Sometimes, I fall in love with movies as a result of the films they remind me of and not because of any inherent brilliance in the movie at hand. Take Northfork for instance, which calls to mind (for me) Wings of Desire, the Straight Story, moments of Bunuel, and Godardian dialogue. In other words, the film reminds me of moments (or entire films) that have great meaning for me.
The imagery is certainly derived from Dali and Bunuel and the characters have a Lynchian appeal. The angels are straight Wenders, sort of, and "What you talking about Willis?" reminds me the advice in Pierrot to "Put a tiger in your tank," though referring to Diff'rent Strokes seems an ironic (and none to subtle jab) in the audience's side and not the satiric barb Godard meant by quoting an Exxon commercial.
The story involves G-men sent straight from American International Pictures lot of the 1940s to a Montana wasteland to evacuate stragglers in the soon-to-be submerged town of Northfork. It's intercut with the possible fever-dreams of a terminally ill child that play host to a series of adventures involving despondent angels. The plot is elliptical and symbolic and full of esoteric turns of phrase. It's pretentious and reminds me of a movie I wrote during my freshman year of college influenced, as I was, by European existentialism and Beckett. It's not a terrible thing and is, in fact, refreshing in a way, but it is an obvious attempt at artistry that wears its influences like badges. With some more time and maturity, the Polish brothers, who wrote and directed this film, will create something of startling originality I am sure.
Anyway, but back to my first point: I loved this film the first time I watched it, as it is gorgeous to look at (nice staging and wonderful cinematography), and I was reminded of some of my favorite movies. However, the second time around, I found it annoying. Here was this gorgeous looking movie fraught with some real emotion (the abandoned, dying child) and brimming with sublime performances (neither Nolte nor Woods have had parts this great in years), and the Polish brothers had to go and mar it all with their irony and quirkiness. It reminded me, in a way, of a Lynch film infused with the whimsy and winking of a Wes Anderson film. It left a bad taste in my mouth, in other words.
Does this review sound overly negative? It shouldn't; there is a lot to admire about this film and a lot to despise. It's not a masterpiece but it shows some talent and points to the fact that these Polish boys might make something of themselves one day. It is pretentious and confusing (in the worst way possibly--its confounding nature apparently lacks a point), but it is immensely enchanting. The lyrical beauty of the cinematography and the languid style of storytelling lull you into a hypnotized state from which you don't arise until the film's end. That's quite an accomplishment. Now, if only the Polishes could move beyond sophomoric attempts at humor (really, the Diff'rent Strokes reference is just silly and not particularly witty).
The imagery is certainly derived from Dali and Bunuel and the characters have a Lynchian appeal. The angels are straight Wenders, sort of, and "What you talking about Willis?" reminds me the advice in Pierrot to "Put a tiger in your tank," though referring to Diff'rent Strokes seems an ironic (and none to subtle jab) in the audience's side and not the satiric barb Godard meant by quoting an Exxon commercial.
The story involves G-men sent straight from American International Pictures lot of the 1940s to a Montana wasteland to evacuate stragglers in the soon-to-be submerged town of Northfork. It's intercut with the possible fever-dreams of a terminally ill child that play host to a series of adventures involving despondent angels. The plot is elliptical and symbolic and full of esoteric turns of phrase. It's pretentious and reminds me of a movie I wrote during my freshman year of college influenced, as I was, by European existentialism and Beckett. It's not a terrible thing and is, in fact, refreshing in a way, but it is an obvious attempt at artistry that wears its influences like badges. With some more time and maturity, the Polish brothers, who wrote and directed this film, will create something of startling originality I am sure.
Anyway, but back to my first point: I loved this film the first time I watched it, as it is gorgeous to look at (nice staging and wonderful cinematography), and I was reminded of some of my favorite movies. However, the second time around, I found it annoying. Here was this gorgeous looking movie fraught with some real emotion (the abandoned, dying child) and brimming with sublime performances (neither Nolte nor Woods have had parts this great in years), and the Polish brothers had to go and mar it all with their irony and quirkiness. It reminded me, in a way, of a Lynch film infused with the whimsy and winking of a Wes Anderson film. It left a bad taste in my mouth, in other words.
Does this review sound overly negative? It shouldn't; there is a lot to admire about this film and a lot to despise. It's not a masterpiece but it shows some talent and points to the fact that these Polish boys might make something of themselves one day. It is pretentious and confusing (in the worst way possibly--its confounding nature apparently lacks a point), but it is immensely enchanting. The lyrical beauty of the cinematography and the languid style of storytelling lull you into a hypnotized state from which you don't arise until the film's end. That's quite an accomplishment. Now, if only the Polishes could move beyond sophomoric attempts at humor (really, the Diff'rent Strokes reference is just silly and not particularly witty).