Great Lines

"I like a woman with an arse you can park a bike in and balance a pint of beer on"

Micmacs à tire-larigot

RATING: ☺☺☺

You only need five minutes of  Micmacs to confirm the storytelling talents of the director Jean-Pierre Jeunet. In that short period of time, you're given the entire background of the protagonist allowing you to understand his motives, all this wrapped up in a visually stunning, inventive and funny package. And that's just the first five minutes.

This was a delightful comedy caper, full of bizarre and charming outcast characters, on a david versus goliath revenge mission against two powerful weapons manufacturers. The heist moves presented here would put any Mission Impossible team to shame. They're more imaginative, trickier, devious and certainly more humourous.

I particularly liked the fact the protagonist, a video club clerk, is so amazingly smart, a characteristic I attribute to the long hours of watching movies. I rather like this explanation better than a bullet in the head ;-)

Another not to be missed work from Jeunet

Limitless

RATING: ☺☺

When you watch three movies in one weekend, and two days later you have trouble remembering what the third movie was, it's a clear indication of the quality of that particular movie when it barely registered compared with the other two (Submarine and I Saw the Devil). The movie in question is Limitless, which to be fair was pretty entertaining, but unlike what it's title suggests, it remained pretty limited. A movie about a pill that unlocks the full potential of the human brain asked for a story larger in scope. A true sci-fi novel or movie would explore the social and moral ramifications of this wonder drug. The possibilities surrounding the use of this drug are staggering. The consequences and impact at the individual level alone are immense and 'Limitless' brushes a few of them, but for the most part settles for the more confortable zone of the thriller. It works well as such, but overall it feels a bit disappointing. Other than this and the ending, which totally screws up with the backstory, as well as some plot points abandoned or poorly handled, the movie is visually appealing, Bradley Cooper carries the movie well, the action scenes are well shot and the suspense is kept effective.

Limitless is an entertaining thriller, but unlike the character of the movie that acquires total recall, you'll probably forget all about it in a couple of weeks, and won't be in a hurry to revisit.

I Saw the Devil

RATING: ☺☺☺

Revenge is a very powerful sentiment. It can take over one person so completely, one hardly recognizes himself. There's a terrible need in all of us to see justice done, to carry out due punishment. The punishment however, differs greatly from one individual to another.

I Saw the Devil aka Akmareul boatda in its original title, is the last work from hot shot Korean director Jee-woon Kim. The basic premise behind the film is great. The most satisfying part in a movie dealing with the wrongdoings of a villain, is seeing him get his much deserved comeuppance. The side effect of this is, it ends the story. 'I Saw the Devil' picks up on this and works around it. Instead of offering one cathartic act of revenge, you get several smaller appetizing ones, satisfying on their own, but allowing for the delay of the story's resolution. There are several upside effects to this. One, it extends the suffering inflicted on the villain, thus increasing our viewing pleasure. It sounds sadistic doesn't it? That's another thing the film makes you think about after you finish watching it. The nature of revenge and the sadistic streak to it. But that's not all. It also allows for an hypnotizing and deadly cat and mouse game between the villain and the "hero", played by Byung-hun Lee as the young secret agent seeking revenge for the murder of his fiancee, Min-sik Choi as the serial killer, and magistrally conducted by Jee-woon Kim. Third, it gives plenty of opportunities to showcase the collateral damage inflicted upon others as a result of this game, further enhancing the destructive nature of revenge, as well as the ugly emptiness of its aftermath.

I find the movie easy to recommend. I think even people who were not thrilled by Asian movies in the past, might find something to enjoy here. This is not just another bloody brutal slasher asian movie.

Submarine

RATING: ☺☺☺

I was playing with the idea of giving Submarine a higher rating. I'm still torn about it, because this was one of the best teen movies I've seen in quite some time. It's definitely one of the best films I've watched this year, period. This British film lacks the glamour and fast pace usually associated with American teen movies, but more than makes up with a fantastic script that captures the essence of adolescence awkwardness. Almost everyone at one point will recognize themselves in something that shows up on the screen. It has plenty of drama, some of it blown out of proportion as is typical of that age, but it's also very funny, although I'm sure the humour might not appeal to everyone's taste.

'Submarine' is a gem of a first feature film by director Richard Ayoade. It's consistently good all the way through, and some parts are simply brilliant. A good example is the ending scene. Talk about wraping a movie on a high note. As I'm writing this, I'm feeling the urge to watch it again, despite much of it being already indelibly carved in my memory. There's no better compliment than that.

Contagion

RATING: ☺☺

I'm split on how I feel about Contagion. As an healthcare professional, I think it does a decent job as to what people can expect happening in the event of a pandemic like the 1918 Spanish Flu. The H1N1 outbreak of 2009, and the perceived notion by the general population that the situation was blown out of proportion by the authorities as part of a conspiracy with the pharmaceutical industry to sell drugs is very dangerous indeed. Yes, the tax payers ended up paying for a lot of vaccines that didn't got used. We should all thank our good fortunes that was the case, because had the situation evolved differently, even with the vaccines available, the costs would amount to several times what was spent. And make no mistake, a pandemic like that is still inevitable, so better safe than sorrow, and the release of the 'Contagion' helps in raising awareness.

As a moviegoer, it's a different story. Contagion is a disaster movie in essence, but it pales in comparison with both the 70's golden age, and the most recent examples of the genre. The thriller aspects are almost absent, and despite depicting several story elements that should infuse the movie with its dramatic weight, it fails to do so effectively. That was for me the main problem. It didn't manage to convey the drama and horror of the situation. You see it on screen, but you don't feel it. I felt detached from it. One factor that might have contributed to that was the number of characters and subplots. Even if it has always been a staple of the genre, 'Contagion' has too many characters and subplots going on, some of them duplicating their function in the story. Soderbergh doesn't grasp character economy here. I'm not against a large cast or several plots running together, but only when they add something significant to the story. As I'm writing this, I'm thinking how much better the movie could have been if it focused more strongly on just three main character subplots. Laurence Fishburne as the director of CDC to cover the political side, Kate Winslet as the CDC field officer to show us the reality from the point of view of the authorities attempt to manage the situation on site, and Matt Damon to give us the point of view from the general population. This would be enough to cover all the bases without dispersing itself too much. Other characters would still show up but with less time dedicated to them, and some would be gone altogether.

As a result, a relatively weak emotional involvement and impact with the viewers also hurts the message it carries. Perhaps it was done on purpose to avoid alarming people too much whenever a new flu epidemic shows up every year, but I doubt it.

Should have go and watched Submarine instead. Oh well, next time.

 

In the Company of Men

RATING: ☺☺☺

I can't say I was impressed by In the Company of Men. It's a very good movie, but taking into account its controversial reputation for mysoginistic material, I couldn't but feel a bit disappointed for what I felt was a somewhat insipid material regarding that issue.

Two business executives Chad (Aaron Eckhart) and Howard (Matt Malloy) have just been rejected by their girlfriends. While traveling for a few weeks temporary assignment in another office, they plot to get revenge with women. They plan to seduce a vulnerable woman and then dump her with her feelings and self-esteem completely destroyed. When they meet the deaf secretary Christine (Stacy Edwards), they find their perfect victim.

What I enjoyed most from the film were the actors performances. Good stuff from all the three main leads, especially Stacy Edwards. Another high point in the film is Chad, one of the most amoral villains in movie history. No matter how you interpret his actions and motives, whether his target was really Christine or ultimately his co-worker and friend Howard, he is truly a major a$$hole. I give Neil Labute credit for consistently writing some real awful characters in his films. Chad was the first, followed by Cary in 'Your Friends and Neighbors', and Evelyn in 'The Shape of Things'. Truly awful people, made even worse because there's nothing extraordinary about them. Sadly, we all know people just like them.

Despite all these "good things", I had trouble at times when the movie failed to engage me fully. Sometimes the pace is just too slow and the scripted dialogue isn't brilliant enough to compensate for it. It's not a movie with a high replay value to me.

Regarding the misogyny bad rep, I found it bland. In my interpretation, Chad true goal, the one person he really wanted to destroy was his friend Howard. Christine was just a expendable tool for him. It doesn't make him any less evil, quite the opposite, but I don't see hatred for women driving his actions. Of course, if your interpretation differs from mine, than the movie's last scene, above all others, will of course explain the much vilified label tagged upon it.

Mystery Soundtrack Challenge #20 - Revealed

The movie is Once Upon a Time in America

Original Score by Ennio Morricone.

Congratulations to Júlio Rodrigues for identifying it

Great Lines

"A guy can change anything. His face, his home, his family, his girlfriend, his religion, his God. But there's one thing he can't change. He can't change his passion"

Thursday (unrated director's cut)

RATING: ☺☺☺

Here's a few fun facts about Thursday. It's one of the most obscene movies I ever had the pleasure of watching. The film saw release in only two theaters. It made a couple thousand dollars in the box office. When it played at the Toronto Film Festival in 1998, Roger Ebert, a film critic I admire and respect, trashed the film so completely, that most distributors stayed away from it. He call it a racist and absurd movie, and a poorly done Tarantino knock off. Not surprisingly, it's the first, and only movie directed by Skip Woods, who managed to survive as a writer afterwards. A week after it came out on DVD in 2002, Polygram went bankrupt, and no more than 1000 copies of the DVD were made. All these combined, turn Thursday into a fairly unknown movie for most people. I did a little research and your best bet to get a copy would be Australian imports...or download it for free from the internet, because apparently no one owns the rights to the movie which basically means it's legal to do so.

Hi, I'm here to help fuck up your day

What about the movie per se? Any good? Well, it depends. I found it very funny, but I can see how many might disagree. It does have a Tarantino flair to it. Although the type of characters and narrative have some common ground, Thursday pales in comparison. The script is not bad, but it's not good enough to sustain the movie on it's own. The actors help it a lot, particularly Paulina Porizkova. In fact, it's her character scenes that raise the movie into something...well, into something you won't soon forget.

In all honesty, Mr. Ebert is right in his general assessment of the film. The only part he left out was that it's also damn entertaining. File this under guilty pleasures if you'd like.

Go

RATING: ☺☺☺

This was a lot of fun. Following the formula made so popular by 'Pulp Fiction', Go gives us three sets of characters inhabiting what at first seems to be independent plotlines, until they eventually intersect each other. Here's the recipe: start with a supermarket clerk and friends (Sarah Polley, Katie Holmes and Nathan Bexton), trying to score some money to pay the rent, a group of friends on a trip to Las Vegas (Desmond Askew, Taye Diggs, Breckin Meyer), and a couple of soap tv actors trying to save their asses (Scott Wolf, Jay Mohr). Now that you have a good group of young talented actors for the roles, add a clever script (John August) filled with quirky lines, mix the plots well late at night, and voilá, instant success under the direction of a solid filmmaker like Doug Liman.

Besides all these good points, 'Go' still suffers a tiny bit from inconsistency. Not all the segments/plotlines are of equal strength. Here the weak link is the middle one. It's not that it's bad, it's just not at the same level of the others. For one, it's story doesn't merge as strongly as the other two, and second, it lacks an antagonist capable of raising the bar. The first segment had Timothy Olyphant oozing menace, danger and sexiness in the form of the drug dealer, and in the latter you get William Fichtner in a sexually disorienting police detective. But all this is really nitpicking. If you haven't watch this 1999 movie before (I didn't until recently), then you're missing a very fun and entertaining work. Check it out.

Clerks

RATING: ☺☺☺

Finally!!! At long last I got to watch the movie that started the Kevin Smith's askewverse films. After hearing so many good things about it, and knowing some of the characters already from other movies, one question kept popping up in my mind as I inserted the pendrive into the player. Would the movie stand the test of time almost 20 years past its debut? The answer is a rotund yes.

This black & white depiction of one day in the life of Dante, convenience store clerk extraordinaire, is a riot. Girlfriend problems, ex-girlfriend problems, stupid and abusive customers, and an even more demanding best friend Randal, means that Dante's supposedly day off turns out a very stressful one.

All the characteristics you love from the askewverse films are here. It's a landmark in independent filmmaking. Shot with a budget of 27,575 dollars, Kevin Smith had to sell his comic book collection, max out several credit cards, and draw funds set aside for his college education. It had a very limited release in theaters, made 3 million buckaroos at the box office, spawned several other successful movies and launched Kevin Smith's film career. Not bad.

A well deserved cult classic status.

Mystery Soundtrack Challenge #20

New challenge is up.

Check the tracks in the mp3 player and name the movie.

And just because I'm feeling randy...

Name the actress proud owner of these lovely gluteal muscles?

The Help

RATING: ☺☺☺

I know it's kind of hard to see beyond the racism issue, after all that is the theme background, the engine that propels the characters into action, and it's been marketed as such. But if you can, you'll realize two things about The Help:

Number one - This is a movie about women, of all races, living in a particular time and place in America. You'll be hard pressed to remember any male characters in it. There are a few, but they're irrelevant character wise. Every hero and villain, every character that has any significant weight on the story is female. The movie brushes upon their lives, and no matter their race, they all struggle, Sure, the center piece is the struggle of the black maids within the civil  rights movement, but there is so much more going on. The struggle for women's independence, class struggle, motherhood, etc. Narrowing the movie issues to just racism is a mistake. In fact, viewed as a film about racism, it kind of weak and simple minded. It's not particularly realistic and accurate. It is however a great movie about women. Poignant and very funny in equal measure.

Number two - The film is populated by a remarkably large number of great memorable female characters, fueled by amazing performances from their respective actresses. A lot of people will go see it because of rising star Emma Stone, but will come out marveled by a few others instead. At least I did. Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer have of course the spotlight as the two black maids. They play very different characters, one the main comedic force of the movie, the other offering the more serious tone. These were film roles actresses often dream about, and they were both up to the task. So was Bryce Dallas Howard as the vindictive antagonist. Bryce has grown out of Night Shyamalan's movies, and she had recently impressed me in Clint Eastwood's 'Hereafter' in a very small, but unforgetable role. Here she gives life to a great movie villain, confirming her talent if anyone was still doubting. The cast wonder continues with Sissy Spacek, Aunjanue Ellis and so on. A special note to Allison Janney and Jessica Chastain. Both managed some stellar moments in what little time they had on screen. Quintessential oscar worthy supporting roles. That's where this movie can probably make a dent at Oscar night. Best actress in leading and supporting role, and to be honest, whatever the decision, it's going to be unfair for any and all the others involved in The Help. 

All the talk about the movie trivialising the civil rights movement is just hogwash for the reasons I stated above. It misses the point. It's a great film, and as performances go, it doesn't get much better than this. I certainly can't think of a female driven film this good in recent times. Bridesmaids was very good, but this is on a all new level.

Great Lines

"I want to tickle your belly button... from the inside"

Murder and biscuits at tea time (part 2) - Mum & Dad

RATING: ☺

This second British horror movie caught me off guard for several reasons, neither of them in a good way. This was just despicable, and I felt dirty for watching it, but was unwilling to stop doing it. Mum & Dad is about a "familly" of sadistic/victim homicidal freaks. The film depicts the "assimilation attempt" of its newer member, a female Polish immigrant, abducted into this house of horrors as the new daughter. The familly makes a living from stealing the Heathrow airport cargo, as well as any victims that come their way. Most of the familly obviously started out as such. Certainly the children, but I suspect even mummy was at some point a victim, although that is open to interpretation.

Mum & Dad is an exploitation movie, and not a very good one at that. Sure there's some humour thrown in, but any pretense to label this as a dark comedy or possessing lofty artistic merits is just false propaganda. The only people that will get a kick out of this will be the S&M crowd. They will love the mom character played by Dido Miles, who was in fact the only somewhat perversely arousing character in the movie.

mommy and daughter quality time

Murder and biscuits at tea time - Tony

RATING: ☺☺

Here is a portray of a serial killer that you won't soon forget. Tony, played by Peter Ferdinando, is a socially awkward loner living in London, who above everything else craves for company. He's meek and eager to please, but he's also a serial killer. In some ways, this reminded me a of 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer', with one distinct difference. In Tony, despite being disturbed by his actions, we can at some level empathize with the protagonist. There's character development present, which was basically absent in Henry.

'Tony' is more of a drama than an horror flick. There's a lot of blood, but it's basically a disturbing picture of a very sad individual. The scary part is that we're not too far from him. We want the same things that he does, and there's certainly a lot of anger issues boiling underneath our socially acceptable façade, that are just waiting to be released. That's the main appeal of the movie. If you're looking for a typical horror fest, keep looking elsewhere.

The movie is short, falling under 80 minutes, but it doesn't feel that way. Good movie, but I'm not sure I would watch it a second time.

Great music score by The The.

Last Night

RATING: ☺☺

Last Night is a well shot, mature, sensible tale of romance, marriage, fidelity and temptation. Joanna (Keira Knightley) and Michael (Sam Worthington) are a married couple. Their relationship will face a trial during Michael's business trip out of town, when both will be tempted astray by new and old flames in their individual lives. For Michael in the person of attractive co-worker played by Eva Mendes, while Joanna is visited by an old passion (Guillaume Canet). Is their bond strong enough to resist it? And if not, is it strong enough to survive it?

For most of its length, the action is split into two segments running parallel one night: Knightley/Canet and Worthington/Mendes, and here lies the problem with the movie. The Knightley/Canet segment is much stronger than the other, which translates into only half the movie working as it was meant to. I have litlle doubt the filmmakers could have excised most of the Worthington/Mendes story, and 'Last Night' would have been a stronger movie as a result. Why did this happen? I'm not sure the script is blameless regarding favoring one segment of the story over the other, but I can certainly say the actors performance had a great deal to do with it. Some movie critics and theorists will tell you actors have or should have a minor input in the creative process of a movie. I never agreed with them. An actor, with something as simple and small as a gesture, a look, a spoken line, can add layers upon layers of emotional impact. They contribute with stuff that simply cannot be written in a script. The chemistry and interaction shown in the Knightley/Canet work completely pulled me into their story, and I was engaged in the complex and difficult decision Knightley's character has to make. All this was mostly absent in the other segment.

This was the directorial debut of Massy Tadjedin, based on a script of her own. The unbalance I spoke of, was possibly the result of her inexperience, but she looks promising. 'Last Night' was almost a keeper. It still is if you fast forward most of the Worthington scenes.

One more thing. Keira, you need to feed and put some flesh over those skinny ass bones. I'm worried honey.
Also, another good Clint Mansell score.

Gnomeo & Juliet

RATING: ☺

The most important thing you need to know about Gnomeo & Juliet is that it was made exclusively for small children. Just because there's been a lot of computer animated features that appeal to young and old alike, this isn't one of those times. Don't let the look, theme and high production values fool you. This movie shares a trait with the garden gnomes characters populating it's fantasy world - it's tacky.

Unless you're six years old, for whom bright colors in motion are the pinnacle of filmmaking prowess, there's nothing here for you in this watered down Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet. If you're a parent taking your kids to watch an animated feature film, that you think you might enjoy as well without admitting it, brace yourself for a disappointment. Your kids will probably love it though. As for me, despite the vibrant red and blue hues of the two gnome factions, it all looked kind of grey.

As a final note, I disliked the musical choices made. Most of the time they stand out in the worst way. Elton John, who was also a producer of the film, apparently crammed in as many of his songs as he could. It's like an Elton John back catalog. Excessive, inadequate and not cool.

17 Again

RATING: ☺☺

Speaking of Zac Efron, here's another push to his acting career, this time not as successful movie as the one in my last post. The biggest problem with 17 Again is that we've already seen this story before, four or five times, and they were done better. A guy whose life didn't quite turn out how he wanted it to and wishes he could go back and change it. How many times have you seen this in movies now? In order to make it work, you need something new, something to make it stand from what was done before it. Unfortunately, There's nothing new or original brought in to the basic premise.

The only element that peaked my curiosity during the movie was the subplot ongoing seduction of the school principle (Melora Hardin) by his best friend character Ned (Thomas Lennon). It was mildly amusing, especially if you're a sci-fi geek like me. Otherwise, there's nothing here that will last very long in your memory. Even the presence of that uber babe Michelle Trachtenberg is not enough to motivate me to a second viewing. This is the kind of movie you might watch if you catch it on tv in one lazy afternoon, but nothing more.

Me and Orson Welles

RATING: ☺☺☺

The main obstacle for this movie to overcome in its search of sucess is the lead actor. There's nothing wrong with Zac Efron's performance in this, but to be fair I almost dismissed Me and Orson Welles as just another vehicle to further the cinematic career of someone who is perceived as nothing more than a pretty boy. I suspect many will dismiss it as well. Then I noticed this was a Richard Linklater movie. You've heard of him right? There's no way this would suck. At the very least it would be entertaining. Wrong. It's much better than that. This little gem I never heard of before is simply one of the best movies about Orson Welles and the theater. Christian McKay is fantastic as Wells. This is truly his movie despite the story centered around two characters - his and Efron's. It's a fascinating portray of one of the most accomplished artists in recent history, and what it was like working with the man and the theater. There's not a weak link in the cast. Everyone is remarkable, but I have to point out Ben Chaplin. This guys has been consistently great in almost every work I've seen of him, and again here.

Give this film a shot. Quality stuff.