Showing posts with label This Makes No Sense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label This Makes No Sense. Show all posts
October 10, 2007
Jumpermericans Only
More on the trailer for Jumper (starring my boyfriend, Jamie Bell) in a bit but I found this thing on the official website incredibly amusing. Oxymoron fans rejoice! Click the image below if you can't quit read what it says.
October 9, 2007
Several Things I Don't Understand About America
Pottery Barn
Meatloaf
October 6, 2007
And Now For Something You've Probably Already Heard!
That new Britney Spears video clip? WOW! It. Is. Terrible. I... I am almost without any words, but naturally I can still articulate an insult.
Lazy, Boring, Unsexy and Pointless come to mind as apt adjectives. Britney does nothing in the entire video except walk around a pole. I think the walking was meant to be sexy, but it wasn't. Not to mention the outfit is fug-central. Where's the dancing? Or some form of spirit. I reckon they were going for a "Slave 4 U" vibe, but missed by about forty footy fields. And if Spears was trying to be a stripper or whatever then I don't think she quite has the job requirements.
The camera work appears to be trying for a cool arty effect but comes off as blurry and distracting. Constant switches between black and white and colour and then sepia(?) just make for a discombobulating effort.
Lastly I come to the most bizarre aspect of the video. And it's the blonde Britney. There are a couple of bits, including at the very start, where Britney isn't playing the dark-haired pole dancer but is a blonde-haired gal at the bar. I have no idea why. It's like they were outtakes from a discarded original video. They don't fit into the video in any way and when they are their she's just looking vacant.
It's a very confusing and very poor effort if you ask me, much akin to the "Song 4 Mutya" video. Not at all surprising, though. Still, the song is great.
Lazy, Boring, Unsexy and Pointless come to mind as apt adjectives. Britney does nothing in the entire video except walk around a pole. I think the walking was meant to be sexy, but it wasn't. Not to mention the outfit is fug-central. Where's the dancing? Or some form of spirit. I reckon they were going for a "Slave 4 U" vibe, but missed by about forty footy fields. And if Spears was trying to be a stripper or whatever then I don't think she quite has the job requirements.
The camera work appears to be trying for a cool arty effect but comes off as blurry and distracting. Constant switches between black and white and colour and then sepia(?) just make for a discombobulating effort.
Lastly I come to the most bizarre aspect of the video. And it's the blonde Britney. There are a couple of bits, including at the very start, where Britney isn't playing the dark-haired pole dancer but is a blonde-haired gal at the bar. I have no idea why. It's like they were outtakes from a discarded original video. They don't fit into the video in any way and when they are their she's just looking vacant.
It's a very confusing and very poor effort if you ask me, much akin to the "Song 4 Mutya" video. Not at all surprising, though. Still, the song is great.
September 20, 2007
Vin Diesel Hits New Low
Remember Vin Diesel? The owners of 21 Arms apparently do! Now, I haven't seen The Pacifier, or The Chronicles of Riddick, or A Man Apart, or that movie where he had a really bad wig, but I liked him in stuff like Pitch Black, The Fast and the Furious and even his small role in Saving Private Ryan (he was in it, remember?) but I can be pretty certain when I say he has reached a new low.I'm sure most of you guys know I write for a street press called Forte writing music reviews and such. Well, today, I was flicking through the latest edition and noticed the following advertisement. The following sad, sorry, desperate advertisement. So, naturally, I scanned it in and am posting it on my blog! Apologies for the dodgy scanning job, but whatever. Until you see Vin Diesel advertised in a newspaper and scan it for the world to see you can't complain.
He's appearing at a nightclub called 21 Arms (appropriate considering his arms are the size of 21 real people) for some random unknown reason - has he reverted back to his old job as a bouncer? But, the worst part of it all is that he isn't even appearing at a Melbourne (ya know, second largest city in Australia) nightclub. No siree. He's appearing at a nightclub in freakin' BALLARAT! The town that takes, effectively, five short minutes to drive through (if the traffic's light) and, from my knowledge - i've been there several times - it's only known features are Sovereign Hill and some flower show they hold there. Oh, and some thing called the Eureka Stockade happened there :P
Anyway. If you are, for whatever reason, a huge Vin Diesel fan (*crickets*) then by all means head on down to 21 Arms on October the 6th (omg seven days before my birthday!) and, er, boogie down(?) Otherwise, mock Vin Diesel for all he's worth. The 'Rat is so lucky.
September 2, 2007
Glenn reviews Electroma using images from the film
Well, I wouldn't exactly call it a "review" of Daft Punk's psuedo-silent (there are only songs, usually instrumentals, on the soundtrack) experimental (there isn't much going on at all) film Electroma so much as acknowledging how ridiculously absurd the movie is and proving it by showing you 40 (yes, FORTY!, I suffer for my work) pictures and writing commentary underneath that is neither enlightening or witty. Enjoy?
Er, there are spoilers in here so if you have any legitimate desire to see this (if you even can, it's a mere miracle that it's even available on DVD in Australia) perhaps you may not actually wish to view this entry. But, let's face it, Electroma's appeal isn't it's hard-hitting twist-laden plot, is it?
It opens with a car. It's very pretty.
Then the same car but from a different angle. Amazing.
It has a nice title card, which also features the first David Lynch reference (Lynch loves closeups of fire, and these appear throughout Electroma)
Inside the car. Thrilling, right?
Still inside the car but with a new view out the front window. It repeats this theme for several minutes so we'll skip ahead, shall me?
Exterior shots again. This is pretty much the entire opening passage of the movie. A road trip movie for the whole family... not quite. Where's Abigail Breslin?
More Lynchisms - close ups of road lane strips even though cars don't actually drive over the stripes.
This scene features Todd Gundren's "International Feel". The use of that song is as amazing as you can probably imagine it being. I think I saw Steve Carell hiding in the backseat.
Lynchism #3 - Man driving down the highway on a tractor. Except I'm pretty sure even David Lynch didn't dress old Richard Farnsworth in a Daft Punk robot helmet. OR DID HE?!? No. I'm pretty certain he didn't. Shame, really.
There's suspence! See, Daft Punk Robot #2 (#1 is the one that doesn't look like Gort from The Day The Earth Stood Still mated with an ATM) is looking out the window and looking back at him is...
...someone reading a newspaper! It's like The Hand That Rocks The Cradle it's so suspenceful!
I like to think that pregnent Daft Punk Robots give birth to a robot helmet and then a body with legs and arms just sprouts from it.
Weddings bring a tear to my eye, but those bridesrobot dresses are hideous.
It's comforting to know that robot communities are so accepting of obviously homosexual robots that they can freely wear studded leather jacket and pant ensembles without fear of being bashed by local thugs. I think I saw two guys wearing the same outfit at The Market* one time :/
They enter this black building. I'm fairly certain it's a bathhouse for gay men.
Okay, no it's not, apparently because now they're in this incredibly white room and I don't know what's going on.
They start to get cat vomit poured over them. It's hot!
Then they get appendages attached to them! Because being human means having a nose and mouth and eyes and ears and hair.
This girls obvious look of horror (can't you tell?) is because of...
THISHOLYJESUSFUCKINGCHRIST! These Daft Punk Robots need better plastic surgeons because nobody is gonna believe they're real humans, okay?!
The townspeople are aghast!
One kid drops his ice-cream and it's all very avant garde. Look how the shadows reflect the inner conflicts of robots who want to be humans.
Then they start to melt and Joan Rivers is terrified, no doubt.
In what is actually one of the most memorable sequences in the movie (suspiciously a sequence that most resembles a music video, too) they run around screaming and looking like fools.
The townspeople form a posse for, from my understanding, absolutely no reason. It's kind of cool.
Then it all goes avant garde again with the camera going on weird angles and out of focus. For a moment it feels like an M Night Shyamalan movie. "Look at me with my craaaaaazy camera angles!"
Coming up soon on Fox: Stars Without Make-Up followed by Botched Plastic Surgery and the Stars!
And now they're back to their good ol' familial faggy leather daddy selves. Aah, comfort zones.
Apparently there are monster truck tyres randomly strewn about the Californian desert.
At this point in the movie the Daft Punk Robots quite literally walk about the desert for 40 minutes. It's actually far more mesmerising than you can probably imagine.
Still walking, but from a different angle!!!!
For no real reason that I can assertain we get a five minute sequence of sand dunes. It's pretty like in The Lord of the Rings where they repeatedly showed all the snow-capped moutains of New Zealand.
In the best scene of the movie Daft Punk Robot #2 walks away from Daft Punk Robot #1 after Daft Punk Robot #1 presses a button on his back.
The Daft Punk Robot #2 explodes.
It's so awesome that they show it again!
And again!
If you happen to see this movie on DVD don't fear during this bit. I thought the DVD had frozen, but it turns out the robot just stands in the same place for five minutes. Thrilling.
ROBOT PORN!
Self-harm is not okay...
unless you're a Daft Punk Robot and it makes for an amazing final sequence. This is either really good visual effects or a great stuntman. Wow, this movie is actually more depressing than Babel. All it needs is Rinko Kikuchi flashing her vagina and it'd be an Oscar contender!
In conclusion, despite what you may sense as sarcasm (okay, a lot of it is), I did really enjoy Daft Punk's Electroma (even though the Daft Punk Robots aren't played by Daft Punk, they did write, direct and photograph it themselves). Despite it quite literally being a video clip extended to 74 minutes and there being zero dialogue (this is the second "silent" film of 2007 after Dr Plonk. how strange) amd half the movie being just like Gus Van Sant's Gerry. I was always intrigued and fascinated as to what I was looking at and I never once felt like I was going to fall asleep like I did during the quite decent Gerry. My mind keeps drifting back to Electroma days after experiencing it (I prefer to use that word than "watching" because it is more of an experience than a narrative-driven feature film). That final scene was amazing. B+
*The Market is a gay club in Melbourne.
It opens with a car. It's very pretty.
Then the same car but from a different angle. Amazing.
It has a nice title card, which also features the first David Lynch reference (Lynch loves closeups of fire, and these appear throughout Electroma)
Inside the car. Thrilling, right?
Still inside the car but with a new view out the front window. It repeats this theme for several minutes so we'll skip ahead, shall me?
Exterior shots again. This is pretty much the entire opening passage of the movie. A road trip movie for the whole family... not quite. Where's Abigail Breslin?
More Lynchisms - close ups of road lane strips even though cars don't actually drive over the stripes.
This scene features Todd Gundren's "International Feel". The use of that song is as amazing as you can probably imagine it being. I think I saw Steve Carell hiding in the backseat.
Lynchism #3 - Man driving down the highway on a tractor. Except I'm pretty sure even David Lynch didn't dress old Richard Farnsworth in a Daft Punk robot helmet. OR DID HE?!? No. I'm pretty certain he didn't. Shame, really.
There's suspence! See, Daft Punk Robot #2 (#1 is the one that doesn't look like Gort from The Day The Earth Stood Still mated with an ATM) is looking out the window and looking back at him is...
...someone reading a newspaper! It's like The Hand That Rocks The Cradle it's so suspenceful!
I like to think that pregnent Daft Punk Robots give birth to a robot helmet and then a body with legs and arms just sprouts from it.
Weddings bring a tear to my eye, but those bridesrobot dresses are hideous.
It's comforting to know that robot communities are so accepting of obviously homosexual robots that they can freely wear studded leather jacket and pant ensembles without fear of being bashed by local thugs. I think I saw two guys wearing the same outfit at The Market* one time :/
They enter this black building. I'm fairly certain it's a bathhouse for gay men.
Okay, no it's not, apparently because now they're in this incredibly white room and I don't know what's going on.
They start to get cat vomit poured over them. It's hot!
Then they get appendages attached to them! Because being human means having a nose and mouth and eyes and ears and hair.
This girls obvious look of horror (can't you tell?) is because of...
THISHOLYJESUSFUCKINGCHRIST! These Daft Punk Robots need better plastic surgeons because nobody is gonna believe they're real humans, okay?!
The townspeople are aghast!
One kid drops his ice-cream and it's all very avant garde. Look how the shadows reflect the inner conflicts of robots who want to be humans.
Then they start to melt and Joan Rivers is terrified, no doubt.
In what is actually one of the most memorable sequences in the movie (suspiciously a sequence that most resembles a music video, too) they run around screaming and looking like fools.
The townspeople form a posse for, from my understanding, absolutely no reason. It's kind of cool.
Then it all goes avant garde again with the camera going on weird angles and out of focus. For a moment it feels like an M Night Shyamalan movie. "Look at me with my craaaaaazy camera angles!"
Coming up soon on Fox: Stars Without Make-Up followed by Botched Plastic Surgery and the Stars!
And now they're back to their good ol' familial faggy leather daddy selves. Aah, comfort zones.
Apparently there are monster truck tyres randomly strewn about the Californian desert.
At this point in the movie the Daft Punk Robots quite literally walk about the desert for 40 minutes. It's actually far more mesmerising than you can probably imagine.
Still walking, but from a different angle!!!!
For no real reason that I can assertain we get a five minute sequence of sand dunes. It's pretty like in The Lord of the Rings where they repeatedly showed all the snow-capped moutains of New Zealand.
In the best scene of the movie Daft Punk Robot #2 walks away from Daft Punk Robot #1 after Daft Punk Robot #1 presses a button on his back.
The Daft Punk Robot #2 explodes.
It's so awesome that they show it again!
And again!
If you happen to see this movie on DVD don't fear during this bit. I thought the DVD had frozen, but it turns out the robot just stands in the same place for five minutes. Thrilling.
ROBOT PORN!
Self-harm is not okay...
unless you're a Daft Punk Robot and it makes for an amazing final sequence. This is either really good visual effects or a great stuntman. Wow, this movie is actually more depressing than Babel. All it needs is Rinko Kikuchi flashing her vagina and it'd be an Oscar contender!
In conclusion, despite what you may sense as sarcasm (okay, a lot of it is), I did really enjoy Daft Punk's Electroma (even though the Daft Punk Robots aren't played by Daft Punk, they did write, direct and photograph it themselves). Despite it quite literally being a video clip extended to 74 minutes and there being zero dialogue (this is the second "silent" film of 2007 after Dr Plonk. how strange) amd half the movie being just like Gus Van Sant's Gerry. I was always intrigued and fascinated as to what I was looking at and I never once felt like I was going to fall asleep like I did during the quite decent Gerry. My mind keeps drifting back to Electroma days after experiencing it (I prefer to use that word than "watching" because it is more of an experience than a narrative-driven feature film). That final scene was amazing. B+
*The Market is a gay club in Melbourne.
August 24, 2007
Funny Hah Hah...?
I watched Michael Haneke's Funny Games tonight and I felt like typing something down before I forgot about it, because I may not get a chance to do so tomorrow. I... I have major issues with it, which is sad because I so wanted to like it. I loved the opening sequence and the set up scenes were done well, but once the issue arrived it didn't leave until it, well, left.
My issue is to do with the villains. I didn't like them at all, but not in the "they're the bad guys, duh!" way. They made me feel unpleasant, and that's not something I want to feel in a movie. I can feel scared, nervous, tense, disturbed even (I would champion a film if it made me feel these things), but unpleasant isn't a feeling I enjoy having. It's a feeling when I don't want to watch the movie anymore. When no matter how good everything is (the acting or whatever) I just feel uncomfortable like I've got an itch under my skin and I ask myself "Why am I watching this?". I felt a really deep repulsion inside of me whenever these characters were on screen and it's a feeling that makes me sick to my stomach, quite frankly. Some people may find this trait in a movie to be a positive thing (especially in a movie such as Funny Games), I most certainly do not. I got this feeling during Romper Stomper. I got this feeling during Saw II. I got this feeling during The Last King of Scotland. And I got it during several other movies. I didn't find Funny Games scary, or tense, or nerve-racking or disturbing. I found it to be an unpleasant experience.
I'm sure Haneke had a reason for doing the things he did in this movie, but doesn't the idea of omnipotent villains sort of defeat the purpose of even making the movie in the first place? If the killers can simply reverse time to stop an attack against them then it renders the entire movie invalid and I feel cheated. Where's the payoff? I was reminded of recent French horror film Ils. That movie had a very bleak ending, but it was an ending that worked for the film. This end here just felt like a cheat, like I was being mocked for, GOSH, having the gaul to want a proper ending.
The scenes that did work were those without the villains (I can't be bothered finding out their names, quite frankly). The scenes after the incident (you'll know it if you've scene it) when the couple are alone in the house were tense and were scary. But then when the villains show back up and start, quite literally, reversing time it goes back to being an uncomfortable - and often silly - waste of time. What is the point of this movie? That filmmakers are manipulaters? Fiction is morphing into reality? By golly, that's a new one!
I will be interested to see how Haneke handles the reigns on the American remake (I will be interested on DVD, mind) to star Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Skeevy McSkeeve Michael Pitt (who, purely by his similarity to the actor, I assume is playing the role of "Fatty"?) Speaking of Haneke, I must say I've been disappointed by him. The first of his films I ever saw was Hidden and I liked it a lot, but each film of his from his back catalogue that I have seen has disappointed. This, Code Unknown, The Piano Teacher (outside of Isabelle Huppert's performance) and Time of the Wolf was so boring I turned it off after 40 minutes. Am I just missing something or can someone help nudge me in the right line of thinking? C-
It was nice to see Ulrich Muhe though!
My issue is to do with the villains. I didn't like them at all, but not in the "they're the bad guys, duh!" way. They made me feel unpleasant, and that's not something I want to feel in a movie. I can feel scared, nervous, tense, disturbed even (I would champion a film if it made me feel these things), but unpleasant isn't a feeling I enjoy having. It's a feeling when I don't want to watch the movie anymore. When no matter how good everything is (the acting or whatever) I just feel uncomfortable like I've got an itch under my skin and I ask myself "Why am I watching this?". I felt a really deep repulsion inside of me whenever these characters were on screen and it's a feeling that makes me sick to my stomach, quite frankly. Some people may find this trait in a movie to be a positive thing (especially in a movie such as Funny Games), I most certainly do not. I got this feeling during Romper Stomper. I got this feeling during Saw II. I got this feeling during The Last King of Scotland. And I got it during several other movies. I didn't find Funny Games scary, or tense, or nerve-racking or disturbing. I found it to be an unpleasant experience.
I'm sure Haneke had a reason for doing the things he did in this movie, but doesn't the idea of omnipotent villains sort of defeat the purpose of even making the movie in the first place? If the killers can simply reverse time to stop an attack against them then it renders the entire movie invalid and I feel cheated. Where's the payoff? I was reminded of recent French horror film Ils. That movie had a very bleak ending, but it was an ending that worked for the film. This end here just felt like a cheat, like I was being mocked for, GOSH, having the gaul to want a proper ending.
The scenes that did work were those without the villains (I can't be bothered finding out their names, quite frankly). The scenes after the incident (you'll know it if you've scene it) when the couple are alone in the house were tense and were scary. But then when the villains show back up and start, quite literally, reversing time it goes back to being an uncomfortable - and often silly - waste of time. What is the point of this movie? That filmmakers are manipulaters? Fiction is morphing into reality? By golly, that's a new one!
I will be interested to see how Haneke handles the reigns on the American remake (I will be interested on DVD, mind) to star Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and It was nice to see Ulrich Muhe though!
August 12, 2007
Glenn's MIFF Experience
Initial comments on all films including The Untouchable, Still Life, Bella, Ils, Syndromes and a Century, The Boss of It All, A Walk Into the Sea, Savage Grace, The Man From London, Control and so-brief-they-barely-exist comments on David Lynch's Inland Empire with more words to come when I feel like it/get the time.
A work in progress. Will be updated with my thoughts and opinions once I've seen each movie. As you can tell I had to change something from the original bookings. I forgot I was going away to the Grampions for a weekend so I had to dump Syndromes and a Century and the Aussie doco Night. I instead picked up a different session of Syndromes as well as another doco I wanted to see and completely forgot about (so it was quite fortuitous actually) called A Walk Into the Sea: Danny Williams and the Warhol Factory about, as you can probably guess, the Warhol Factory. It features what is said to be the first ever recorded performance by The Velvet Underground (probably my favourite band ever - edit: which turned out to be a lie!) so that should be tops! It all starts tomorrow with screenings of The Untouchable and a film I've wanted to see for a long time, Still Life. Can't wait!
The Untouchable (screening 27/07):
This was really terrible. I contemplated walking out so I could say "I had my first walk out ever!" (if you exlude me walking out of The Patriot to get a drink and just not returning for 20 minutes) but then I was all "Wait, I don't have anywhere to go until the next movie", and then I frowned and decided to stick it out through the entire labourious 85 minutes of this awful French flim-flam shlack. D
Still Life (screening 27/07):
And then there was this, which was like some beautiful filmic poem. At first I wasn't feeling it at all - too mannered, and the performances were awkward - but then something just clicked, especially towards the second act which was an elegaic beauty of sorts. The cinematography was superb and the music! And, yeah, it was very good, indeed - much better than that ridiculous French crap, that's for sure. B+.
The Witnesses (screening 28/07):
I liked it, even if it was a bit long and the final act wasn't anywhere as interesting as the first two. More later, perhaps. B-
Control (screening 11/08):
Thoroughly interesting biopic of Joy Division singer Ian Curtis. It was nice to see a music biopic that wasn't on a person everyone considers a legend and who lead the typical rock star life (which movies like Ray, Walk the Line and La Vie en Rose have all followed to a tee to varying degrees of failure). In fact, for the most part Curtis' life seems relatively quaint compared to the overly-hystrionic lives of Edith Piaf and co. The downfall of Curtis was depression and not drug addiction, like it so routinely is with these biopic subjects. It was also nice to see a biopic on a musician that I knew I liked, yet knew nothing about. It was great to hear the first strums of a guitar and wonder "Is it 'Transmission'? 'Love Will Tear Us Apart'? 'She's Out of Control'?" Speaking of which, the performance sequences are all done nicely, and they look great in the clean black and white. Performances are good, especially Samantha Morton as Curtis' wife. It's essentially just another Samantha Morton performance, but just another Samantha Morton performance is always welcomed. B
Bella (screening 05/08):
Bella really does owe a lot to Before Sunset, doesn't it? But then again, so does Once and I don't hear anyone complaining about that movie. Hmm. Anyway. I really enjoyed this movie. Sometimes it's nice to just sit down in a darkened theatre for an hour and a half and be in the company of people who are interesting and a worth spending time with but who aren't depressed or on drugs or who have no reason to live. You know what I mean? I really liked the texture and vibrancy of the opening sequences. I really liked the connection between the two leads (Eduardo Verástegui and Tammy Blanchard). I really liked how the story developed. I really liked how the ending was completely unexpected. I just really liked Bella. Although it slightly terrified me how scarily similar Blanchard looks like Hilary Swank! B+
Ils (screening 05/08):
Eep! This movie was quite scary. It was only 70 minutes long, but then if they had filled out the running time it would just be "character development" and who wants that? We don't know anything about the two lead characters (played by Olivia Bonamy and Michaël Cohen) other than she's a teacher and he's a writer. I guess that I still felt for these people as they're brutally terrorised despite not knowing anything about them should count for something. I think the reason I was so scared was because it was based in reality. I don't tend to find vampires and werewolves and the like very scary at all. But something like The Blair Witch Project? ABSOLUTELY FRIGHTENING! Anyway, it also helps that two days before viewing this film I had a very similar experience (just, ya know, without the possible outcome of death - I'll explain later! It's terrifying). Oh, yeah, the movie. Umm. It's scary. Oh, and the sound design was amazing (I know!). B
INLAND EMPIRE (screening 07/08):
Flimflamshmozzleboogiewoogieamazingpurplemonkeydishwasher. A-... I think.
Syndromes and a Century (screening 08/08):
I don't think I "got" this movie. Actually. No. Scrap that. I don't think I didn't "get" it, I know I didn't "get" it. And not in the way that I didn't "get" Inland Empire, which despite not making sense was at least still fascinating and amazing to watch. Apichatpong Weerasethakul's Syndromes of a Century however I just didn't "get" and didn't really enjoy, either. I was into it for a while, but then... I dunno. Just nothing. I didn't "get" why the story started all over again. I didn't "get" what these people were talking about beyond the rudimentary. I didn't "get" what all the symbology was about. I dunno. It was weird and I nearly fell asleep (fourth film in 24 hours!) The cinematography and music was nice. C+
The Boss of it All (screening 10/08):
Lars Von Trier's attempt at a comedy is surprisingly good. It is essentially an episode of The Office set in Denmark and expanded to 100 minutes, but that can still be entertaining! I enjoyed seeing Von Trier regular Jens Albinus (Idioterne) as well as Mia Lhyne and Iben Hjejle. And while she didn't really do much I loved Louise Mieritz's character who works in the copy room but is afraid of the photocopier. Funny stuff. And, naturally, Von Trier inserts his own wicked sense of humour into the side proceedings. Overall it was an enjoyable time, which was only sullied by the unfortunate subtitles. This is a very white movie - there are white walls, while skies, white floors, white everything and they use... white subtitles. It made it very hard to read sometimes (it also didn't help that I had a big head in the way to the left of the screen and I had to keep moving my head around to see what they were saying!) B
A Walk Into the Sea: Danny Williams and the Warhol Factory (screening 10/08):
Damn! This could have been so much better. Alas, as it is, it gets by due to the strength of it's topic. This documentary by the niece of oft-forgotten Warhol Factory regular Danny Williams who mysterious disappeared without a trace. It features some amazing never-before-seen footage of the Factory taken by Williams as well as film clips. It even includes a rare short directed by Williams entitled The Factory, which uses Williams' trademark strobing and hectic editing (one talking head says that Williams would have been "happier than a shit eating pig" with todays use of rapid-fire editing).
Unfortunately director Esther Robinson chooses to film the movie in a very bizarre manner. Closeups are routinely out of focus, simple moments - for example, the viewing of a newspaper clipping - are used for more focus pulling and shaky camera movements (so much so that we can't even see what we're meant to be looking at). At one point the camera even veers away from a person talking and focuses on the wall for several seconds. It's as if director of photography Adam Cohen wasn't even there. And in all the old footage taken from Warhol's famous Factory, we never know who is who because they aren't labelled. That Brigid Berlin sure is a character though, isn't she? C+
Savage Grace (screening 12/08):
Hahah! This movie is utterly bonkers. It's not getting anywhere near the Oscars though, which is a shame for Julianne Moore because it's wonderfully entertaining here as an incestuous mother. The film does have major flaws though, particularly when it comes to said incest storyline. There are hints throughout that lead to how it comes about, but the sexuality of all of it's characters is incredibly confused so when it comes around the the scenes in question it hasn't really been explained as to why it's happening. Everybody in this movie must be bisexual, that's my theory. B-
The Man From London (screening 12/08):
Oh dear, this was painful. Firstly though, the cinematography in Bela Tarr's film noir of sorts is amazing, as is the sound design, which is all crashing waves and haunting sound effects. The music score sounds like some long lost collaboration between Angelo Badalamenti and David Lynch, which is a good thing.
...but.
There's not necessarily always a "but" as they say, but there most definitely is in the case of The Man From London. This film is painful. It really is. It is in swift need of an editor (it's only 2 hours and 10 minutes, but it feels like 20) to cut down all the extraneous scenes. Actually, if they did that there'd be no movie because it has no plot. There is a vague form of a plot, but it's a subplot - and barely - and the rest of the movie is just filled with characters, quite literally, staring and stuff. Occasionally they walk somewhere. Sometimes they move from left to right, but that's about it. There's next to no dialogue in the entire first 30 minutes. There are scenes that last five minutes of characters walking somewhere and we don't even get to see where they're going! We just see them walking and that's it. No point whatsoever. Frustrating! And Tilda Swinton is incredibly bizarre. It's like she's in one of those poorly dubbed Asian kung-fu movies. Her lips are moving but it appears that she's been dubbed (the dialogue isn't in English), which makes me wonder why they cast Swinton in the first place if she can't speak the language. And furthermore, if she can speak the language why not let the dialogue soundtrack reflect that? And why were all the actors delayed? I swear there was a chasm of empty space between each line of dialogue. Ugh. This movie was terrible. D+ (for the photography and music).
A work in progress. Will be updated with my thoughts and opinions once I've seen each movie. As you can tell I had to change something from the original bookings. I forgot I was going away to the Grampions for a weekend so I had to dump Syndromes and a Century and the Aussie doco Night. I instead picked up a different session of Syndromes as well as another doco I wanted to see and completely forgot about (so it was quite fortuitous actually) called A Walk Into the Sea: Danny Williams and the Warhol Factory about, as you can probably guess, the Warhol Factory. It features what is said to be the first ever recorded performance by The Velvet Underground (probably my favourite band ever - edit: which turned out to be a lie!) so that should be tops! It all starts tomorrow with screenings of The Untouchable and a film I've wanted to see for a long time, Still Life. Can't wait!
This was really terrible. I contemplated walking out so I could say "I had my first walk out ever!" (if you exlude me walking out of The Patriot to get a drink and just not returning for 20 minutes) but then I was all "Wait, I don't have anywhere to go until the next movie", and then I frowned and decided to stick it out through the entire labourious 85 minutes of this awful French flim-flam shlack. D
Still Life (screening 27/07):
And then there was this, which was like some beautiful filmic poem. At first I wasn't feeling it at all - too mannered, and the performances were awkward - but then something just clicked, especially towards the second act which was an elegaic beauty of sorts. The cinematography was superb and the music! And, yeah, it was very good, indeed - much better than that ridiculous French crap, that's for sure. B+.
I liked it, even if it was a bit long and the final act wasn't anywhere as interesting as the first two. More later, perhaps. B-
Control (screening 11/08):
Thoroughly interesting biopic of Joy Division singer Ian Curtis. It was nice to see a music biopic that wasn't on a person everyone considers a legend and who lead the typical rock star life (which movies like Ray, Walk the Line and La Vie en Rose have all followed to a tee to varying degrees of failure). In fact, for the most part Curtis' life seems relatively quaint compared to the overly-hystrionic lives of Edith Piaf and co. The downfall of Curtis was depression and not drug addiction, like it so routinely is with these biopic subjects. It was also nice to see a biopic on a musician that I knew I liked, yet knew nothing about. It was great to hear the first strums of a guitar and wonder "Is it 'Transmission'? 'Love Will Tear Us Apart'? 'She's Out of Control'?" Speaking of which, the performance sequences are all done nicely, and they look great in the clean black and white. Performances are good, especially Samantha Morton as Curtis' wife. It's essentially just another Samantha Morton performance, but just another Samantha Morton performance is always welcomed. B
Bella really does owe a lot to Before Sunset, doesn't it? But then again, so does Once and I don't hear anyone complaining about that movie. Hmm. Anyway. I really enjoyed this movie. Sometimes it's nice to just sit down in a darkened theatre for an hour and a half and be in the company of people who are interesting and a worth spending time with but who aren't depressed or on drugs or who have no reason to live. You know what I mean? I really liked the texture and vibrancy of the opening sequences. I really liked the connection between the two leads (Eduardo Verástegui and Tammy Blanchard). I really liked how the story developed. I really liked how the ending was completely unexpected. I just really liked Bella. Although it slightly terrified me how scarily similar Blanchard looks like Hilary Swank! B+
Ils (screening 05/08):
Eep! This movie was quite scary. It was only 70 minutes long, but then if they had filled out the running time it would just be "character development" and who wants that? We don't know anything about the two lead characters (played by Olivia Bonamy and Michaël Cohen) other than she's a teacher and he's a writer. I guess that I still felt for these people as they're brutally terrorised despite not knowing anything about them should count for something. I think the reason I was so scared was because it was based in reality. I don't tend to find vampires and werewolves and the like very scary at all. But something like The Blair Witch Project? ABSOLUTELY FRIGHTENING! Anyway, it also helps that two days before viewing this film I had a very similar experience (just, ya know, without the possible outcome of death - I'll explain later! It's terrifying). Oh, yeah, the movie. Umm. It's scary. Oh, and the sound design was amazing (I know!). B
Flimflamshmozzleboogiewoogieamazingpurplemonkeydishwasher. A-... I think.
Syndromes and a Century (screening 08/08):
I don't think I "got" this movie. Actually. No. Scrap that. I don't think I didn't "get" it, I know I didn't "get" it. And not in the way that I didn't "get" Inland Empire, which despite not making sense was at least still fascinating and amazing to watch. Apichatpong Weerasethakul's Syndromes of a Century however I just didn't "get" and didn't really enjoy, either. I was into it for a while, but then... I dunno. Just nothing. I didn't "get" why the story started all over again. I didn't "get" what these people were talking about beyond the rudimentary. I didn't "get" what all the symbology was about. I dunno. It was weird and I nearly fell asleep (fourth film in 24 hours!) The cinematography and music was nice. C+
Lars Von Trier's attempt at a comedy is surprisingly good. It is essentially an episode of The Office set in Denmark and expanded to 100 minutes, but that can still be entertaining! I enjoyed seeing Von Trier regular Jens Albinus (Idioterne) as well as Mia Lhyne and Iben Hjejle. And while she didn't really do much I loved Louise Mieritz's character who works in the copy room but is afraid of the photocopier. Funny stuff. And, naturally, Von Trier inserts his own wicked sense of humour into the side proceedings. Overall it was an enjoyable time, which was only sullied by the unfortunate subtitles. This is a very white movie - there are white walls, while skies, white floors, white everything and they use... white subtitles. It made it very hard to read sometimes (it also didn't help that I had a big head in the way to the left of the screen and I had to keep moving my head around to see what they were saying!) B
A Walk Into the Sea: Danny Williams and the Warhol Factory (screening 10/08):
Damn! This could have been so much better. Alas, as it is, it gets by due to the strength of it's topic. This documentary by the niece of oft-forgotten Warhol Factory regular Danny Williams who mysterious disappeared without a trace. It features some amazing never-before-seen footage of the Factory taken by Williams as well as film clips. It even includes a rare short directed by Williams entitled The Factory, which uses Williams' trademark strobing and hectic editing (one talking head says that Williams would have been "happier than a shit eating pig" with todays use of rapid-fire editing).
Unfortunately director Esther Robinson chooses to film the movie in a very bizarre manner. Closeups are routinely out of focus, simple moments - for example, the viewing of a newspaper clipping - are used for more focus pulling and shaky camera movements (so much so that we can't even see what we're meant to be looking at). At one point the camera even veers away from a person talking and focuses on the wall for several seconds. It's as if director of photography Adam Cohen wasn't even there. And in all the old footage taken from Warhol's famous Factory, we never know who is who because they aren't labelled. That Brigid Berlin sure is a character though, isn't she? C+
Hahah! This movie is utterly bonkers. It's not getting anywhere near the Oscars though, which is a shame for Julianne Moore because it's wonderfully entertaining here as an incestuous mother. The film does have major flaws though, particularly when it comes to said incest storyline. There are hints throughout that lead to how it comes about, but the sexuality of all of it's characters is incredibly confused so when it comes around the the scenes in question it hasn't really been explained as to why it's happening. Everybody in this movie must be bisexual, that's my theory. B-
The Man From London (screening 12/08):
Oh dear, this was painful. Firstly though, the cinematography in Bela Tarr's film noir of sorts is amazing, as is the sound design, which is all crashing waves and haunting sound effects. The music score sounds like some long lost collaboration between Angelo Badalamenti and David Lynch, which is a good thing.
...but.
There's not necessarily always a "but" as they say, but there most definitely is in the case of The Man From London. This film is painful. It really is. It is in swift need of an editor (it's only 2 hours and 10 minutes, but it feels like 20) to cut down all the extraneous scenes. Actually, if they did that there'd be no movie because it has no plot. There is a vague form of a plot, but it's a subplot - and barely - and the rest of the movie is just filled with characters, quite literally, staring and stuff. Occasionally they walk somewhere. Sometimes they move from left to right, but that's about it. There's next to no dialogue in the entire first 30 minutes. There are scenes that last five minutes of characters walking somewhere and we don't even get to see where they're going! We just see them walking and that's it. No point whatsoever. Frustrating! And Tilda Swinton is incredibly bizarre. It's like she's in one of those poorly dubbed Asian kung-fu movies. Her lips are moving but it appears that she's been dubbed (the dialogue isn't in English), which makes me wonder why they cast Swinton in the first place if she can't speak the language. And furthermore, if she can speak the language why not let the dialogue soundtrack reflect that? And why were all the actors delayed? I swear there was a chasm of empty space between each line of dialogue. Ugh. This movie was terrible. D+ (for the photography and music).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
