Change Your Image
Gregonar
Reviews
Dating in LA (2007)
Okay, it's not a masterpiece but...
It's with Sean Young, who looks amazing for 50. There isn't much of a plot, and it doesn't help that it's so short a film.
However, as a Blade Runner fan...
It's too bad she didn't coax Ridley Scott to do something with it, and somehow involve some of the other BR cast like Bill Sanderson (JF Sebastian character), that'd be pretty funny.
If I had to pick a culprit, I would pick the writer- the structure is bare bones to the point of banality (bland setup, process, weak payoff). Also I think the text doesn't go nearly far enough. The simple truth is that if she really contacted that many guys, there would be at least a couple who's interested in older women. Did I mention she looks amazing for 50?
A good looking woman at 50 meets younger guy new to LA. I think there's quite a bit of humanity in the situation and the script completely missed it. There's a lot more comedy to be had also. Clearly a hack writer with compassion for his characters.
Moulin Rouge! (2001)
Silly good fun!
Moulin Rouge is a great musical. It pushes the boundary of musicals in the way that many good recent movies have done: by mixing and mashing existing forms. Compared to say, The Matrix, Moulin Rouge has much more crazy mixing, but less finessing (not to say that the Matrix couldn't use more finessing). I particularly indulged in the thought that Moulin Rouge merges Disney with pornography. I doubt this sat well with the "Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever" crowd.
I believe that musicals are best enjoyed as musicals. As a rule, the construct will bare its seams because of the fact that people simply don't break out simultaneous into song. For most traditional film-lovers, this will be a huge hurdle as the expectations of seamless film-making originates with the likes of Kubrick and Coppola and pop culture simply doesn't have the class to out do it.
And while we're talking about class, the dirty down inside theory is that musicals, as per Bollywood, as per the main role of music in almost any country, is to serve as an aphrodisiac for the masses. Conversely, a high-brow is someone who proclaims to have found something more interesting than sex. The two sides are not likely to ever agree very much and for a class targeted piece like Moulin Rouge, disagreements on its quality are as eternal as the class differences that draw the lines.
Even the most clever of musicals- "Cabaret" (1972) has its kinks. And the glorious musicals of old like "Footlight Parade" (1933) consistently have flimsy story lines that serve as loose filler between the fantastic musical vignettes.
I got my kicks from the movie through the numerous times it cleverly breaks the fourth wall. Also I couldn't help but muse at the supposition where I could write/sing like the lead character. Having many musicians as friends and once being a fledgling musician myself, I know it's an effective vehicle of seduction.
Ah, but how very low-brow of me!
The Spirit (2008)
A monumental disappointment
I found myself looking at my watch at the 30 minute mark because of the Spirit has a very poor start. It gets better, slightly. The visuals, as per 300, Sin City, is really nice, but there is no story support it. The loaded cast is given all kind of copied lines from Noir and obsolete 60's comedy (Double Indemnity, Breakfast at Tiffany's), to more recent movies like American Beauty. There was about three moment in which the scene is so awkward that small number of the audience were forced to chuckle to hide themselves while the rest of us sat in silent shock.
There are several very alluring women that confuse more than they arouse and there many, many one liners that failed to amuse. Leaving the theater, comments ranged from total silence to variations of "what a gargantuan piece of s***". I had free tickets. Don't bother buying yours.
There is no attempt at structure or finesse in this movie. A good movie might structurally look like some kind of animal or droid, this movie's structure might look like an abomination from Cronenberg's The Fly.
300 (2006)
300: Old Story, New effects.
300: Old Story, New effects.
While most movies about the classical period have the epic feel of a long bedtime story, Zack Snyder's 300 broke from the flock with its much shorter length and its cool special effects. Arguably, that was the whole movie.
King Leonidas, played by Gerard Butler, leads his Spartan elite corps of 300 against Xerxes' Persian hordes- fighting for freedom, reason, civility, and the like. Obviously the Spartan warrior culture hardly stands for those concepts by today's standards, but for them, it was something to die for. A modern day equivalent of Leonidas' plight might take place in a courtroom in the form of an "Erin Brockovich" versus "some corporation".
The film, however, doesn't really focus on the didactic potential of the story. But instead showcases the grind of ancient combat, souped up by effects we may more closely associate with the Matrix series.
Personally, I dumped those thoughts out of my mind, as well as obvious similarities to Gladiator (partially because of certain scenes, partly because I think Butler totally looks like Russell Crowe) and found the movie overall very enjoyable.
I analyzed it to death afterward, and it went something like this: The film was obviously unreal. I mean I don't doubt that the 300 Spartans must have been a clever and disciplined bunch, but Xerxes couldn't care more with his melange of immortals, Mongoloid mercenaries, elephants, and such. It was a modern adaptation, for a modern audience, done through modern cultural vision goggles- it can't possibly be real.
So what, then, it's about the special effects; the shock of gore and the psycho-emotional thrill ride (it was Frank Miller's idea, so expect Sin City elements), isn't it? If so, is it all bad? Doesn't this idea encapsulate all modern media? If we were to take the spunk out of it all- action without effects, comedy without laugh track, drama without constant music- would it stand on its own? Would we be interested without the hype of glamour and gloss? Reality blows, obviously, and story-telling is an art that requires those psycho-emotional thrill rides.
This is a depressing thought but I'm sure most of you will continue to enjoy media's special effects, I know I will. I enjoyed 300, albeit it lacks the aftertaste of other better movies. The silly analysis of modern media came later, which isn't very important.
Upon second thought, this movie is actually a cash cow. Whenever a movie lacks original plot, didactic plot in favour of special effects, the cash cow possibility kicks in. To compound that, I know I've mentioned that the film can't possibly be real, here's one more reason why (pay attention ladies and 10% of you men): Those buff Spartans are all half naked! Please refer to your Classics professor about whether or not Spartans wore breast plates and shin pads like the rest of those classical soldiers. As if that wasn't enough, I don't know what you all use for shaving purposes but I find it dubious that the Greeks of old had such luxuries(so they were fit, cleanly shaved, and half naked, whew).
For what it's worth, 300 is a good cash cow.
-G.G.
United 93 (2006)
Movie of our times
United 93 is a movie of our time. Future generations will probably not relate to it the way we do. As you all know, of the 4 hijacked planes on 9/11, one of them never made it to target because the passengers attempted to retake the plane. That plane was United 93.
I didn't really know what to expect except the usual skepticism around such a movie- that it is American propaganda, or that it is made too soon. Or maybe it leans one way or other that people don't agree about.
However, I thought this is a good movie. Thematically, movies of this sort are very simple, they just have go and make it happen. Paul Greengrass (The Bourne Supremacy, Bloody Sunday) did basically that. The fallibility of bureaucracy and the irony of religion was all portrayed well.
Do we want to relive 9/11 in the form of a movie? I wasn't sure I did, but I think awareness of it is important enough for me to watch the film.
In contrast with other movies of its genre, namely Snakes on a Plane or Airforce One, I found this movie a lot easier to relate to. I can't seem to take those other movies seriously while this one took that on as a theme and reflection of real life- that bureaucracy never took the situation seriously.
A spoiler here: the most memorable scene was the juxtaposition of prayers- as the passengers prepared to retake the plane, some of them chanted "Our Father in Heaven
" alongside the terrorists' prayers in Arabic. Pretty cool.
-G.G.
No Country for Old Men (2007)
He comes for you, and that's it.
The Coen Bros have done it again with their trademark use of finesse and cleverness in film-making. No Country for Old Men is about the chaos that ensues after a Texan hunter discovers a stash of heroine and a case of money at a drug deal gone wrong.
As with other movies from the Coen Brothers-Fargo, The Hudsucker Proxy, Miller Crossing- they play with the highfalutin theme of fate. It would be oversimplifying to say that in this movie, the hunter becomes the hunted. It is much more. It might be saying slightly more to say that the Texan hunter represents the bravest of people while the psychopath that hunts him represents the terrifying frivolity of fate and death. There is also an aging county sheriff who closes the theme loop but you will have to watch the movie to know how.
This movie has very high ratings on IMDb.com but that isn't always meaningful with regards to recent movies due to the total lack of taste and intellect in the avid movie-goer. In my high opinion, however, this time I am inclined to agree with the movie website. The basics of movie making come from live theater- good script, good casting, and good acting; sound and special FX serves primarily functionality and credibility. This movie does just that. It is classic movie making treating modern themes.
No Country for Old Men is very violent and quite unabashedly nihilistic; it is not for the faint at heart. You have been warned. For these reasons exactly, this movie is only moderately popular.
-G.G.
An Inconvenient Truth (2006)
An important movie?
Who is Al Gore? "I used to be the next president of the United States." Indeed, his life and career would suggest him one of the most American of Americans. However, is his movie any good? The Academy Awards suggest so, having won Best Documentary.
An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary by Davis Guggenheim, features Al Gore's slideshow presentations on global warming along with his personal excursions to the Arctic, Antarctic, etc. Apparently he has presented over a thousand times in cities around the world. Along with clips of these presentations, the documentary shows images rarely seen outside of the exclusive scientific community. This is somewhat reflective of Gore's presentations, that they usually attended by those already informed along with the media and corporate and political dignitaries. This movie, then, is made for the rest of us.
Who is this man? Albert Gore is born into an upper class American family with his childhood split between Washington D.C. and a farm in Tennessee (his daddy was a Senator). He served in Vietnam as an army reporter and had later careers in law, politics, business, etc. Most notably he served as Vice President under Clinton and has ran for office twice. He is very eclectic. The film also suggests bits and pieces of Gore's own motives for his dedication to the environment.
Critiques for this movie may come from attacks on Gore's character- that he is too rich, or that he is too American. Both of which, though true, hardly detracts from the reality presented by the film. Apparently we have the technology required to reverse the trends but somehow it just isn't happening- why? You best judge for yourself. As Gore puts it, this is a moral issue, which is personal. He also suggests that the choices are somewhat limited and a society of procrastination is quickly turning into one of consequence.
An Inconvenient Truth has been out on DVD for a while and I would recommend watching it by any means necessary.
-G.G.
The Sweet Hereafter (1997)
Desolate desolate desolate.
My biggest peeve with this film is that its seeming transcendence into deeper human nature may be contrived or pretentious- possibly the biggest insult to any piece of art. I think so because the multiple narrative structure seem to be constructed with a very subjective flow. What I mean is that I don't think the form reflects the content. Which is a rule only the mostly godly of artists can break. There are many suggestive scenes along with scenes which are artsy in-themselves without clear contingency to anything else in the plot sequence- perhaps I'm functioning at a much too low level of comprehension. I find that the isolated segments of pseudo-artistic bravado gratuitous to the level of cheap American comedy. At least cheap American comedy is entertaining as long as I shut off my snob meter.
That aside, the acting is pretty intense and the music reflects the scenery which is desolate, beautiful and haunting. However, I find that neither of these strong points are supported by the weak and pretentious plot structure and as such they draw attention to themselves and disrupts a basic coherence and harmony which makes a good film. This could have been a great film.
-G.G. Jan.27.08