columbiatch

by edwin

Quick Review:

Teaming up again after Talladega Nights, Ferrell and Reilly continue to hit some high marks on the funny scale. The first half of the picture is so raunchy, so over the top laden with profanities of epic proportion that only the stingiest of shrews could resist cracking at least a smile. I laughed, a lot, hard. It was sad to me then that things went downhill about halfway through. The laughs tend to get less hearty as the film progresses, losing a lot of steam in the process.
Of course the story is not at all believable, although not quite as outrageous as Anchorman (okay, maybe as outrageous). Of course, the crew here is not aiming at realism here, so the ludicrous plot is of no great concern. All that matters is that you laugh. And in the end, I think Step Brothers provides enough laughs to justify a recommendation.
If you like your humor lewd and crude on your brain's day off, Step Brothers is for you. If you're not into that kind of comedy, then I think you get the message.

by Elvira

Sailor and Lula are two freewheelin lovers in a road trip into the underbelly of the American south, as they escape from Lula's mother's attempts to end their love and have Sailor killed by hiring a gang of morally and physically twisted assassins.

The highlights here are the performances and the imagery created by Lynch (his own version of a real-life American gothic in which people have Wizard of Oz hallucinations). Nicolas Cage as Sailor is (surprisingly) excellent (Cage is a box of surprises, sometimes he's awful and sometimes he's pretty good). His character is a rock and roll road hero in a typical quest for redemption and freedom, and Cage plays him pefectly: a young man who takes himself a little too seriously, with a deep womanizing voice and a snakeskin jacket. Laure Dern plays Sailor's almost unbearably enthusiastic but beautiful girlfriend. Her real-life mother, Diane Ladd, plays Marietta, her psycho mother in an eerie and fascinating performance. The supporting cast is similarly funny and disturbing: Willem Dafoe as Bobby Peru, Isabella Rossellini as Perdita and Crispin Glover as Lula's cousin (his character makes absolutely no sense, but in this film nothing really has to).

There's really no point to trying to figure out what "the message" of Wild At Heart is. I think that it's simply Lynch's love letter to the dark side of America: his vision is that of a place so bizarre, so interesting, and yet so dark that it brings out the most obscure secrets of both lovers and even manages to put their relationship at risk... a declaration of love to music, to surrealism, and to love itself. The film is beautifully shot, the colors are often vibrant, the soundtrack is fantastic, and, what's even better, the plot is actually understandable if only on the surface, which is a nice variation within the director's body of work. There are priceless, hilarious, revolting, ridiculous, and romantic scenes. It may be self-indulgent, but what auteur film really isn't? And while it's not my favorite Lynch, it's up there. I enjoyed every second of it.

by Jac

No year since the begining of 21th century passes by without a movie everyone waits for due to massive marketing campain before its release. This time we have death going around the event, for the lack of better word, and nothing brings more attention to the party, especially when someone talented and famous passes away. Not that I'm cynical. Death or no death, the picture remains the same, and "The Dark Knight", being as big and loud as all blockbusters prepared us to be, it is also amazingly mechanic and washed out from all freshness.

What made "Batman Begins" so fresh and even fascinating at times was an attempt to explore the genealogy of Batman, the idea itself, the mechanics of creating a legend. It was a story of inner struggle where there's no other option than to become what one fears the most in order to conquer it. Now, that's something worth watching, that's the damn good theme! Is there anything as strong thematically in "The Dark Knight"? Not really. Only a few pretences.

As awkward as it may sound, I find "The Dark Knight" to be the mix of 21th century James Bond and "Mission Impossible III". It is full of cocky yet tame police one-liners, car chases, blow ups and all this nonsense for children. Of course, it has its moments where mind starts to pay some real attention, as in the scene in which the Joker interrupts the Wayne's party and terrorizes Rachel, or when the Joker is "questioned" by the Batman. "Is it that I just saw too much of them already?", I thought when it ended. The pictures which feels like a circus, like a box full of whatever you desire and you go to see them knowing already that you will get what you want. It is a paradox of cinematic entertainment, really, that when you're not satisfied with what you've got, the authors may very well ask you: "Well then, what did you expect? This Antonioni guy?" and you'd wish to say "yes" at times, even though you know it's absurdish to think so. It's a great cope out from their part but, after all, you let yourself swallow the hook when all they wanted was to take some money out of you and that's the only point of it all. Therefore, thinking that there's a presence of any convincing moral dilemma in this picture is like believeing the Joker that killing the Batman will solve all of his problems - it's a fraud. It's all about chaos and fun. You wanted to be entertained and all you've really got is the realization that their proposition clearly feels dated.

With all this said, I found myself bored everytime the Joker disappeared from the screen. He is, for better and for worse, sadly, the main force of the picture and it doesn't take a lot of time to figure out who was the character Nolan focused on when he was writing the script. It's no suprise - especially when we add Ledger's excellent acting - that when it comes to the Joker, no one can be equally captivating as he is so he must steal every scene he appears in, making the rest of the characters feel painfully neglected. Take Rachel, Lucius Fox or Alfred for example in that matter. Gordon wasn't much of a character to begin with and so he remains in status quo, whereas Harvey Dent, even though being a full character here with he own cause-and-effect, feels more of a plot device from one point on. What happend to the small, meatsy characters on the second plan? Remember brilliant Tom Wilkinson with his famous line: "No gun?! I'm insulted!" Right... As for the leading man, Bale is terrible in this picture. He looks tired and bored, as if he actually was neglected, and when he speaks he sounds as if he was shortly after a two week bender. Apart from fact that he has nothing to act here, as a character he's no counterbalance to the Joker. His inner drama is thin, overshadowed by Joker's madness.

Then we may ask, where is the Gotham city? Where is this noirish mood, the open streets in the rain full of steam coming from the underground? They're gone. Gotham city is non-existen here, it's just a Chicago where two guys run after each other like a two boys that forgot they're dressed unaccordingly to their age. So yes, why so serious? Did it give something new, something extra to this already compelling world of Batman? Made us feel that Batman is more human because of his unability to decide as fast as he serves punches? Well, no.

I wish Christopher Nolan going back to some, relatively smaller movie projects that made him so interesting since the late 90's, but seeing his work earning 440 milions dollars already and being on first place at iMDB etc., I highly doubt he will. He's a new force of Hollywood entertainment, just like Peter Jackson, Wolfgang Petersen or Michael Bay are. They're all the same: those who organize circuses - that have nothing to do with a real cinema - at the theaters so the millions of people can sit back for a 2,5 hours with big nice Coca-Cola and even bigger popcorn. With extra butter, of course. After all, nothing feels better than a good business, right?

"The Dark Knight" is to "Batman Begins" what "Matrix Reloaded" was to "Matrix": an overpacked, overlong summer flick that soon will be forgotten and all this childish talk about being it the Greatest Movie Ever will perish like a fart in the wind. In any case, I just hope it will. I still have before my eyes the scene I envisioned when the credits started to roll. It was Tim Burton, sitting next to me, saying quietly, somewhat in disgust: "Well, once they used imagination. Now they just have too much money. And they sure don't bring much brains to the table anymore either, do they?"

by Veronique

the 1958 "auntine mame" is the pinnacle of rosalind russell's career, and it does jolly rosalind great justice to glitter her comic genius in screwball comedy gendre that had been neglected or underused before. overlooked by most, rosalind russell has uncanny parallel to another classic star katehrine hepburn who was also a screwball diva in the 30s, considering her numberous collaborations with cary grant like "bringing up baby". they share the traits of being tall fair brunette and both funny with their non-stop swift-paced british accents except hepburn had more sharp edginess within her aggressive mannerism which has been constantly mocked in movies like "woman of the year" and "philadelphia story". (after all, we all like to cut a lofy dame down, aren't we?)

mame dennis is an eccentric socialite from the roaring 20s, wallowing in an extravangant life of endless gayety and diversities of styles and interior decors. mame has a stuff-shirted brother who sets up a will to keep her little son from her "bad influence" after he passes away. unfortunately it arrives soon, so auntine mame is ready to open doors for her nephew with mighty enthusiasm.

the title protagonist auntie mame is a larger than life character as you cannot demand realism upon such a cozy heart-warming fair tale. it is a comedy which relies upon its witty lines nourished by its deviant naivete of exaggerated demeanors. and this sort of comedies could merely exist among the 50s (age of innocence despite its fatal mccarthyism) since the cleverly phrased comedy without relishing profanity is no longer popular after the mid 60s, another read-between-the-lines "refined" humor celebrating "santized bohemianism".

the philosophy behind "auntine mame" is more of a hygienic hedonism without the darkness of alcoholism and prosmiscuity as mame exclaims "life is a bandquet, and most suckers are starving to death". and it does pose some anti-bourgeois sign without intruding middle-classed moralisticness. perhaps it casts a positive user-friendly democratic view that everyone should live beyond prejudice to appreciate a lovable cucko-cucko like auntine mame with enormous social acceptance. and my conclusion would be auntie mame is a fruitation of indulgent whims upon childlike innocence.

one praise goes for orry-kelly who designs most clothes for warner bro. from 30s~40s,, also lots of bette davis vehicles like jezebell and little foxes. and rosalind russel does have episodic sections of various dyed hairdos and exotic costumes, and she even dresses herself like a drogn lady with a dragon-headed doorgate which fumes everytime guest rings the bell. that anchors the great idiocyncrasy of auntine mame.

except katherine hepburn, no other actress could deliver those oddball lines so well so proficiently as rosalind russell who is mildly underrated. russell does appear as demure love interest in her 30s mgm days in flicks like "china seas" and "they met in bombay" with, again, clark gable. russel could be competent in most roles hepburn made prestige among 30s~40s. the major distinction would be russell is more feminine and less domineering and invasive than hepburn. thus rosalind russell makes an appropriate goofy adorable auntine mame as every adolescent boy's ideal auntine. an escapic retreatment for childhood dreams.

by Michael

Advanced screening:

Tropic Thunder is a film I've anticipated (from it's trailers/ Downey Jr's "Blackface" controversy) for quite awhile, but knowing Ben Stiller's hit (Reality Bites) or miss (Zoolander) directing filmography, I kept my expectations relatively lukewarm. Luckily that wasn't necessary because it's Stiller's best effort as a director to date aswell as one of the best comedies of the year.

Starting with the best fake-trailers this side of Grindhouse, TROPIC THUNDER develops into the most uniquely wacky blend of satire/action/ and gross-out I've ever seen. At first it appears to be a straight-up spoof on popular war films, then it becomes a film within a film, then an attack on Hollywood and the film industry in general. Also present are some rather shocking (and hilarious) sight gags (exploding film-crew members, the brutal slaughter of an endangered species) that managed to catch everyone off gaurd.

The main reason TROPIC THUNDER works so well though is it's stellar ensemble cast. You have the likes of Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr, Jack Black, Jay Baruchel, Steve Coogan, and Nick Nolte all turning in terrific comedic performances that they obviously had fun with. Tom Cruise gives the extended cameo of the year as a studio executive, while Tobey Maguire and a slew of other actors make notable appearences. Ultimately it is Downey Jr. who steals almost every scene as the platoon's very white, African-American squad leader.

Rude, witty, and ballsy, TROPIC THUNDER is a great time at the movies. It's hard finding worth-while large budget comedies these days, but DIRECTOR Ben Stiller, supported by a strong cast and a great premise, has proved himself to be the right man for the task. 8/10

by Lupus

Limp. Weak in story, humour & chemistry. Tatted Maria Bello too trailer trash-lookin to play Rachel Weisz' high nose Brit role though she tries - list goes on. Bury this franchise in a tomb somewhere (along with Jet-Li's previous resolution of wantin to stop actin in movies like these)

by Pierluigi

It is good to know that there's another cinematic nexus between my two countries (Colombia and Italia) besides that gruesome exploitation movie 'cannibal holocaust'. I would have liked this even more if director Lisandro Duque would have had a little more technical proficiency. Nevertheless, he made a little heartwarming and sharply perceptive social commentary based on a short story by Gabriel García Marquez, about the helpless condition of a father who loses his daughter and years later he witnesses her body has not decomposed while she was on her grave. The townspeople in their recalcitrant catholicism wish to send the couple to the pope in vatican city, hoping the church to declare her the first colombian saint, despite the lack of help of the local authorities. What the father doesn't know is that the church will be reluctant to fulfill his wish, and in their incompetent bureaucracy, they will force the poor man and his daughter to wander through the streets of Rome in a seemingly aimless crusade.

by xGary

A deadly plague that turns the populace into flesh eating mutants is released into the atmosphere and a band of misfits join together to fight their way to safety. Robert Rodriguez' pastiche of seventies and eighties style schlock horror seemed like a real breath of fresh air to me. The fact that two of its greatest exponents, Sam Raimi and Peter Jackson have been heading further and further down the overlong, sterile, technology orientated road of mainstream cinema makes it all the more ironic. Tarantino and Rodriguez seem to be headed completely in the opposite direction, concentrating on entertainment rather than ego, and in this film they deliver just the right blend of tongue in cheek humour, knowing homage and outrageous gore, the likes of which I haven't seen since Evil Dead 2. It's half John Carpenter and half George Romero, but manages to ape the films of their hey days to such an extent it surpasses anything either of them has done for a couple of decades. The cast overact their cinematic stereotypes to just the right degree, and the gore is amusingly ridiculous in a similar way to Return Of The Living Dead, itself a tongue in cheek semi-sequel to Romero's original zombie film. It'll never change your world, but that's hardly the point. 100% proof pure entertainment.

by Veronique

"prisoner of zenda" is an original british swashbuckler with aristocraticly dashing ronald colman as the brave knight who defends the secred throne of a nation; madeleine carroll, the british rose, as the divine love interest; dandy douglas fairbanks jr. and raymond massey form a league of doublecrossing vallainy. the infatuation over this swashbucking tale has been remade four times in cinematic history.

colman impersonates dual roles in this piece, the king to be throned and his identifical double who is merely an english man visiting outlandish nation. the king-to-be has been narcotized before the day he's about to be throned in consecration. so the loyal defenders of the king scheme to have the englishman as temporal substitute during his recovery. but the king's grudgy half brother covets the throne while his mischievous accomplice(fairbanks) drools over his mistress (mary astor). to add up the hardship, the englishman falls head over heels in love with the queen-to-be (carroll)...with all the conditions above, the price of honor and chivalric nobility appears precious. wouldn't that be the whole swashbuckler thing about?

ronald colman has the elegant screen presence as well as his composed charisma in the aristocratic costumes, while madelein carroll luminates the scenes with her striking beauty in the utmost degree, particularly in the cross-staring in the annoitment scene. douglas fairbanks jr. has limited screen time but remain impressive with his naughty mannerism and rascal-alike grinning.

"the prisoner of zenda" has every quintessential element of swashbuckler gendre except the consummation of romance since the queen-to-be selects her destined course of serving her royal house at the cost of her great one true love. the scene madelein bursts into an abrupt change of mind is sheer excellence of good acting. this is an aloof swashbuckler without the reward of his fair woman. perhaps tragic love emphasizes its gallantry for the ultimate swashbuckler without glorious compensation.

by edwin

Despite having a heavy film industry presence (usually American productions looking for cheap locations), Canada's own gems have often gone by the wayside. We're too close to America to really for it to care enough about a film not about its own country, and too far from overseas to have the exotic flare found in European or Asian cinema. Perhaps that is why the film considered Canada's best goes so widely underseen and overlooked. Claude Jutra's classic Mon Oncle Antoine truly is one of the best Canadian films ever made. It's also one of my favourite films, period. It is now out in a lovely 2 disc package from the folks at Criterion.
Set in an early 1940s Quebec asbestos mining town, it's a coming of age story over the course of a few days at Christmas time. Adolescent Benoit lives with his uncle, Antoine, his aunt, and a teenage girl, Carmen, who the family houses and employs at their store. Antoine not only owns the local general store, but is the local undertaker as well, among other things.
The film floats around, with no real plot-wise direction. Events happen in a relaxed and patient fashion, not to highlight story, but to highlight the emotional development of Benoit as he transforms from a free spirited adolescent into adulthood. He experiences the sexual passions, the harsh indifferences and the cynicism of leaving childhood behind. Jutra balances light hearted humour and charm with dark pathos and sadness with a deft hand. There are playful moments between Antoine and Carmen, and comedy with the sneaky Fernand (played by Jutra himself), who runs the store for Antoine when he's not chasing the uncle's wife. There is also a moment of great triumph when Benoit and another boy throw snowballs at the mine owner as he makes his way through town giving out small gift bags for Christmas rather than raises or bonuses to the men as the soundtrack blares a score fit for a spaghetti western.
On the darker side, there is a separate story where a family's father leaves the mines and heads to the logging camps. While he is away, his eldest son takes ill, and dies on Christmas Eve. Antoine is phoned to come pick up the boy's body, and Benoit insists he go along. The long sleigh ride through a snow storm offers him opportunities for mischief, but in the end leaves him with sad realizations about the nature of adulthood and those around him.
Mon Oncle Antoine is certainly about the loss of innocence, but it is also more than just a story about a boy in rural Quebec. It is a parable about the coming of age of the province itself. Most of the mines were owned by either Americans or English speaking Canadians, as referenced by the film when the mine foreman speaks in English to his French workers who do not understand. The time period is the Maurice Duplessis era - he was the premier of Quebec with his Union Nationale. His party was deeply conservative, pro-business, rabidly anti-socialist (in any form), and formed deep rooted connections with the traditional Catholic clergy. He was also deeply corrupt, and reportedly a master of ballot stuffing. It's also just prior to the Asbestos Mine strikes and the Quiet Revolution. The miners voted to strike, which was deemed illegal by Duplessis, who continued to pledge unwavering support for the mine owners,. He also authorized the use of strike breakers which lead to incidents of violence. However, the miners had the widespread support of the public and the French media, and even most priests and the province's archbishop. This marked a major turning point in Quebec culture, as well as the shift to the social left in a large part of Canadian Catholicism. Separatist ideology increased dramatically.
Of course French English tensions are important in Canadian history. Many Anglos hate the French, and many French hate the Anglos. My own family has an interesting connection to French/English hostility. It was a number of years before I discovered I am half French: my mother's grandfather was a widowed Frenchman from Cape Breton; when he remarried, his new wife forced him to change his name from Fougere to Fraser, so she would not have to be shamed with a French surname.
History lessons aside, the physical construction of the film, meant to evoke life in the harsh mining towns in the Asbestos region, must be recognized. The small town, shadowed by the mine hills, literally exudes its cold surroundings, yet still manages to fill its homes with undeniable warmth thanks to its characters. Jutra also uses practical, naturalistic lighting rather than normal crisp studio lighting. The sounds and senses of Canadian winters are placed front and centre by Jutra. This is how these towns are supposed to look and feel during winter. The feel of the film is not limited to Quebec culture. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia not only have massive French populations and culture, but the same woods, the same houses, the same towns. I know the feel of small harsh industrial towns - I grew up in one in Nova Scotia. They are not at all unlike the one in Mon Oncle Antoine. Most of them still look just like they did 50 years ago (if not worse). Perhaps that is one of the reasons why I love this film so much. It's the sensation of familiarity found in Eastern Canadian life and culture (which has its own very large French/Acadien population and culture).
But alas, I am rambling, and fear that I could go on and on. Mon Oncle Antoine is one of the great hidden gems of the cinema. Its performances are earnest; the photography is evocative and beautiful in that cold, bleak sort of way; its direction is assured and inspired. It is a masterful portrait of childhood's twilight, and a sad but hopeful realization of the loss of innocence - a parable for the whole of Quebec.

by xGary

AVP 2 continues directly from the ending of the first film, with an alien/predator hybrid causing the ship to crash land back on Earth. A second ship is dispatched containing a kind of space-age alien cross between a CSI and Batman to clear up the resulting mess. The first film was dumb but fun, but I have to say I did not have high hopes for this one. At first it seemed that my fears were going to be justified because the first act of the film resembled a teen slasher flick more than anything else, complete with semi-clad nubile teens, people being picked off one by one in dark corridors and the inevitable pre-scares and false alarms. However, once the aliens hit the surface things got a LOT better. It "borrows" ideas heavily from other sources, notably Dawn Of The Dead and especially Aliens; a couple of scenes are lifted directly from it and the kick-ass mom protecting her young daughter is an obvious copy of Ripley. But it does it WELL. Despite the fact that the film can look a little too dark making it difficult to tell what's going on in places, it does look great and the fight sequences are very well done. The small town stereotypes are a little underwritten, but the action makes up for it and it never shies away from the gory side of things giving it a distinctly horror style spin. The alien hybrid is also done far better than the one in Alien Resurrection. For once it seems that a sequel has learned form the mistakes of its predecessor, and the result is a very pleasant surprise.

by Sarah

Director:Christopher Nolan
Released: 2008
Stars: Christian Bale,Heath Ledger,Gary Oldman
and Morgan Freeman
Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
Country: USA




Batman and James Gordon join forces with Gotham's new District Attorney, Harvey Dent, to take on a psychotic bank robber known as The Joker, whilst other forces plot against them, and Joker's crimes grow more and more deadly.



*Possible spoilers ahead*

After a year and a half long wait, the sequel to the brilliant Batman Begins(2005), is finally here and boy did I enjoy it! It surpasses all my expectations and is FAR SUPERIOR to Begins. A Sequel which is far better and will be remembered for doing so. I you thought Begins was good, you will be plesently suprised. The Dark knight is as great as everyone says it is and more I'm still finding the words to describe even several days after watching it.

Yes, before I started watching the film, I knew Heath Ledger's perfromance would be amazing in the role of the Joker, and I was right. I have to admit that it didn't suprise me one bit. The time that he took to perfect his rol and the perfection in his voice, mannerisms and behaviour is just outstanding. He's created a character that's incredibly menacing and even in a 12A film, scary to watch. I'm sure he'll receive a post homours Oscar nomation, winning it I'm not so sure. It'll be down to whether the Academy can avoid the snobbery that they have over blockbuster films winning at the Oscars. He's character was also very funny and had several one liners, which I did laugh at. I don't think I'll ever forget his performance. It'll always be in my top five of all time.

Christian Bale repises his role as the caped crusader and has obtained a far huskier voice, which was great to hear. Bale is now my favourite Batman and I'm sure others would agree. Even as Bruce Wayne he oozes coolness in every scene he's in. His Batman is far darker than many previously and makes for a great character to watch.Bale also plays he's character tremendouly well and should be given credit for that, Also worth mentioning Aaron Eckhart's tremendous perfromance as two-facem who I didn't think would be good at all. Worth mentioniong Gary Oldman's Lt Gordon, Maggie Glyyenhaal's and Morgan Freeman's perfromance aswell, who all delivered fine performances. I'd really like to see Bale get some sort of credit for his performance, as it really was great.

The Dark Knight's cinematography was absolutly breathtaking to watch. In particular the sublime, opening sequence, which was inspired by Heat-which you can see . The colours, and sequences filmed just added a little realism to the films, giving it that post 9/11 feel. It also adds a little fear to the viewer, for instance in the Mayot's funeral. It drwas upon real events, which is just superb. Talking of superbm that Opening sequence was outstanding to watch. One of my favourite shots was one of the Joker, in the middle of the street, in almost a God like stance. Everything in the scene is quite shocking to watch. The joker and his henchman don't just feel like characters in a film-where you can just write them off. These characters really feel real and the sounds of the guns shots, in this scene only emphathises this. One classic line which I won't forget by the Joker.

I believe what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger..

The screenplay in the Dark Knight has to be one of the finest that I've seen for a summer blockbuster...since..well forever. It is obviously responsible for some great lines in the film. The scenes with the Joker and Batmanl, for instance-The iterrogation scene. I'm sure the screenplay will be up for an Oscar ans it is one of the best parts of the film for me. Loved this line from Alfred..

Some men just want to watch the world burn!

Nolan has now set the bar for Great summer blocckbusters. Everything in the film is FLAWLESS. The running time of nearly 3 hours flew b. His direction is absoulty outstanding. I just hope BAFTA award him with a Best Director nod next year.

The Dark Knight contains some amazing camer shots. For instance, as I mentioned before-that opening shot of the Jokers-WOW. One sequence towards the end, was just sensational to watch. I just hope this is the start of great summer blockbusters to come.

The score by Hans Zimmer is just sensational to hear. Every single piece of music livens up every scene and just get an absoulte buzz, when you watch it. You can;t help but cheers and smile when you hear part of that score. Just mesmerising. I hope it gets awarded at next years Oscars aswell.

I really think the editing is one of the sucess points of the film. The pinning together of some scenes , two or three at some stages really addes tension to the scene and sheer joy for the viewer. This adds to the experience and really makes it one hell of an enoyable experience.

Overall The Dark Knight is an absoulte MASTERPIECE. Filled with sublime acting, cinematorgpahy, excellent editing, screenplay. Expect the Dark Knight to receive several BAFTA noms and some OSCARS noms. I can't tell you how great this film is and how musch I enjoyed it. You must go along and see it for yourself.

Oustanding.

Highly recomended

10/10

by Sancar

Youssef Chahine is one of the most forceful and complex of Egyptian filmmakers whose progress over the forty years or so since his debut at the age of twenty-four offers remarkable insight into the evolution of Egyptian society. A series of sharply critical social studies?of which The Sparrow in 1975 is undoubtedly the most successful?was interrupted by a heart attack while the director was still in his early fifties. This led him to question his own personal stance and development in a manner unique in Arab cinema, and the result was the splendidly fluent autobiography Alexandria . . . Why? in 1978, which was followed four years later by a second installment titled An Egyptian Story, shot in a style best characterized as an amalgam of Fellini and Bob Fosse's All That Jazz. As such references indicate, Chahine is an eclectic filmmaker whose cosmopolitan attitudes can be traced back to his origins. He was born in Alexandria in 1926 of middle-class parents. His father, a supporter of the nationalist Wafd party, was a scrupulous but financially unsuccessful lawyer, and Chahine was brought up as a Christian, educated first at religious school and then at the prestigious Victoria College, where the language of tuition was English. After a year at Alexandria University he persuaded his parents to allow him to study drama for two years at Pasadena Playhouse, near Los Angeles, and on his return to Egypt he plunged into the film industry, then enjoying a period of boom in the last years of King Farouk's reign.

Alexandria . . . Why? presents a vividly drawn picture of this vanished world: Alexandria in 1942, awaiting the arrival of Rommel's troops, who, it is hoped, will finally drive out the British. The film is peopled with English soldiers and Egyptian patriots, aristocrats, and struggling bourgeoises, the enthusiastic young and their disillusioned or corrupt elders. Chahine mocks the excesses of the nationalists (his terrorist patriots are mostly caricatures), leaves condemnation of Zionism to Jews, and tells love stories that cross the neatly drawn barriers separating Muslim and Jew, Egyptian aristocrat and English Tommy. The revelation of Chahine's own background and a few of his personal obsessions (as with the crucified Christ) seems to have released fresh creative powers in the director. His technique of intercutting the action with scenes from Hollywood musicals and newsreel footage from the Imperial War Museum in London is as successful as it is audacious, and the transitions of mood are brilliantly handled.

Chahine is a key figure in Third World cinema. Unlike some of the other major filmmakers who also emerged in the 1950s?such as Satyajit Ray or Lester James Peries?he has not turned his back on commercial cinema. He has always shown a keen desire to reach a wide audience, and Alexandria . . . Why?, though personal, is by no means an inaccessible or difficult work. Chahine's strength as a filmmaker lies indeed in his ability to combine mainstream production techniques with a very individual style and approach. Though intensely patriotic, he has shown a readiness to criticize government policies with which he does not agree, such as those of the late President Sadat. It is ironic therefore that the appearance of Alexandria . . . Why? should have coincided with the Camp David agreements between Egypt and Israel. As a result, Chahine's very personal statement of his belief in a tolerant society came to be widely criticized in the Arab world as an opportunistic political statement and a justification of Sadat's policies.

His underlying commitment to the making of an Egyptian identity, history, and memory is evident in his more recent works as well. The 1984 Adieu Bonaparte, a Franco-Egyptian co-production, portrays an East-West encounter through an Egyptian family during Napoleon's invasion of Egypt. Chahine's continuous efforts to reconstruct and forge an Egyptian-ness, "to be nothing but Egyptian," can be most clearly seen in the ways in which he strives to retell this history from a strictly Egyptian perspective and none other. Chahine's endeavor may not be unique among the whole array of Third World filmmakers who act and/or react against the West. However, given his own involvement and interests in the Western arts and influences, which not too many non-Western filmmakers could in fact claim to be devoid of, it is his inventiveness in forms and consistency in content that make Chahine an important filmmaker in Egypt in particular and in the non-Western filmmaking world in general.

?Roy Armes, updated by Guo-Juin Hong

by Sancar

Close-Up contains many key elements of Kiarostami?s cinema. The main character is innocent yet corrupt. Although here, unlike in Traveler (1974) or The Wind Will Carry Us, he is sympathetic. Both behind-the-scenes and within the frame, Kiarostami is self-critical as a filmmaker. We see him in the opening scene talking to the hero in prison and toward the end we hear him talking to his crew. In Homework (1990) he interviews the children and in Case No. 1 and Case No.2 (1979) he interviews a number of cultural authorities. The filmmaker, though as a fictional character, appears again in Through the Olive Trees (1994), Life and Nothing More? and The Wind Will Carry Us. This self-conscious cinema is a double-edged sword. It can be read as a self-critical cinema where Kiarostami questions his role as a filmmaker. Also, it can be seen as a means to distance the audience and make them conscious.

What is so specific in Kiarostami?s style is his attention to form and the role it plays in creating poetry and humor in his films. As Tati demonstrates, and as observed by Jonathan Rosenbaum, form plays a major role in creating cinematic humor. (4) What is normally non-humorous is seen and heard as humorous, ridiculous, or absurd through Kiarostami?s films. Similar to Tati?s Playtime (1967), Kiarostami?s fantastic short Orderly or Disorderly (1981) derives its power and humor through shot composition, the use of sound, and, in particular, Kiarostami?s voice over. The high angle long shots of the children in the school-yard lining up to drink water or getting on the bus, as well as the impatient drivers who complicate traffic in a Tehran intersection, reveal the humorous nature of chaos and order in public spaces.
The Wind Will Carry Us


Also, form as a zigzag pattern is emphasised through shot composition or camera movement. For example, the recurrent image of zigzagging roads in his films has become a philosophical and metaphysical statement as well as revealing the general situation of his characters. The zigzag path in Where is the Friend?s House? (1987) shows the many turns that the child has to take in order to find his friend. Similarly, the man who is driving on the hilly roads in Taste of Cherry is looking for someone to bury him. In Life and Nothing More?, the filmmaker has to find two children who acted in his previous film, following a deadly earthquake that shook northern Iran. Even sometimes the zigzagging movements of an object like an apple in The Wind Will Carry Us or the empty spray can in Close-Up show the randomness of fate. They are practically Kiarostami?s signatory shots.

Kiarostami?s later films, especially the three films that are known as a trilogy, Where is the Friend?s House?, Through the Olive Trees, and Life and Nothing More?, have a strong emphasis on landscape and architecture, revealing Kiarostami?s philosophical point-of-view. The beautiful view of trees revealed through the ruins of the village in Where is the Friend?s House?, the long shot of the cracked road in Life and Nothing More?, and the long shot of the wheat field in The Wind Will Carry Us, remind the audience of the beauty that the main character ignores. As Kiarostami gradually moves toward nature and rural characters and settings, the landscape shots become more instrumental in the structure of his post-revolutionary films.
A.B.C. Africa


Although Kiarostami uses small crews and mainly non-actors and no script, his recent documentary feature A.B.C. Africa signals the emergence of a new approach. It is his first film that is shot outside Iran and on digital video. The film is predominately shot in English, saturated in colour, and has wall-to-wall music. Unlike most of his previous films, A.B.C. Africa is populated with strong women characters ? a sharp contrast to his previous films, where the absence of women was noticeable. One can view this as another movement in his cinema that has started mainly with The Wind Will Carry Us and is continued in his most recent film, Ten (2002), films which feature mainly women characters.

Kiarostami?s cinema celebrates the economy of film language and offers an alternative to the fancy, excessive mainstream cinema. A controversial characteristic of his films is how they encourage the audience to reflect and creatively participate in them. His films challenge viewers? stereotypes and make them aware of their own blind spots. A refreshing experience of watching Kiarostami?s films is how they resist giving an expected, homogeneous, or exotic "third-world" image of Iranian culture to the audience. Each of his films, even those that are shot in the remote rural areas of Iran, reflect McLuhan?s concept of the "global village" and our disillusion of the image of "self" as separate, immune, and distant from the "other".

by Sancar

In Taste of Cherry, the shift from narrative to documentary not only adds another layer to the film but separates and distances the audience and therefore creates a space for his/her presence in the film. For example, in the final sequence, where the hero lies in his grave, a long fade shifts the film from the narrative section to a behind-the-scenes documentary (shot on video) where we see Kiarostami and his crew. The long fade becomes a trigger for viewers to start feeling their own presence, as well as a mirror to see themselves in. It also motivates them to think about the ways they can understand the shift from the narrative to the documentary, as well as the change in formats from film to video.

Kiarostami, in his movement towards a plotless cinema and a minimal and elliptic compressed narrative, has also used the dark screen in a number of his films, serving similar goals in terms of the audience?s involvement. The dark scene in the cellar where the young village girl is milking the cow while the hero is citing Forough?s poetry to her in The Wind Will Carry Us (1999), and the seven minute black scene in A.B.C. Africa (2001) where we hear Kiarostami talk, beautifully challenge the audience?s expectations as well as celebrating the creative use of sound. This striking moment in ABC Africa occurs when Kiarostami stops talking as he enters his room in complete darkness. We hear him drawing the window?s curtain but we don?t see anything for awhile. Suddenly a lightning bolt reveals the view of trees for a second. The image has become magical because it is delayed and anticipated for a long time.


Close-Up


Another way that Kiarostami invites the creative participation of his audience can be seen in his film Close-Up, where he interrupts and undermines the expected dramatic flow of the story-line with minor characters whose lives are not considered dramatic or important. He also mixes fact and fiction in such a way that it is impossible to separate the two. The non-chronological order of the scenes in the film which offer different points-of-view urge the audience to make sense of the story (putting it in their order), as well as asking them to judge the characters on their own terms.

Close-Up not only refers to the role of cinema in Iran as a means of power, popularity, and social mobility, similar to the role of basketball for black youth in America, but it also confronts the viewer with her/his own relationship to cinema. Kiarostami criticises the role of media and the media-maker in deceiving the audience ? a contemporary universal issue. In this film more than his other films, Kiarostami reveals the characters through their lies and performances. Hence Kiarostami?s quotation "the shortest way to truth is lie." (3)

by Sancar

Kiarostami belongs to a generation of filmmakers who created the so called "New Wave", a movement in Iranian cinema that started in the ?60s, before the revolution of 1979 and flourished in the ?70s. (2) Directors like Farrokhzad, Saless, Bayzai, and Kimiavi were the pioneers of this movement. They made innovative art films which had highly political and philosophical tones and poetic language. Some, like Saless (who is compared to Bresson), introduced a realist (minimal plot, non-dramatic) style, while others, like Kimiavi (known as the Iranian Godard, mixing fantasy and reality), employed a metaphoric form.


Taste of Cherry


What distinguishes Kiarostami?s style is his unique but unpretentious poetic and philosophical vision. Not only does he break away from conventional narrative and documentary filmmaking, he also challenges the audience?s role. He plays with their expectations and provokes their creative imagination. His films invite the viewer to reflect, confront stereotypes, and actively question their assumptions. In Taste of Cherry, the reason for Mr. Badii?s suicide is not given to the viewer. Consequently, the audience has to imagine that reason. In Kiarostami?s words, the untold or unexplained parts of his films are created in the minds of his audience. What is presented as obscure or hidden becomes clear and apparent through the audience?s imagination (for example, characters? motivations and inner worlds). In this way, the audience member becomes responsible for the clarity that she/he expects from the film.

by Veronique

"a bucket of blood" is an occult flick made by enlongating one episode of "twight light zone".

the story begins with a nobody with an absurd artisitc ambition to gain himself some respects from the beatnik artists in local cafe, then he achieves that by casting clay on real corpses that means he's got to continue murdering people to maintain his status of genius. then his final work would be himself hung around a rope.

if you always feel the twight light zone episode is not long enough to linger, "a bucket of blood" would be a good passing time entertainment. one sentence to term rod serlying's eccentric beings under his wondrous creations: the vain peculiar struggles made by petite people whose lives are demeaned by their charater flaws, so their seek another dimension to escape their miserable existence of insignificance, the twight zone. you witness an odd mercy bestowed upon those people while the audience secretly emphasize with them, indulging in such soothing morbidity where its popularity prospers. hopefully my term would be adequate.

by R.A.

LETTERBOX. Buena mezcla de drama y suspenso juega sus fichas con destreza para contar una historia cuyos personajes demuestran ser más interesantes que su premisa. Muy bien actuada colectivamente. Leonardo Sbaraglia y Angie Cepeda hacen una pareja muy hermosa y sexy. / Good mix of drama and suspense skillfully plays its cards to tell a story whose characters prove more interesting than its premise. Collectively well acted. Leonardo Sbaraglia and Angie Cepeda make a beautiful and sexy pair.