| Movie | Rating | Review | Date | Your Rating | Match | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inglourious Basterds - R | November 22, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Ballast - Unrated | November 10, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Das weiße Band (The White Ribbon) - R |
Michael Haneke returns to his German roots in The White Ribbon, a beautifully made allegorical film. Set in the year leading into the breakout of World War I, it tells the story of tragic and violent events that take place in a small village. Haneke is telling a parable here, a sociological examination of how Germany was able to engulfed in Fascism. The film is narrated by the village's school teacher, years later. He, as an outsider, is a witness to the strange events. It all begins with the village doctor's riding accident. As he returns home, his horse trips over a rope tied between trees. His injuries remove will remove him from the first half of the film. Soon the entire village seems enraptured by the accident. There is a large and diverse cast of villagers. The doctors son and daughter, his nurse and mistress, and her son, a boy with down syndrome. The village Baron - a man not well liked but respected, and the employer of half the village - and his wife and son, Sigi. They have a nanny, Eva; she too is an outsider, like the doctor. And there is the local pastor's family. Of their many children, two are central characters - a teenage boy, Martin, and daughter, Clara. The pastor is a fundamentalist, stern and harsh. There is also another family who have just had a new son, and the tenant farmer and his sons. The doctor's accident is forgotten in a few days after another more tragic event occurs. The tenant farmers wife has died in an accident at the Baron's mill. The eldest son is enraged, and wants justice to be done as he blames the baron himself. The father is also angry, but refuses to blame the Baron, or at least take any actions. He too works for him, and knows he cannot cross the Baron if he wishes to have food on the table. Other events occur in due time throughout the film - the Baron's son goes missing and is found tied up and beaten; a barn is set ablaze, and a suicide. Notes left point to someone carrying out ritualistic punishments. The film is in some ways an engaging whodunnit. Haneke is too mature a director to actually give us the answers. We suspect, and probably know, who the perpetrators are early on in the film. And the school teacher comes to the same conclusion himself, but Haneke never actually confirms or denies. There is also the storyline between the teacher and the nanny. He courts her, and eventually goes to her father to ask his permission, only to be told he must wait one year. Haneke's direction is superb. He never makes a wrong step. The film is shot in stunning black and white. It's impossible to imagine the film in colour - it would have just been too distracting. The film also benefits from all around excellent performances. After the critical disappointment of Americanizing his Funny Games, Haneke is back on terra firma. The film has so far been lauded and took home the prestigious Palm D'Or at this years Cannes Film Festival. And rightfully so. It would be a crime if The White Ribbon doesn't take home the Best Foreign Film Oscar, but a lot of crime goes on at the Oscars. Of the films so far released this year, The White Ribbon is undoubtedly the best I've seen. The White Ribbon is a rich and complex film, it layers and layers its story. The title refers to the Pastor tying a white ribbon to his two eldest children, Martin and Clara, to remind them of innocence and purity. The film is also subtitled however, and it is that title that really resonates: A German Children's Tale (roughly translated). The children of the film are the future pillars of German Fascism, but the adults of The White Ribbon are the foundation upon which they stand. |
October 12, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Antichrist - Unrated |
Lars VonTrier went courting for controversy, and he found it. Everywhere Antichrist has played its stirred up fiery debate. Heck, it even won a special anti-award from the ecumenical jury at Cannes for its misogynist views. But is it misogynistic? Is it art? Is it trash? Can art be trash? Is Antichrist an experiment in sadism? Or is it a brilliant inquiry into something more? Before delving into the film and what it means, let me first say a word about Dafoe and Gainsbourg. They literally are the only two characters in the film. Both give brave and uncompromising performances. They're richly layered, foreboding and genuinely brilliant. Even if the awards groups hate the film they would be doing a disservice to themselves not to at least recognize the importance of Dafoe and Gainsbourg in their portrayals. VonTrier to must be commended for his direction. It flows brilliantly, and he evokes mood and menace with ease. There is no lacking in terms of aesthetic value of imagery, crisp editing, or a flaw in his menacing soundtrack. The film is presented in 4 main sections, in addition to a prologue and epilogue. First, the prologue . VonTrier shoots in slow motion black and white, as He (Dafoe) and She (Gainsbourg) have sex, cross cut with their child getting out of bed, mesmermized by snow falling outside and goes to the window. He falls to his death. This sequence (and the prologue) are startlingly beautiful. The first of the 4 main sections is Grief. She has been hospitalized for a month since the son's death. She seems to have no concept of time. He claims she is on way too much medicine, and criticizes the young doctor who cares for her. She is upset with him for his arrogance - he's after all not a doctor. He is a psychologist, though, which serves as his justification. He takes her off her medication and takes her back home. He puts her through therapy sessions. The conversations are eerie due to there uncomfortable personal nature, and He's detached acceptance of her criticisms. She has anxieties and constant fears. She distracts herself away from conversation of them by turning to sex. It becomes ever more aggressive and almost violent. Eventually their sessions turn to her fear of Eden, the location of their remote cabin in the woods. He devises a new method. Go to Eden. On the way their he probes her fears by having her do a walkthrough to the cabin in her mind. VonTrier shoots the sequence in super slowmotion. Images are foggy, dreamlike, almost like paintings - if not for the barely moving figure of She in the images. Then, they arrive. As they drive into the forest, the road appears to simply vanish, tunneling into the woods themselves. From here on in the movie descends into pits of chaos and madness. As they hike through the woods, She claims the ground is burning her feet. Her foot does appear burnt, but it goes without recognition by He, as if he doesn't see it. When they arrive, acornsfall constantly on the roof, banging and clanging all night long. Animals He comes across seem to have strange mutilations. One deer has what appears to be a half birthed doe - dead - sticking out of it as it runs off. The second segment is Pain, subtitled Chaos Reigns. In this segment, they've finally reached the cabin.They continue their therapy sessions and experiments, as He begins having strange dreams. The mood continues to descend into menace. The nature surrounding them, though aesthectically beautiful, becomes evermore hostile. He awakes in the morning, his hand outside the window covered in strange ticks. Next is Despair, subtitled Gynocide. He discovers She's thesis. She began writing it at the cabin but stopped out of fear. All the names of the chapters of the film are listed: Grief, Pain, Despair and the Three Beggars. Her intent was to critique the texts she is studying, which claim the evil of women based on the notion that their bodies are controlled by nature. Nature is Satan's church. She appears now to agree with them. It is the film's final act that is no doubt causing the majority of controversy. Menace descends into disturbing violence. Genitals smashed and mutilated, holes drilled through legs, and so on. And it is brutal. VonTrier pulls no punches. The actions are so brutal, so disturbed that it took me days just to get over the physical pain of the acts before i could contemplate the purpose of the acts. A number of reviewers have put forth suggestions of simple misogyny, but that's playing it too simple. Instead, as a few have posited, He and She have given into an alternate world. In order to understand this, one must take into account VonTrier and his spiritual beliefs. This is not the world of God, but of Satan (Nature is Satan's church). They have succumbed to their sins - He pride, She despair. These are tools of Satan. Pride has made He believe that his knowledge is the only solution, perhaps even allowing Satan to shape He in his own image. Despair has allowed Satan to pull She into evil. The prologue evokes memories of Jesus Christ standing on the hill, his followers coming to him for his powers of good, or to hear him speak. But in Antichrist the people are faceless, naked, and deformed. They crawl not toward the light of Heaven but toward the death and doom of Hell and the tools of Satan. This is my opinion of the film, and what it represents: the defeat of Good by Evil, God by Satan - not in an all out war, but in a small battle. Just one of many between good and evil. If you're looking at it this way, life is at its core a series of battles in the war between good and evil. That's what I think VonTrier is attempting to showcase, but this time showing a win by Satan. Then again i could be way off. Whatever the case, art should stir discussions. There is and can be no general consensus on art: good art should be interpretable in many different ways. It is a personal experience and means different things to different people. This is not to say that art must be difficult or abstract at all, just as one cannot say that because something is accessible, or - dare I say - even mainstream that it cannot be genuine art. What one discerns is art, another discerns is trash. I do not think Antichrist is trash. I think it is art. And good art too. Now, let the cavalcade of debate begin. |
September 24, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Be Here to Love Me: A Film About Townes Van Zandt - Unrated | September 6, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard - R | August 18, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Funny People - R | August 4, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Five Minutes of Heaven - Unrated |
Five Minutes of Heaven is the third new film about the Irish Struggles I've seen in the last year. It might seem tiring at this point, but each are drastically different. By far the best of the three is British visual artist Steve McQueen's Hunger - a relentless and almost wordless art film that dives head first into notorious Long Kesh Prison to document IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands and other inmates (I thought it was the best film of 2008, and by far made the biggest impression on me). Next was the massively disappointing Fifty Dead Men Walking, a noble but messy and confused film about a Irishman working with the British to take down the IRA. And now Five Minutes of Heaven. It's the most humane of the three films. The film begins in 1970s Northern Ireland. A teenager, Alastair Little has asked to kill a Catholic to do his part for the UVF (Ulster Volunteer Forces). He's given Jim Griffin. He arrives at the home, masked and armed, and fires three shots through the front window into Jim's head. Witness to the murder is Jim's young brother, Joe. His family falls apart after Jim's death and his mother blames him for doing nothing to stop the assassin. Flash forward to present time. A television show has arranged for Joe to confront Alastair for a program about reconciliation. Greeted with the possibility of finally facing his brother's killer, Joe has to decide if he should shake the mans hand or plunge a knife into his body. That is the basic premise that carries the film about three quarters of the way. Five Minutes of Heaven approaches this query with seriousness and patience. The film mostly focuses on Joe and his desire for revenge - his 'five minutes of heaven.' Joe muses in his mind his questions and worries and conflicts, then all of a sudden blurts them out. He's plaid by James Nesbitt with such tension and wracked nerves that the character feels as if he might implode. Externally he continues to joke with the most of the crew and seems cordially nervous, while internally he screams and squirms. Liam Neeson plays Alistair Little, in another very fine performance. As an adult, he is remorseful and genuinely wants to help Joe relieve himself of the pain he's suffering. Writer Guy Hibbert and director Oliver Hirschbiegel use an interesting strategy for slowly revealing Alastair's true character nature. We first see the adult Alastair and Joe both in the back of separate cars on the way to the meeting. Alastair seems better dressed, more coolly detached and relaxed, hinting that maybe he's done quite well for himself since then, and is perhaps even somewhat smug. He speaks about the murder calmly, and even goes so far as to say if he realized it was Jim's brother watching him he would have shot him too. We're shown him exactly the way Joe Griffin sees him in his mind, and what he thinks he must be like. Slowly the filmmakers and Neeson begin to unravel his character - he's remorseful, feels his position as a councilor and mediator to others who were like him as a sham, unable to even forgive himself. His home is cold, empty, and lonely. Almost the exact opposite is done with Joe, accentuating how the past has harmed him to the point of obsession, not allowing him to accept the good in his life. Five Minutes of Heaven is a smart and poignant film about accepting and giving forgiveness. Joe is a man who has every right to be angry, and even though he doesn't have the right to kill Alastair, he certainly has all the necessary reasons. That's what makes his choice all the more difficult. The film is not without problems, however. It's not a long film (running about 85 minutes) but there are a few scenes that felt unnecessary, and a meeting between the two at the end that feels a bit too forced and even a bit too Hollywood in what is otherwise a very well paced and labored film. But even then its shot well, it just didn't feel right to me. Nevertheless it's an intelligent and thoughtful film. Nesbitt and Neeson deliver two brilliant performances, worthy of Academy nods. It's a poignant film that asks us to tune out our impluses for revenge, and stop the cycle of violence by making the great sacrifice of forgiveness. |
July 29, 2009 | N/A | |||
| The Island (Ostrov) - Unrated |
I think pretty much every generation has had its fair share of folks to declare "they just don't make them like they use to." By and large, this is true. But, look hard enough, and you'll see that some people still do. The Island is one such example. It recalls to mind many of those old boldly artistic Russian films of the years gone by. It has the look, the determination and the strangeness to draw connections between itself and the films of the great Tarkovsky, rightfully so. The film opens during WWII. Nazi's take a Russian tug, near a small island. Two men hide in pile of dirt, buried. But as the Nazi's open fire on the mound, one jumps up begging for his life. It is spared only because he gives up the other man, and then shoots him rather than accept death. The German's have planted a bomb in the dirt and detonate it as they leave. The next morning we see monks from the island come carry the wounded man away. The movie then jumps to the 1970s. The cowardly soldier is now a low level monk on the island, named Father Anatoly. He works in the coal shed, shoveling it in the furnace. He also sleeps there, on the dirty hard coal, much to the others dismay. He's an utterly bizarre man to the others, like by some, disliked by others. Mainlanders believe the man has spiritual powers, and can heal the sick and wounded. Some come to ask him to bless their child and heal his leg, others to bless their unborn children so they may have an abortion. He greets them all with sympathy, unwelcome to himself, while also berating them for any marginal hint of selfishness. He roars at one woman who says she can't stay any longer to help her child because she must work. Whether or not he has any spiritual powers it's difficult to say. One scene suggests no: a woman comes to have a mass done for her husband, believed dead in the war years ago. In a humorous scene, Anatoly introduces himself as someone else, and then goes to speak to Father Anatoly on her behalf, telling her to listen in. He moves around the room speaking to himself, changing his voice, and then goes and tells the woman her husband is not dead but alive with another woman because he abandoned her. Yet still other scenes suggest yes. A boy on crutches is able to walk without them, and a seemingly mad woman returns to sanity after an encounter with Anatoly. The Island is a spiritual puzzle of a film, wrapped in a cloth of orthodoxy. I would think the more you know about orthodox religion or its themes, the more you'll get from the film. At it's centre is Anatoly's struggles with guilt. It is that guilt that has nearly driven him to the point of insanity. As he puts it at one point, he is a slave to his passions - passion in this sense referring to suffering (i.e. passion of Christ). The opening scene is one of those scenes that you know is going to come back in someway. Usually in some mocked up cheap attempt at a dramatic punch. The Island takes its time getting back to that point, but when it does it doesn't feel cheap. Instead it feels poignant and profound. The film was directed by Pavel Lungin with a serious eye for cinematography. The island is a bleak place, with its rocky out crops covered in snow and the still seas which surround it, yet has a profound beauty about it. The camera sits at unexpected angles and captures some incredibly stunning images. The film is in no rush to get where its going, and takes its time to build up an ethereal atmosphere and metaphysical mood. The island itself looks as if it were a place not subject to earthly time. |
July 13, 2009 | N/A | |||
| My Sister's Keeper - PG-13 |
Unapologetically weepy and unabashedly manipulative, My Sister's Keeper has no reserves about what it is, and what it is not. The film stars Abagail Breslin as a girl who sues her parents for the medical rights to her body. Her parents, played by, Cameron Diaz and Jason Patric, had her specifically engineered, a test tube baby who would have the exact genetic necessities to be spare parts for her sick sister. The previews and general plot review makes it sound as this is the main point of the story - and generally speaking so it is - but much of the film is dealt with through flashbacks, sometimes in confusing order. The family is torn apart by Kate's (Sofia Vassilieva) cancer, yet remain together as a mostly coherent whole. At least until Anna (Breslin) sues her parents with the help of Alec Baldwin, one of those lawyers you see on tv commercials telling you they'll get you what you want with such theatrical enthusiasm. The film focuses only little this conflict however for much of the film. Instead, it focuses it's attention on the journey that led them to this point, or at least things that have happened on the way to this point. There are a number of touching scenes and mostly throughout there are welcome truths about the horrors of cancer. This is much appreciated in light of films like "The Bucket List" which sacrifice the pain and suffering of cancer for whimsical plotting. The best of the flashback sequences deals with Kate's relationship with another cancer patient. They meet at the hospital and soon after are dating. This could have been an entire film in itself, and a more philosophically interesting one as well. Their chances of survival are slim to none, with slim fading fast. But they thrive in the moment, and worry little about their existential predicament. But My Sister's Keeper is worried little about philosophy or morality. It's focus on the ethics of Anna's origins are surprisingly minimal considering the trial that ensues. But for its goals, the film is only worried about setting scenes up so that they will in return set up it's finale. And as it goes, that really is what a movie generally should do with it's preceding scenes. But in a film with such ethical, moral and philosophical questions inherent, it's hard not to feel that if it does not at address them with vigor and purpose then it's cheating a bit. But I digress, most of the people going to see this film are not going there for an ethical inquiry. They're going there to have their heart strings tugged at, and the filmmakers know this. Nick Cassevetes is not his father, and their movies and execution certainly have nothing in common. He does know how to put together a weeper though, as evidenced through this film and his previous such as The Notebook - every school girls go-to movie for a good cry. Does that make him a good director? Not necessarily, but it does at least make him good at what he does. Logically there are a number of flaws in the film, not least of which his use and execution of flashbacks. They are I'm sure purposely jumbled, though the result is occasionally confusing. It makes the technique feel somewhat gimmicky, in the sense that it's ultimately unnecessary spend so much time thinking about the order of things. After all, there are many other things we could be thinking about instead. The film is mostly well acted. Cameron Diaz does a good job as a the mother, obsessed with saving her daughter at almost any cost. She is likable and deplorable at once, but can you blame her? Who wants to sit by and watch a child slowly die? Jason Patric as the father is conflicted, and shows hesitation. He brings cool-headedness and warmth to the relationship. There is also a son, Jesse, who has a particular storyline that remains unresolved, and almost entirely unexplained. He's played by Evan Ellingston, with all the necessary competence for the role. Abagail Breslin probably should have given a breakout performance, but I was left more or less feeling "meh." The real breakout will be Sofia Vassilieva. It's not that her performance is necessarily anything spectacular, but it does steal the star from Breslin most of the time. Just as Cassevetes is good at what he does, My Sister's Keeper is good at what it does. Again, that doesn't make it necessarily a "good" movie, but if most people going to see the film are going to see it for what they perceive it to be, and for the most part, it's not going to disappoint them (minus the very select few who are anticipating more ethical debate). |
July 9, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Knowing - PG-13 | July 5, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Testament - PG |
It's almost a far gone conclusion that a post apocalyptic film is going to be decorated with sets of destruction, chaos, squalor, grime, etc. It's a fair assumption. That's what makes Testament such a unique entry into the genre. The film focuses on a Californian family. They are, quite fittingly, a nuclear family. The father, Tom (William Devane), is a health nut. He goads on his son, Brad (Rossie Harris) to keep up with him as they cycle. A bit harsh, maybe, but lovingly, certainly. He's a jovial family man. There are two other children, an adolescent daughter and an active five year old (Lukas Haas in his first role). Running the household is the Mother Carol (Jane Alexander). She is the heart and soul of the film. Tom's morning bike ride goes through town introducing us to neighbours along the way - including an Asian gas station owner and his young son with down syndrome, always looking for someone to take him fishing. Ted works in San Diego, and heads to the office, everyone assuming it will be a day like any other. Carol checks the answering machine to hear that Ted says he'll be running late, then calling back to say he will be coming for dinner. The tv scrambles, then a rumble and blinding light. That is the extent of the explosion in Testament. It is, by apocalyptic definitions, a quiet low key picture. The effect of the blast on their town is minimal. Ted however does not return home on time, nor at all. Without news, the family waits day after day hoping he can make it through what must be the twisted and demolished landscape outside of their town toward the city. In distressing fashion, his fate is confirmed later by his own words. As time passes, fallout begins to set it. It creeps in like an invisible fog, slowly taking its toll. People begin to die from radiation sickness; gasoline and food supplies begin running out; the cemeteries fill, and eventually bodies must be burned on a spire as the sky's light is ever slowly being choked out by nuclear ash and dust. While movies like Threads show us what it would like to live directly in the blast area, Testament actually hits home with more impact it its subtlety. Most of us living in these smaller towns. It's quite possible this is what life would be like immediately after for us. Testament gets under your skin with its brooding psychological impact. One of the films most crushing scenes comes as a mother washes her son by candle light, slowly realizing he is dying. In fact if there ever was a perfect word to describe Testament, it would be crushing. It's almost unbearable. Threads is as well, but in a different way. That was like a chainsaw to the face, this is like a punch to the stomach. But even when it looks like all is lost - and may be - hope still finds a way to shine on. In Carol, and in the young challenged Chinese boy, who remains happy with life's smallest pleasures. After all, that's where the key to survival lies. |
July 3, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Threads - Unrated |
The 1980s were awash with post-nuclear apocalyptic films. The atmosphere during the Cold War was tantamount to sociological paranoid schizophrenia. As those kind of movies pointed out, it wasn't an entirely unreasonable mindset. With the emotional strings of mass public ripe for pulling, movie execs put out as many apocalyptic films as possible to fill what was for a time a hollow quota. Like any mass produced product, most were forgettable at best, some endearing simply for their subject matter and aims (when not jingoistic propaganda), and few actually top quality, even fewer bonified art. While movie houses were churning out profit racking money traps, how interesting that one of the very best of the genre was made as a TV docudrama by the BBC (another excellent film, which I'll also review, was also made for tv in the US, Testament, though when producers saw its quality, they pushed it on to the big screen). Threads amounts to a by the numbers procedural. The film begins with the story of a young couple, pregnant, and contemplating their future. We meet their families, and others, among them a political bureaucrat. The first half of the movie deals with the buildup to war. TV reports telecast news of escalating confrontations between the US and USSR. War breaks out and nukes are used. Protests mount in the streets as the UK becomes trapped in the nuclear vortex. Inevitably, bombs begin to fall on it. When the nuclear strikes occur, the imagery is frightening and unforgettable. But it's the aftermath that truly gives Threads its disturbing legacy legitimacy. Most of the rest of the film focuses on Ruth, the pregnant fiance. She stays with her parents in their ruined flat for a time, then goes out into the streets of Sheffield in search of her lover, and then eventually just food and a means of surviving. The area is reduced to rubble, and it is assumed with the amount of fighting reported before the blasts that so is everywhere else. Nuclear dust clogs the skies, there is no sunlight to be seen. Those who are not dying from fallout are dying of hunger, or possibly marauding bands of looters, or even the ruthless guns of the authorities. Ruth eventually has her child, a daughter. The movies jumps forwards in time, throughout the time of the initial survivors, to the nuclear children, the next generation. The movie is punctuated by on screen statistics, providing us with information we'd rather not be privy to. A voice occasionally briefly narrates as if it were a real documentary. But the real star is the imagery. Threads has no standard plot so to speak, but simply follows. There is a beginning, but no middle. The end, however, is quite symbolically the end. There is little hope in the film. What hope their is is provided by ourselves and our own internal predilection for optimism. By some turns, Threads is overbearingly pessimistic, others though insist it may be optimistic. If the latter is correct, let me be vapourized upon impact, please. Stylistically, Threads is barren, dirty, bloody, uninhabitable. The filmmakers do a painfully good job considering the technology of the 80s. The storm of dialogue coming from all angles in the beginning half of the film - from people, from radios, and tvs, often simultaneously - gives way to screams of panic and desperation, and finally to near silence. The final acts of the film are most without dialogue, what there is is sparse and passe. After all, as it is said, the world goes out not with a bang, but a whimper. |
June 30, 2009 | N/A | |||
| The Hangover - R | June 12, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Terminator Salvation - PG-13 |
Hollywood has long had a tradition of coming along and restarting or remaking franchises. By their very nature, they're almost universally either very successful or very disappointing. The middle ground it seems could be measured in inches. Terminator Salvation is no exception. And unfortunately, it falls in the category of a huge disappointment. The first two Terminator movies are bonified classics. Sure they had great special effects and lots of action, but they also told good stories and took the time to develop interesting characters. Rise of the Machines was not on the level of Terminator and T2, but it wasn't a terrible film. The same cannot be said for Terminator Salvation. This time it's a prequel. As the movie opens, Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), a murderer, is waiting to be put to death when he's visited by a Doctor (Helena Bonham Carter), who is there to persuade him to give his body to a cause for science. Flash forward now to post "judgment day." John Connor (Bale) leads a team on an attack against the machines. The world has been blown into a dusty and barren wasteland. Command centre is a submarine at the bottom of the ocean, which Connor against orders jumps from a helicopter into what appears to be near 100 foot seas, and apparently swims to. Connor is not yet the leader of the resistance, but he is a legend, and may as well be. Elsewhere, Marcus Wright awakens in this hell hole future. A terminator spots him, and attempts to kill him. He's saved by a teenager and his young companion. The teen's name: Kyle Reese. Yes, Connor's father. Connor knows from his mothers tapes that he must send Reese into the past, where he will impregnate his mother with a child who will become John Connor, and so to live he must keep Reese alive. He doesn't know him yet though. Reese is heading up his own little resistance in LA, far from Connor. The murderer in his past life, Marcus, bonds with Reese and the small boy with them as they run from terminators, hunter killer air ships, riderless motorcycles and other giant machines of death. The film pauses for almost nothing. James Cameron, the original helmer of the Terminator franchise has long jumped ship. This time out, they've given the film over to a man by the name of McG. He's made such wonderful films as Charlie's Angel's and Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle. The script is by John Brancato and Michael Ferris, who've together written such instant classics as Catwoman, The Net 2.0 and Primeval. The end result, a version of Terminator thought by the guys who brought you Catwoman, The Net 2.0 and Primeval, as envisioned by the man who brought you the Charlie's Angel's movies. I realize that's a long winded description, so let me sum it up more to the point: the result is a terrible mess of a film. There's so much bad in Terminator, let me just skip right to the good for now. Sam Worthington. That is all. Apparently, his role was to be the focus of the film, but it was shifted to make more room for Bale as Connor. Too bad, since he's the only redeeming thing about the film. Also too bad about that because his efforts are squandered by most everything else in the movie. The special effects are also for the most party admirable, but what is the point when your movie is a disgrace? McG directs the film like its a cocaine overdose. Most of the action scenes are so muddled and quick cut its impossible to see. To be fair, the writers didn't give him much to work with. Terminator Salvation may well be one of the most poorly written "blockbusters" I've seen in some time. The dialogue is nothing short of horrendous. Situations and transitions from scene to scene are poorly planned. To be fair to the writers, it wasn't their job to execute the film on screen. So back to McG. Sure it can be tough to work from a poor script, but as the director, you're the captain, and it's your job to pilot the ship. There are so many asinine scenes in this film. Connor jumping into 100 foot swells and swimming to a submarine under the sea? Fist fights with machines? What kind of machines are these? And what about Bryce Dallas Howard as Connor's love interest and camp doctor? In a world of nuclear fallout, decay and constant dust, where everyone looks as if they've just woken from a 2 week nap in a desert, she looks as if she just came from a Gap commercial. There's even once scene in particular where they just seemed to throw out an establishing scene making the action at first confusing. Marcus Wright is sent to find something to burn for camp one night, but before he returns there is a blazing bonfire in the background. Oddly enough, one of the worst things about the film is Christian Bale. How did such a great actor give such a terrible performance? It didn't help that he spoke like Batman almost throughout. Why the filmmakers felt the need to have him imitate the famous "i'll be back," I don't know. The theatre I was in unanimously broke out in laughter. When the curtain fell, they unanimously began using colorful expressions of distaste amongst one another. Such a shame that Sam Worthington was wasted here. Such a shame that Christian Bale performed so poorly. Such a shame that inept producers gave over the Terminator franchise to such inept filmmakers. I don't think many expected much of Terminator Salvation. Even still, they're probably all still incredibly disappointed. I was lucky enough to be able to see the film without charge. I'm still annoyed, but grateful that the film didn't get my hard earned money. |
May 24, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Sin Nombre - R | May 19, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Angels & Demons - PG-13 |
Ron Howard continues his Dan Brown adaptation odyssey with Brown's sequel serving as his prequel, for simplicity's sake. Brown's two Robert Langdon books, The DaVinci Code and Angel's and Demon's, have been wildly successful financially. Many critics and literary afficiandos have taken this as one of the foreboding signs of an apocalypse. Though I have not read Angel's and Demons, I have read DaVinci Code. Essentially, it was a screenplay for a popcorn movie - a popcorn novel, if you will. Some suggested that Ron Howard was a better director than Brown was a writer, and they're likely right. His film version of The DaVinci Code was better than the book, though not by a whole lot. It was subject to the same inane plot contrivances, but at least took less time to get through them than having to read. Much of the criticism against DaVinci Code was the slow pace. Howard clearly took that to heart as you can see in Angel's and Demon's. The film moves quickly, from here to there, over the course of one day and into the night. Tom Hank's reprises his role as Langdon, this time with slightly less ridiculous hair (Nic Cage effect?). This time he is called upon to help the Vatican rescue the four preferred candidates for the vacant papacy - the Pope has just died. They have been kidnapped and will be killed, one by the hour beginning at 8pm, apparently by the Illuminati - the Catholic Church's old enemy. The kicker: antimatter. It was stolen from a research facility at the beginning of the film. It is highly explosive - enough to level the Vatican and much of Rome - and is set to go off at midnight. Joining Langdon is Vittoria, one of the researchers on the antimatter project. Also on the case, Commander Richter, head of the Swiss Guard (Stellan Skarsgard), and a few other Vatican security and police officials. The Cardinals must also meet to elect a new Pope. During the absence of a leader, the Camerlengo (Ewan MacGregor) is in charge of the day to day activities of the Vatican. There seems to be a conflict between he and some of the other Cardinals over how to handle the situation. He is helpful to Langdon and Vittoria, while Commander Richter is something of a thorn. Together, they put the pieces together. They must find and follow the path to the four altars of science - earth, wind, fire and water. Clues point all over the Vatican city, and Langdon must figure them out. He does of course, usually just slightly later than preferable. The film is ably performed and competently directed, in the mechanical sense anyway. There are many supporting players who give good performances. Nothing really is underdone - after all, this is a ?blockbuster.? The biggest and brightest star of the film is Rome itself and the set production. Wow, is all I can say. If you go for the story, or maybe just because you were dragged along by a friend, you certainly won?t mind staying for the scenery. I?m a lover of old architecture - particularly religious architecture - so the locations in the film held my interest. I don?t know what is and what isn?t CGI?d in, but I could hardly care. It looks very, very good. At the very least, Angel?s and Demon?s should at least bolster tourism in the city. I really can?t say enough about the locations. That may not necessarily be a good thing though in the case of this film. As the film goes on, it becomes more and more clear that this is an inside job. Who is behind the plot and why I will not reveal. I will, however, assert it's sheer preposterousness. So many people do so many things that simply do not make sense in retrospect. Sure somethings do make sense in regards to the big twist, but each thing that does, there are two others that work against it. Having not read the book, I?m left to assume it was done better in print, because it?s certainly done poorly on screen. Even before the twist things get pretty outlandish (although I?m told by a friend that the scene in question is even more outlandish in the book), but I was willing to write that off. I kind of just checked out once the big twist came. It felt cheap, manipulative, and insulting. Almost as if it was just a, ?hey, this makes too much sense, lets throw in a twist, the dumb audience will never get this? sort of moment. I guess it?s not a huge surprise coming from a Ron Howard/Dan Brown lovechild. The bottom line though is this: Angel?s and Demons, up until the final 15 minutes, is a surprisingly effective cat and mouse picture. Even if you don?t go for the story, you?ll go for the visuals. It?s not a thinking man?s film (although many probably would like you to believe it is), but it does have some good, if arbitrary, points to be made about the unavoidable and often skewed relationship between religion and science, how the two, like it or not, are mandatory partners of one another. I?m not sure how Angels and Demons should rate on the star scale. Would I see it again? On a good size screen in Hi-Def, yes. On a small tv for the story? No. I guess that should solve my conundrum. |
May 19, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Taken - PG-13 |
Is it better to judge a movie on what's good about it? Or is it better to judge a movie on what's bad about it? If 2/3s of a movie are competently entertaining, but another third shockingly dreadful does the good still outweigh the bad? That's the issue with the new Luc Besson/Pierre Morrel Liam Neeson starring vehicle Taken. Neeson plays Bryan, a former spy/assassin of the government sort. He's retired, now living in California to be close to his daughter, who lives with her mother and step father in a lavish mansion. She wants to go to France with a friend, and she needs her father's permission. He's hesitant but lets her go, only to find out she's actually following U2 around adding to his nervousness. Of course he's right to be nervous, as she is kidnapped immediately after settling into the city. This occurs while he's on the phone with her, which convieniently has been recorded so that his ex-assassin buddies can analyze the call, pinpoint that the kidnappers speak Albanian, with an accent they can apparently narrow down to one village, and then determine that the man speaking into the phone is named Marco. With this information he travels to Paris to search out his daughter employing his mad skills. While there he pieces together one by one who is behind it, finds them, finds where the girl has gone, kills a lot of people and then, well I won't spoil it but I'm sure you know where this is going. The plotline in the picture is very, very standard. Allow me to quote film critic Jules Brenner in his review of Taken: Just calling this formulaic doesn't cover it. The script should be credited to the computer software template that originated it." Now that is a gem of a soundbyte. It's also pretty much bang on. Besson never really takes any time to seriously look at a very serious subject. It's just a conduit through which he can insert standard action movie happenings. Just because a movie is made in Europe doesn't mean it's any less prone to Hollywood cliches. In describing the movie, I'm realizing more than I did when I started writing how mediocre the actual story is in the film. But, for 2/3s of the movie you can kind of forget about that most of the time. Fact is, the action sequences are quite well done, and director Morrel realizes that the key to keeping the audience from realizing just how predictable and substandard his story really is, is to never give them a chance to think about it. The film moves at breakneck speed, and when the hunt is really on its quite entertaining. Liam Neeson goes from totally unbelievable to mildly believable by the end of the movie. He gives a good performance, but sometimes he's a bit of a distraction. Question: Is he American or British here? Sometime he doesn't seem to speak with an accent, others he clearly does. All his ex assassin friends are American (save for a French guy in France), he lives in the US and his American wife refers to him sacrificing for the good of the country. Anyway, that's irrelevant. So that's what's good about Taken. Now, the bad. Well we've established that the plot originated from a standard action movie template. It's got the usual foreign baddies and fat cat Arab's lusting for Western virgins. And for an underground human smuggling operation, it's surprisingly easy to find. Oh, and of course, the bad guys all have terrible aim while the good guy's is dead on - but that's so old hat in any movie with a gun fight I probably just wasted 20 seconds typing this out. So this is all forgivable given the success of the nonstop action in denying us the opportunity to reflect on the plot. What's not forgivable is just how shockingly awful the first half hour of Taken is. How bad is it? I don't even know if I can describe it. Things really go down hill when a bunch of cheery, widly unbelievable former assassins show up at Neeson's door.... with beer, and chips and hotdogs for a BBQ. They chat nonchalantly about jobs in Beirut and so on and so forth. The effect can only be described as unintentionally hilarious, or perhaps the most unbelievably miscalculated plot point since Micky Rooney played an Asian in Breakfast at Tiffani's. Then their is the daughter and her friend. I don't know if they're bad actors or just entirely at the mercy of the worst written characters I've ever seen in a film with such prestige. For that matter, I assume Besson must have wrote in French than translated to English. Lost in translation is the only conception I have to explain such awful lines ("They're there, I can hear them!"). Its no word of a lie that I almost walked out after the opening third confused as to whether give Taken half a star for sheer ineptitude or 5 for being the funniest comedy I'd seen in ages. But, I stuck it out. I guess I'm glad I did. In the end, yes I was entertained. Then I had the opening conundrum. I was really almost ready to give Taken a mild pass. But now that I've come to the end of the review, I've been given the time to reflect. And Taken is still dogmatically formulaic. Maybe if you don't think about it afterwards you'll be satisfied. Unfortunately for me, I thought about it. |
May 13, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Providence - R |
From the opening scenes of Providence it is evidently clear that we're in the skilled hands of Alain Resnais. His trademark slow, wandering pan shots wander turned up towards tree branches, around magnificent buildings and so on. A patrol roams the forest, shooting into the brush. One man wounds and old man, then shoots him he says out of pity. The old man is turning into a werewolf, apparently. The military man is Kevin Woodford, and he is prosecuted in court by Claude Langham, as his wife watches. She is sympathetic to Woodford, and after he is acquitted, shows up to lunch with him. She leaves with him and takes him to their home where she attempts to seduce him. All the while a voice narrates, somewhat confused. We learn it is a dying author, Clive Langham, Claude's father, struggling to hammer out the plot to a novel while he lays in bed, drinking, suffering through the pain. The author depicts his characters, based on his family, as cold, adulterous, and spiteful. Claude and his wife quarrel, as he takes on Woodford as he hangs around their home, share drinks, and so on. It's for the most part a detached battle of passive aggression. Woodford seems a layman to Claude's bourgeoisie. In traditional fashion, Resnais constructs conflicts for the most part through discussion, double entendre and suggestive and layered dialogue. Bombs and gunshots go off from the army and apparant terrorists, but none strike so sharply as the dialogue. Many have complained that Providence, like Marienbad, are too confusing, too inaccessible to truly enjoy. Certainly, Resnais hides the point of his films deep within, but that is one of their most endearing qualities. Also especially enjoyable is the construction of his films. Resnais, like his Italian counter part Antonioni, was always obsessed with architecture, and used it frequently as a mammoth point of symbolism in his films. In Providence sets and locations change with the mood of the author's interpretations, from stately hotels and restaurants, to courtrooms, forests, and at one point a white cottage on a beach that is intentionally done with matte paintings to accentuate the lucid dreaming of the author's drunken and possibly hallucinatory mind. The construction of the characters dialogue also highlights the wandering mind. Often characters in a discussion with each other seem to be on about entirely different subjects. The film's big pay off comes at the end when the author's real life family come to visit him on his birthday. It's here we found out why the author's perception of his characters are filtered as they have been. It may seem something of a mystery, and certainly is not going to spelled out for you, however. Alain Resnais is often overshadowed in history by his Nouvelle Vague counterparts such as Jean-Luc Goddard (though Resnais is more closely associated with the Left Bank of artists in France). Yet his influence and importance to equally, if not more, significant to the evolution of filmmaking. His additions to the arts, stylistic and intellectual, are extraordinary. His abstractness and impenetrability have made him something of a fringe filmmaker in comparison to others. But though his most well known works were his first three (Night and Fog, Hiroshima Mon Amour, and Last Year at Marienbad - all three revolutionary achievements in narrative assembly), Resnais had a long and fruitful career, and still does: his latest film will debut at this years Cannes film festival. |
May 1, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Le Dernier Métro (The Last Metro) - PG |
The title 'The Last Metro' is a reference the ww2 French pastime of going to plays in the theatres to keep warm before catching the last train which left just after the end of the show. I assume this must have been an activity Truffaut partook in as a boy, since despite the dark undertones (war, collaborators, racism), there is much warm, joy and playfulness to be found in the film. Marion Steiner (Catherine Deneuve), famed actress, runs the Montmartre theatre on behalf of her Jewish husband, the writer and director Lucas Steiner, who has reportedly fled to South America in the face of popularized antisemitism and social cleansing. The theatre is preparing a new play, based on Lucas's notes, and Marion and the new director, family confident Jean-Loup (Jean Poiret) hire Bernard Granger (Gerard Depardieu) as the leading man to play opposite Marion. He's a hulking man, "a little like Jean Gabin in La Bete Humain - very physical, and yet quite gentle" (the reference to La Bete Humain is just one of many nods from Truffaut to one of his idols, the great French filmmaker Jean Renoir). The theatre is filled with a cast of interesting characters. The goofy but quick witted handyman, the groundskeeper and her young son, and other actors and actresses, and the collaborating critic, but supposed admirer of Lucas Steiner, Daxiat. Jean-Loup and Marion must go through him to get quick acess to approval for their latest play. It's an important one. It must be a success if the theatre is to survive. All is not what it seems among the cast and crew, or the theatre even. Lucas Steiner has, in fact, not fled. He's been unable to, and is forced to live in the basement under the stage. Marion visits him daily. He listens to the radio, reads until his stomach must grow weary. One day he chips a hole into the wall to listen through the heating vent to the rehearsals above. He makes notes which he gives to Marion, changing his own play around, and tells her she must get Jean-Loup to make these changes - he does not know Lucas has not fled. But that's not all. Bernard Granger is a member of the underground resistance. He operates with a partner, sometimes using theatre items to carry out resistance activities. He keeps this secret from his fellow actors and crew at the Monmartre. It is merely a subplot, one that would seem to be much more thrilling, yet it actually serves almost as tension breaker to the main plot. In addition, there are gay cast members (of which, along with gypies and other undesireables, five million were murdered by the Nazis), and a love triangle. Marion falls in love with Bernard, yet still loves and is devoted to her husband. Perhaps it's not love with Bernard, perhaps it's just lust. This plot is steadily built upon, leading forward like a slow freight train making its way through various towns and stations. Despite its selfawareness in other, more serious subjects, the play is the heart of the film, rebelliously titled 'Disappearance.' The Last Metro is a wonderful film about the backstage life of the theatre. Prop set up, rehearsal, comraderie, and so on. Yes, the theatre needs this play to be a success to survive, but Truffaut creats such a complete world behind the scenes with the actors and crew that when it comes time to collect the papers to read the reviews, we're hoping first and foremost for artistic success. The Last Metro itself certainly was a success. Brilliant performances by Depardieu and Deneuve highlight the film, but the wonderful cast of characters really cements it. Truffaut, of course, directs with meticulous attention to detail. His set choices for the Montmartre theatre are supurb. I'm always reminded of Spielberg's experience working with Truffaut. Spielberg, typical of overexorbadent American filmmakers at that time (and now), shelled out millions to build a giant set for the UFO scenes in Close Encounters and then anxiously showed it to the great Truffaut who was entirely unimpressed. When they later walked into a lovely hotel, Truffaut exclaimed "Now this is a set!" This was supposed to be the second in a trilogy of films based on the entertainment arts. Day for Night was the first (film). The Last Metro was obviously theatre. The third, L'Agence Magique was to be set in a music hall, and Truffaut had the script completed but was unable to attain financing before his death. Nevertheless, this was one of Truffaut's most loved later films. It was widely popular, sweeping the Cesars and was nominated for an Oscar in the US. It has dark humor and dark undertones, yet never allows the darkness to rule. One of the films funniest moments comes as one character, in a concluding montage, is one day arrested and released "due to his connections," but is arrested again the very next day "due to his connections." It's little idiosyncratic moments such as these that make Truffaut's films transcend expectations. Truffaut also always knew how to tell a great story in a way that courted yet defied convention. In short, the man knew how to make great films, and the long and short of The Last Metro - just a damn good time at the movies. |
April 29, 2009 | N/A | |||
| 28 Days Later - R | April 28, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| The Andromeda Strain - G | April 27, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Tyson - R | April 21, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Le Silence de Lorna (The Silence of Lorna) (Lorna's Silence) - R |
The Dardenne brothers are among the very few directors working today with the intention of delving into the darkest recesses of the soul. In a world obessesed with easy pay offs and enjoyable stories, they instead present ideas - about morality, and humanity. The pay off is effective, but never easy. Where most films are stories that can contain a purposeful idea, theirs are purposeful ideas that are told in story. Like Robert Bresson, they are artists presenting parables in the form of film. They're latest is Le Silence de Lorna. It took home the prize for best screenplay at the 2008 Cannes Film Festival - the launching point for many of their films. The story this time centers around an Albanian immigrant in Belgium, Lorna (Arta Dobroshi). In a scheme orchastrated by an aspiring mobster, taxi driver Fabio, Lorna has married a junkie, Claudy (Dardenne favorite, Jeremie Renier). This will get her citizenship, and then she can marry a wealthy Russian, so as he may attain his citizenship. She has come to Belgium with her boyfriend, Sokol. He works away in Milan usually. Their time together is sparse. With the money they make from the scam marriages, they plan to open a snack bar. In the way is the issue of Claudy. As the film begins, Lorna has already married Claudy and lives with him. He's trying to kick drugs, and asks her to lock him inside while she works so he will not be able to get out if tempted. She refuses and treats him with scorn early on. The plan is that Claudy either 1) will give her the means for divorce, 2) die of an overdose, or 3) be overdosed by Fabio and his goons. Claudy only knows of option 1. As the film progresses, Lorna helps Claudy get sober, and she asks for the time to get a divorce. The rich Russian wants his Belgian card soon, so time is little. She gives herself bruises and claims Claudy beat her as grounds for divorce. The bruises are not evidence enough to say he caused them without witness. Lorna goes to him and asks him to hit her in public. He cannot go through with it - it's about his image, and he would never hit a woman. She goes to visit him in hospital and tries again. He complies with all he can muster - a weak slap. She hits her head off the wall instead so it bleeds and goes out into the hall crying. Now there are witnesses, and a wound. Her divorce is granted. She runs to Fabio, telling Claudy they will celebrate when she returns. She begs him to ask the Russian for the extra time to finalize the divorce. It's well established that she does not want Claudy dead, and in fact has come to care for him. He says the Russian agrees. When she returns home, she finds a drug dealer there. She locks him out and throws away Claudy's key so he cannot get out. As he lays on the floor sobbing, she stares blankly elsewhere. Then, after a few moments, she begins taking her clothes off. Her look is one of hesitance, either because she is forcing herself to occupy Claudy with thoughts other than drugs, or because she is hesitant to accept the fact that this is what she wants. The next day, Claudy is happy, she is happy. They get a new key made, and he buys a bicyle and she smiles and runs along side for a moment as he rides away. The series of events that follow would be spoilers to divulge. The Dardennes, so disregarding of conventional story-telling, often unwravel their secrets early. For example, in their brilliant masterpiece Le Fils, the big secret is revaled after the first act. The spoilers in this case they begin half way through. I orginally thought that revealing what happens at this point would not necessarily be spoiler, but to divulge it would mean everything else should be as well, and so I will not describe plot any further. While Le Silence de Lorna is on the surface about the sinister intracacies of immigration in Europe, it goes much further. The story the brothers choose to tell is chosen for its timeliness and importance, no doubt, but it is simply a vehicle. In my opinion, like Bresson's L'Argent was about the evils of money, not simply a man who slowly becomes a criminal then murderer, Le Silence de Lorna is not essentially about underworld immigration, but about how money is the corrupter of our souls. I only slowly came to this realization near the end of the film when I began to contemplate the close shots of money being stuffed into envelopes, the transferring and talk of attainment of money. The Dardennes are too smart of filmmakers to shove something in your face, so subtlety is the key. Everything that occurs in the film is done because of money. At first only Claudy is the only one concerned about something other than money. Not only because he is concerned with saving himself from drugs. Lorna tells him to think of all the cash he will make through the divorce, but money is not the issue for him. The brothers direct with their usual intimate camera work, but the film also seems to be shot with a bit more detachment. As usual, they make sparse use of music. What music we hear comes from onscreen for the most part (the final credits play with a piano piece by Beethoven). They also use some interesting editing with abrubt jumps in the storyline, as if a reel is missing. This is sure to confuse some, but I rather liked it, and thought it survived as a poignant symolic statement. As usual, the Dardennes allow the power of their films to come from their actors. While all the performances are strong, one stands above. Arta Dobroshi's performance as Lorna is about as good as it can be. In particular, its the moments of silence that really shine. Her face expresses so much in a single glance. For me, the most affecting and brilliant moment of acting comes as Lorna answers a series of questions, all with "yes" or "no," as she realizes the magnitude of pain that comes with the success of the plan. Some critics have taken issue with the direction the film goes in the second half, considering it somewhat conventional. It may be true that the plot becomes more conventional with a thriller, but the execution and purpose of it is anything but. And although Le Silence de Lorna may not necessarily be quite as good as Le Fils or L'Enfant, it's still a very, very strong film, and taken into context that means its still far superior to most standard dramatic fare that floats its way through our multiplexes. |
April 6, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Jeux Interdits (Forbidden Games) - Unrated |
Movies revolving around children can be the most sinister of all. There is something about the idyllic innocence that we just assume to be inherent to childhood. As we get older, we're jaded and the cracking of our worlds are more acceptable. When childhoods are shattered, it just seems so much more unbearable. Rene Clement's Forbidden Games, widely unappreciated and controversial upon release (as with so many great films), stands today as one of the best examples of children in wartime. A young girl, Paulette, loses her parents at the film's opening in a German air raid. Her dog is also killed. She carries the dead dog with her. When she's picked up by another couple, the man tells her the dog is dead and throws it in the river. She follows the dog down stream to get him back. She follows a horse and cart without a driver until she comes across a boy, Michel. His brother has just been kicked by the horse. He takes her home with him after she says her parents are dead. At first his father says no, but reminded that perhaps the neighbors - with whom they have a long standing rivalry over essentially nothing other than being neighbors - may take her, he changes his mind. During their time together, spurned on by the burial of her dead dog, they begin collecting dead animals and crosses. She's afraid her dog will be lonely. They collect animals - sometimes killing them - to make a cemetery in an old mill. Clement mixes humor and tenderness in a way that masks the sinisterness of their task. Michel becomes obsessed with collecting crosses for Paulette's appeasement. He begins making them, but then stealing them - from church, the cemetery. After his brother dies from the wounds suffered from the horse kick, he steals the crosses off his hearse, then even the cross from his grave. This leads to a humorous confrontation between their family and the neighbors - who they simply assume are the culprits. The priest has already caught Michel trying to steal a crucifix from the church, and upon seeing the altercation, breaks it up and informs them about Michel's actions. Michel must return the crosses or Paulette will be given over to the orphanage. This leads to the film's heartbreaking finale. Forbidden games masks its darkness throughout with hope. It's subtle enough to creep up on you, through our own expectations for how a conventional story would play out. For instance, Clement teases us, for example with the possibility of a resolution between the feuding families when their daughter and son begin a relationship. He makes the film go from optimism to pessimism in a heartbeat. Some have accused Clement of manipulation and exploitation for the situations he put his actors in and the story he tells with them, but what really would have been exploitative would have been to sentimentalize the story. There was a separate ending and opening that Clement shot that made the story more optimistic. It's unknown if this ending was ever shown theatrically, but it was fully edited and prepped for the film. I'm sure for studios and publcists this ending was more in suit for their liking. Nevertheless Clement kept in the more pessimistic ending. Rarely has a film ended with such a heavy punch to the guts. It's almost too much, and I can see how it would have upset. But it is exactly that unsentimentality which makes the film so great. Bergman once said that to get a good performance from a child, you just don't direct them. Clement directed his children through other means - for example, he told Brigette Fossey that she wouldn't get the bike she was promised to get her to cry. Whatever his methods, he got brilliant performances out of two very young children. Fossey of course went on to become a famous actress. Children in film mesmerize me. It's such a touchy subject to place children in scenes of turmoil, but the rewards are often the most satisfying (or crushing) - as long as the lines of exploitation for the sake of exploitation is not crossed. While this film is ultimately unsentimental, it's nevertheless an intriguing exploration of the endurance of youth, and of death. The children in Forbidden Games are too young to fully understand the magnitude of death. Their game is a testament to their inability to comprehend the destruction around them. It is fascinating that as the older and more jaded we become that we are able to accept hardships, yet are less able to actually deal with our pain, but as children, due to our ignorance, we simply accept and endure. Forbidden Games is one of the most affecting depictions of how the actions of adults can shatter our innocence. |
April 5, 2009 | N/A |
981 ratings
180 reviews
