independent filmmaking which I love - the films are quiet. They are quiet visually, they are quiet audibly, and they are quiet in their approach. What this leaves you with is the story. The focus shifts from special effects, sweeping orchestral movements, breath taking cinematography, and leaves the audience to focus on what any film's main objective is, or at least should be - storytelling.
L.I.E. is one such film. It quietly presents its characters and gives you an insiders view into their world. But that's all it is - a view. And there lies in the bravery of this film. It gives you the information but prepares no case, no moral argument, and no judgement. It just points out what is.
When taking a breath and pulling back into the objective, rather than remaining subjectively argumentative, we discover that there are no good characters in this film. They all have behaviours or commit actions which can be found by some to be morally reprehensible. There is the best friend who is a conscious-free thief, a liar, and a hustler. There is the school mate who commits incest with his younger sister on a regular basis. There is the father who has quickly substituted lust for love, beats up on his child, and is potentially a white-collar crook. Even the main character Howie, the hub of this story's wheel, is a part time crook and uses his naivety to his own advantage.
And of course, Big John. The easy target as the antagonist. He is an ex-marine who has an incurable attraction to young teenage boys, and who will act out his fantasies with them.
If all the characters have their weaknesses which can be used on the attack, who then becomes the protagonist?
Each character has their flaws, great and small. But each character also has their strengths, both great and small - even Big John - which are worth noting. But nowhere in this film (except the second to last shot), does the filmmaker lay down his own judgement on the events. It would sell the film short. It would leave it hollow like so many of its big budget counterparts. The judgement is left to the audience. If it provokes, in what ever way, that provocation is the sign of its own accomplishment.
Don't be fooled by the complexity of this film by remaining on the exterior. On the exterior, this film is simply about paedophilia, teenage coming of age, teenage angst, homosexuality, sexuality in general, peer pressure, etcetera and forever so-on. But that is common place and certainly doesn't do this justice. Allow yourself to be pulled in and there you will find the complexity of the characters and the situations they find themselves in. Far more interesting than newspaper headline, trite and tedious characterisations.
Roger Ebert of the Suntimes said in his review "The ending is a cheap shot. The movie and the ending have so little in common that it's as if the last scene is spliced in from a different film." In hindsight, I can't help but agree. It was the big film corporate response to the independent story telling artist: we have a problem that needs resolving, thus remove the problem (rather than solve it), and thus the film can conclude. With a film that is as well thought out as this one, a conclusion isn't necessary and isn't wanted. Trust the audience to draw their own conclusions - they'll prove right most of the time.