Films I Watched - January, 2007
Submitted by lbangs on Thu, 01/04/2007 - 12:54
Tags:
- 1/28 - Ice Age: The Meltdown - The prehistoric crew returns. You can predict the results are not nearly as fun as the first time around. The comedy is more meager, and the ninety minute running time feels padded, which should never be the case with a film that barely pass the hour-and-a-half feature film mark. Don’t misunderstand me; this isn’t a horrible movie or a pain to watch; it is simply an adequate waste of time. ** 1/2
- 1/27 - Pan’s Labyrinth - Here is a cinematic dream on the big screen, even if it is a nightmare. Guillermo del Toro blossoms from his early, often troubled, budding talent into a freakish force of imagination wise enough to skim the earth and to rein the power of reality to pull his phantasm of fancy. As reviewers and the studio have struggled to tell you, this is an adult fairy tale. Actually, this is an adult story that is granted glimpses into a child’s fairy tale, and as with Peter Jackson’s Heavenly Creatures, that difference is the key to this movie transcending slight dreams and tripping the border into the power of tragedy. A young girl is captured in the chaotic corpse of the Spanish Civil War, and when the world is too hideous to be reality, she finds a door into another one. She may escape, but the film never allows the viewer to do so. You will hardly believe what you’re seeing here, whether it is insects morphing into fairies or the cruelty of Sergi Lopez’ mad sadist. This film manages to capture both worlds with equally clear vision, and the results are magic and haunting. ****
- 1/27 - Dreamgirls - A film that pass the two-hour mark should never feel nearly as undeveloped and perfunctory as this does, especially if it is dealing with such terrific material as the birth of Detroit’s soundtrack to the early sixties. The songs suck, especially the early tunes which are all bad Broadway while striving for good Motown. The characters are each and every one stand-in symbols relying on the audience to fill in the script’s hungry gaps with what it know of real world celebrities, which is just lazy beyond excuse. The road does improve as you drive further - the scenes with the Jackson 5 knock-offs are the most convincing copies here - and the actors work what little material they have well enough, but there just isn’t nearly enough here to give any of these wax dummies breathe. The art design is successful, but you can’t recreate an era by sets, costumes, and hairstyles alone. The voices soar, though the tunes sink as stones. Heck, the entire show is so shallow as it strives for depth that it fails even as light, fluffy entertainment. Bill Condon knows how to massage the Academy’s erogenous zones, so here’s a salute for the fine folks of Hollywood not getting suckered this time around and stiffing this in the major categories. This ain’t worthy. **
- 1/27 - Blue Velvet - Look up a review for this film, and I bet your bottom dollar you’ll find the word disturbing in it somewhere. You’ll probably also find a simile likening it to a dream. Very early on, the camera pans about idyllic suburbia where firemen wave as they pass by on shiny trucks, captures a man collapsing while watering his perfect yard, and then dives beneath the dirt to discover a colony of ants living in their own vicious society. In terms of themes, the film has pretty much said it all at this point, but it would be a sin to shut off here, because the entire film says it again and again and again, all in that beautiful, frightening way that Lynch minted. I still stand by my assertion that Mulholland Dr. is the man’s masterpiece, but this nips at its heels. ****
- 1/25 - Curse of the Golden Flower - Zhang Yimou and the other screenwriters of this film pull an interesting trick here. They take material that could be nearly mistaken for the stuff of Greek dramas, filter it through the agnostic obsessions over duty and family examined by Confucius, and then drape it in the vibrant hues usually drenching the director’s creations. It is a bold idea that reads like an obsessed, unhinged fanboy’s fantasy on paper, but plays out as one of the best films of the year. You fluidly stalk the translucent halls of this poisonous palace as you pull on the various frayed fabrics that are quickly unraveling. Your eyes enjoy an orgasmic massage of pastels and floral tints while your mind pries open the tough shells of the characters to discover the rotting kernels within. The film was marketed as a martial arts extravaganza, but don’t be fooled; this is a tragedy, and a damn good one at that. ****
- 1/24 - Volver - Pedro does love those late Hitchcock films. Those swelling dramatic strings are the troubled waves that buoy his latest craft, and good thing; this is the smoothest sail Almodóvar has launched us on in quite some time, and while even his calm cruises (and Cruzs) are fun vacations from Hollywood’s often crass entertainments, this journey could use a few more shocking jars, jolts, and jostles. Maybe I’ve just seen too many movies, but I doubt most viewers will fail to figure out any attempted mysteries in this film well before the halfway mark. The performances are excellent, if not quite Oscar worthy, and the director still has a way with filling and decorating his frames (especially fun is the funeral scene that, seen from above, appears more like the fatal scene from a zombie flick). Still, this is nowhere near the masterpiece Talk to Her is; in fact, it is not really in the same class as any of his last three films. It isn’t a bad film, in fact it is a rather good watch, but the man has spoiled us over the last few years, and us brats can’t help be a little disappointed this isn’t quite the rocky, riotous ride Pedro usually hurls us through. ***
- 1/11 - Little Children - I am the only person in the world who was not very impressed with Todd Field's directing debut, In the Bedroom. While he makes some interesting visual choices and is wise enough to allow the intimate dramatic scenes ample room and time to develop, he flubbed the ending, partly because he felt the need to attach more of one to the film than the narrative demanded or even wanted. His second effort is no different. He has a great cast here, and I especially enjoyed Kate Winslet, Patrick Wilson, and possible Oscar nominee Jackie Earle Haley. Scenes that focus on revealing nuances of these characters are too often banal and lacking in any subtlety, but the performances make these weaknesses fairly forgivable. That ending, though, is a tacky tattoo, obvious where it believe itself clever and cliched where it thinks itself unique. It belongs on the end of an episode of Grey's Anatomy more than it does here. It isn't symptomatic of the entire film, but it is the full flowering of problems that ferment under the surface throughout the entire running time. Those performances and some moments that actually achieve what Field is aiming for save the movie, but they can't quite lift it to anything approaching greatness. ***
- 1/7 - Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple - In our current glut of documentaries, too many films coast on powerful subjects and neglect crafting the riveting material in any real sense or with any skill. This feature from Stanley Nelson combines years of research and scads of revealing interviews and archival audio and video to present an incredible, compelling, and ultimately tragic vision of a mad man who had a vision which intoxicated many with its interracial message of love but ultimately lead to horrid death and destruction. The narrative is woven together so skillfully from many threads that it is easy to overlook just how well the creators stitched this account together. Utopia melts down into disaster, and you see every second of the grisly story unfold in depressing detail. *** 1/2
- 1/5 - Children of Men - Wow, despite his impressive earlier films, helming the charming A Little Princess over a decade ago, scoring an international hit with Y Tu Mamá También, and filing the best entry in the lucrative Harry Potter series, Alfonso Cuarón catapults to the leading edge of the world's best directors with Children of Men, a science fiction film that walks through tomorrow with long single-take tracking shots that are among some of cinema's greatest uncut takes. A car chase barrels by realistically without a single edit, buildings are entered and left while bullets blaze by and the camera never blinks. It is a tour de force for this director, only amplified by the fine script and terrific performances, especially the lead, Clive Owens, whose viewpoint we share and who (I believe) is in every scene of the film. It is two decades from now and eighteen years since the last human baby was born, and a revolutionary-turned-government-cog receives a baffling, dangerous request from his ex-wife. The symbolism is a little heavy-handed, but this is the lone fault in a film that is easily one of the best of the decade. See this. Now. ****
- 1/1 - Sweet Land - What a weird work this one is. The opening minutes are experimental enough in their time-shifting to lose some audience, but this then leads into a flashback story that plays traditional enough nearly to lift a scene from It's a Wonderful Life whole! A few moments are so obvious and sweet, they rankle, but then moments (such as capturing the mystical magic in a loved one's eyes) scatter beautiful brilliance. It is always problematic trying to "make one like they used to," and while this film has all those problems on full display, it also manages to connect with the viewer and prick the emotions despite the flaws. The excellent performances don't hurt, and Elizabeth Reaser, with her skill and her appearance not unlike a young Julia Roberts, is certainly an actress to watch. The traditional values laced throughout the main story will endear this feature to many and no doubt catapult it to sleeper status, pulling small crowds in by word of mouth. Luckily, while the troubles in this movie are real and damaging, Sweet Land still proves a much more powerful and effective arthouse-lite hit than The Illusionist, and the moving moments ultimately have more wallop than the weaker ones. ***
Author Comments:
All ratings are on a four-star system.
I will try to be better about keeping this current than I was last year! I still owe everybody a review of The Prestige, among other films...
I thought Children of Men was great, too. The folks I went with found it depressing.
I'm going to queue Sweet Land on your recommendation.
I was already planning to see Jonestown.
I think Children of Men is somewhat depressing, but considering how terrific it is, I still highly recommend it. I was floored, and I'm glad you liked it also.
Jonestown, however, is very depressing - how could it be truthful and not be? - but an excellent film. Odd; my favorite documentaries of 2006 take entirely different approaches. Jonestown takes the more respected "invisible creator" approach, while in This Film Is Not Yet Rated, the director is a major character in the film...
Sweet Land actually made my local paper's top ten of the year list. I think that far overstates the case. I liked it, but it comes very close to be a ** 1/2 film for me. Certain moments, though, are amazing...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I think the doc technique depends on the subject. Unless a Jonestown survivor made the doc, I don't see how you could justify the filmmaker inserting himself in that one. Stevie is a good example of a film seeming to be about the subject, but instead, it's about the filmmaker's search for redemption. I think Sherman's March is an example of how a filmmaker can transform (ruin?) a documentary by injecting too much of himself.
I prefer documentaries which have invisible filmmakers, because that makes them seem more objective and therefore, more credible. I suggest less self-aggrandizement, and more coverage of the issues. Let us return to the days of boring experts in black and white PBS documentaries, and eschew mass-appealing propaganda.
I think both can work, and to some degree, I wonder if the visible creator isn't at least a little more honest, making the author and his or her interests/slant at least a little more obvious.
On the other hand, I love the style you describe, and even if complete objectivity may be impossible, I wish more people would try for that goal. I think I would crave documentaries like this more if I considered film as a major source of my important information, but I tend to look other places for that.
Thank you for your comments. I'll have to think on this more; maybe I have a leaning toward one style and just do not realize it yet!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I prefer documentaries as journalism, rather than self-expression. Think Eyes on the Prize. What if the only records of the Civil Rights movement were scholarly journals, newspaper articles, and books? You wouldn't have the voices, the music, the images of people being fire-hosed by the police or girls being escorted into school.
I can certainly respect that preference, and I do love those types of nonfiction.
I might be more particular if we weren't so soaked in docs nowadays... :)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Children of Men seems to be the movie of 2006 within listology community. it was released here in UK back in september and i saw it at cinema with few buddys of mine. enjoyed it, though i was let down by ending, i wanted more really, thats all, so in that respect it worked, it made me care for the characters
I tend to think Universal blew the marketing of this film majorly. Nearly every viewer of the film I know loves the movie, and I think it might have proved an Oscar contender with a little hype from its friends.
It reminds me a bit of Twentieth Century Fox pulling Borat out of most of the theaters a few days before release because it suddenly feared the film would bomb. Whoops!
I love the film. From what I've seen so far, I'd easily give it the Oscar for film and director. In fact, I'm trying to figure out exactly where it fits on my Best of the Decade list...
I'm thrilled the community seems to like the film about as much as I do!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Wow, I'm very happy to hear Curse of the Golden Flower is so good! I have to admit, after the disappointment of House of Flying Daggers (and I know I was more disappointed than you were) I had pretty serious misgivings about Zhang going back to this particular well a third time. My hope is restored!
It was funny; my expectations for the film and Volver seem to be switched from the actual results - I liked Curse as much as I expected to like Pedro's film and vice versa!
You should definitely give it a watch. It is miles ahead of Daggers and - Dare I say it? - might be better than Hero...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs