jazzpiano- Reviews

Be Kind Rewind (2008)

Be Kind Rewind

[7/10 · 31 March 2008]

'Be Kind Rewind' is set in a close-knit community, in a video rental store so small it only stocks about 50 videos - having yet made the daunting transition to DVDs. The owner of the store leaves to spy on their competitor, West Coast Videos, which has made the jump to DVD successfully, leaving Mike (Mos Def) in charge. Mike's best friend Jerry (a zany Jack Black) is a paranoid loser who manages to erase every tape after having his brain magnetised as the result of a quite spectacular electrocution. Struggling financially and unable to replace the videos, they do what any normal person wouldn't do: they remake them! These remakes are charming and lend the film much of the 'whimsy' and 'childlike wonderment' all the positive reviews keep gushing about. The process of remaking is nicknamed 'sweding' after Jerry swindles some customers into believing the remakes are imported from Sweden, and thus are very expensive.

Witnessing 'Be Kind Rewind' be (inevitably) mis-interpreted, much the same way 'The Science of Sleep' was a year or so ago, has coerced me into writing this review. This film is a light comedy - boasting quirky performances, inventive special effects and this decade's new term for the YouTube generation: swede. The explosion of sweded films online is a testament to this film's ability to unleash creativity in people.

The film is not meant to be taken too seriously! It's a delightful little ode to the art of film-making. It's light, it's funny, it's sweet(swede?). The only fault I found was at the end, which I thought was too corny and absurdly improbable, but guiltily enjoyable because it is pretty uplifting.

As for the low probability that stores somewhere on Earth are still renting out VHS, I assumed the film was set in the not-so-distant past (perhaps 4 or 5 years ago?). It works two ways: as a comedy, but also as a historical film that depicts the challenges facing, and the implications on video rental businesses, of converting to DVDs. The characters in Be Kind Rewind have procrastinated in making this transition, and the predicament the whole film is based upon is a direct result of this unwillingness to move with the times.

There is definitely enough laughs, enough emotion, and enough clever sub-text about history and technology to keep viewers interested. I thought there were many clever allusions in the film, most notably when Sigourney Weaver, making a very self-reflexive cameo as a copyright infringement lawyer, comments, "And we're the bad guys", in reference to the binary opposites used in classical Hollywood narratives: good vs. bad etc. This film has so much to offer below the surface, and it really is worth viewing several times.

So, after much consideration, my disappointment lies not in the film as I originally suspected, but with you. The audience. My rating is not a reflection of how technically good the film is, nor the result of comparison to 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' - it is a measure of how much I enjoyed the film, and enjoyed it I did. Comparing it to a film of a different genre with a different writer with different ambitions as a film is not fair. This film doesn't pretend to be super-deep, philosophical or art-house. It is unashamedly directed at a mainstream audience, and this is key to understanding why this film is receiving so many bad reviews. The film is not bad in itself.

I bet if no-one knew it was by Michel Gondry it would be hailed as an original masterwork (much like 'Being John Malkovich' was, almost solely on its bizarre premise) - what does that say about audiences?

Beneath Clouds (2002)

Beneath Clouds

[5/10 · 26 February 2008]

Firstly, I am shocked at all the positive reviews for this film. On a superficial level it is a fine film; technically very strong and well-paced. However, the film is full of so much contradictory stereotyping and half-baked social commentary that it falls flat on its face. The acting is also terribly wooden, and I doubt I can find the kindness within myself to call it 'understated'. The music comes in when any small drama occurs, and the audience is pushed to care for two characters who really never become likable because they are played by two blank-faced actors.

I am particularly intrigued as to why an Aboriginal director would want to perpetuate the stereotype of his people - Drugs? Guns? Tattoos? Domestic abuse? Teenage pregnancy? Drinking? EVEN an eyepatch? Aren't you going a bit far? And every time director Sen tries to de-construct or analyse this stereotype he ends up reverting back to it (one specific example is when Vaughn spits in the cop's face). The stereotyping of white police is especially brutal - there is not one decent cop around according to this film. In fact, white people in general are not too favourably looked upon. The only nice white person in this film is an old man who gives our two heroes a lift, and possibly the conveniently named "Sean", which gives the Irish-wannabe Lena a little pang.

The other white characters try to kidnap Lena or treat Aborigines disrespectfully.

The camera-work is often too obvious. A hand-held camera arrives to shake things up whenever an upset occurs. A fight, the threat of violence, sickness - the hand-held camera is there to tell us, "Wow, isn't the situation getting intense!", but after spending so much time establishing a static mood through gratuitous landscape and time-lapse shots of clouds, the hand-held is an obvious symbolic device and director would've done better keeping his style consistent. The use of tracking shots was often very disrupting to the flow of the film as well, except in the last sequence where it is quite effective.

But unfortunately by that stage, I couldn't care less what happened to the characters, as they stared blankly at each other 'til the end.

The one thing to admire about this film, however, are the good intentions behind it. This movie failed on an emotional engagement level, but for the sheer effort involved in its making, and its technical triumphs, it gets 5/10, which I think is fair.

I'm Not There (2007)

I'm Not There

[7/10 · 6 January 2008]

I saw this yesterday at my local art-house cinema, with my grandparents who were young when Bob Dylan was 'big' (is my lack of knowledge about Dylan already showing? Oh dear), and I have to say, I'm glad I was there - even if Bob Dylan wasn't.

The much-publicised, overly re-hashed concept driving the film is this: Dylan is portrayed by six actors of different races, ages and genders, none of whom are named Dylan, but represent aspects of his personality and life story. Every art-house buff will squeal at this delightfully off-kilter concept (well, except that it's been done before) - but never used so cleverly I'll admit. But, the cleverness of the concept only remains clever if it is executed well. This is where most people have a problem with the film.

Most of what you may have read in reviews is correct. The film is challenging, borderline plot-less (unless you are generally acquainted with Dylan's life) and seems muddled (again, only if you don't have a general knowledge of his life). For anyone who can't grasp the basic, "each actor represents a stage etc." concept, this film will be lost on them completely... because it gets even more complicated! The film is so layered, with hidden in-jokes, and snippets of real quotes from songs and interviews with Dylan used as dialogue, and story lines within story lines. A great example is Heath Ledger's character: Ledger (an actor), plays an actor, playing Jack Rollins in a biopic, who is the representation of folk-singer-Dylan (a stage). An actor in a biopic playing an actor in a biopic about a singer representing Bob Dylan played by an actor in a biopic. The self-parody is just hilarious in this film.

To add to these 'layers', each actor's "stage" that they represent is filmed in a distinctive cinematic style, for example, the Cate Blanchett as Jude Quinn representing Bob Dylan sequence is shot in lush black and white. Haynes relishes this opportunity to show off, and he does. The film is stylistically stimulating, even if it does drag sometimes for ignoramuses like me who know literally nothing about Bob Dylan.

For those questioning the film's intentions as a biopic, I should think it was really obvious! The opening credits give a huge clue, as the main title comes up in stages: "I", "He", "I'm he", "I'm her", "Not her", "Not here", "I'm not there".

The film is like a dream: you come out of it with this vague (exact details in the film are scarce) and vivid impression of Dylan's personality, without learning anything. The title is certainly relevant - Haynes' actually conceals Dylan in this film! This biopic is conventional in the way it still presents a chronological life story if you arrange it all together and remember the actors represent one person, but it is different in the way it doesn't try to make a real person into a character for a film. This is really the only way to represent someone - by not.

This film is composed of stories and individual representations and metaphors that describe a person's life, their attitudes at points in time and aspects of their personality, but gives us nothing. Absolutely nothing.

So, if you're ready to put the level of effort and concentration required to appreciate and maybe like the film, go for it. But I was not prepared for this film and I wish I'd read a biography before I saw it. That said, not knowing anything did help in a way, as after we had several questions about events in the film and their basis in reality. After all, the trailer had told us that stories were exaggerated, fictionalised, imagined and true. It inspired me enough to look him up on Wikipedia (I know, such dedication!).

The performances are all generally good. Blanchett, Bale and Franklin impressed me the most. Blanchett only falls short because of her voice, but she has the accent correct, and she can't change her voice that much! She became more believable as the film progressed. Charlotte Gainsbourg is also quietly moving in her role as the neglected wife of Ledger's character.

My final opinion is that the film is well executed, but only once you've had time to ruminate on it, research Dylan and hear the director's thoughts on his own work. I read a great deal of reviews as well that helped me to understand (not that I didn't like the film initially; I liked it after I saw it anyway). Appreciation builds the more I learn about the film and the intricate connections between it and it's un-subject.

That said, should a film be this much hard work just to like? Not for some people, but for others, the effort is worth it. It does eventually pay off, but it's exhausting.

My Own Private Idaho (1991)

My Own Private Idaho

[10/10 · 5 December 2007]

Mike (River Phoenix) has narcolepsy, and whenever he feels super-stressed he suffers what I interpret to be attacks of cataplexy, that is, sleep triggered by heightened emotions. His friend, would-be lover and fellow male prostitute, Scott (Keanu Reeves), has a rich dad who's going to leave him a hefty sum when he turns 21. These two characters are the main focus of "My Own Private Idaho" which deals with common and uncommon themes, such as home, sexual identity and love. Van Sant throws in some Shakespearean language plagiarised straight from Henry IV and a non-linear narrative and you've got one very cute surrealist indie film.

The credits to this film are it's director and star, River Phoenix, whose understated and moving performance lifts this film above the trash it easily could've been in another director or actor's hands. Van Sant uses symbols to represent emotional states and his use of special effects is limited and effective. There is some really heartfelt dialogue in this movie, especially the much-mentioned camp-fire scene.

This film can be irritating; sometimes the Shakespearean dialogue doesn't work (and it's okay to admit that a near-perfect film like this has flaws) and Reeves is sometimes a little stiff. The film is mostly redeemed by its bitter-sweet ending and fun opening titles.

I'm not going to tackle any issues in this film because I just don't have the energy. Just appreciate the film for what it is and have a nice day. :)

Into the Wild (2007)

Into The Wild

[10/10 · 4 December 2007]

I've read a lot of professional and amateur reviews for this film, and about half begin with, "This film is just about some spoiled brat with high hopes and no brains!" And I would say "Yes, it is, BUT...", because by the end the main character completes a 'character arc'.

You have to remember that Chris McCandless was young and motivated by the idea that rejecting the materialistic ideology of the Western society he was raised in, his parents overbearing superficialness and unhappy domestic history would attain freedom. This motivated him to go and find freedom in the wild, specifically, Alaska. However, before he gets to Alaska he hitchhikes for two years and meets a series of influential characters. A lot of the time these characters provide comic relief, but when Chris leaves them after forming an emotional bond, you realise that he isn't a great person and that these characters serve to indicate this selfish aspect of Chris' character. But that's okay - you don't have to like Chris! But that said, Chris is hard not to like; when you strip away all his selfish actions you get a handsome and charming man.

However, you have to accept as a viewer that Chris was real, and all *real* people are flawed. He does selfish things, he hurts people and people hurt him. That is life. But he is not all bad, none of us are! If you look for the good you will find it - sometimes he's quite a decent guy.

Sean Penn has structured the film in several chapters that ascend like this, "Birth", "Manhood" etc. I'm not sure if I liked this aspect of the film. On one hand, it gives Chris' journey another dimension i.e. His journey encapsulates the journey we all go through in our lives. But sometimes I thought it was a little too ambitious to apply that to one man's idealistic and eventually fatal adventure. I also hated how the main title "Into The Wild" morphed from cool yellow handwriting into ugly green block letters - perhaps it was meant to symbolise the rejection of aesthetic comforts? But some aspects of the film I did really like, such as the sensitive and touching voice-over of Chris' sister during the film. In that way, there are three narratives running simultaneously through the film: Chris' family (represented by his sister's voice-over and flashbacks), Chris' hitchhiking adventures (used to show aspects of his character), and Chris in Alaska (the real trial of his adventure, providing many climaxes in the movie, and the final stage of his character arc). This structure is very sophisticated I think (opposed to some reviewers who call the film 'confused' and 'jumbled'), and really draws us deeper into the film.

While some people can't be drawn in by how repulsed they are by this rich kid's selfishness and typical anti-society 'tude, the ending serves to change your mind. Chris goes out there to get freedom, because he thinks:

Freedom = Happiness

However, he realises that happiness must be shared for it to mean anything. He also discards the immature alias he gave himself when he was still an ideologically motivated idiot - Alexander Supertramp - and realises everything must be called by its right name, and accepts himself for who he is - Chris McCandless. In the end, this film evolves into a touching coming-of-age story, having been a riveting adventure story, road movie and family drama.

Now for technical aspects of the film (it deserves at least five stars for this alone!) - beautiful cinematography; the shots of Alaska are incredible. The acting - Emile Hirsh is absolutely perfect. There are no Oscar moments; the performance as a whole is complete, perfect and understated. Some of his improvisations are hilarious. The supporting actors are all brilliant, especially Hal Holbrook as Mr. Franz and Kristen Stewart as the young, horny singer Tracy. Chris' partings with Hal Holbrook and Tracy are the most heart-wrenching. Chris rejects a flourishing romantic relationship for his freedom. This makes his realisation that he needs to share it even sadder.

My final opinion on the film is that it is well-made, and deserves to be respected, just for all the hard work that has gone into it. Hirsch's dedication to the role and Penn's dedication and sensitivity to the story and Chris' memory. There's only three things left that concern me:

1) The representation of Chris as a hero/Jesus. There were moments when I thought Penn was casting Chris as too much of a heroic figure, when we have to remind ourselves that he wasn't - he was young, motivated and ill-prepared. As much as it pains me to say this insensitive-sounding statement, I have to: his death does not make him a hero. If he had come back alive, would there be a film? I worry about these things. What if the river had NOT become so wide and Chris had been able to return? What if Chris had come back and integrated into society? Would there be a film?

2) His family's involvement in the making of the film - how much power did they have? Have they changed representations of themselves? How objective is this film? Objectivity can never be achieved, but I worry if the family made themselves look better for the film. I think the character arc I see concerning Chris' parents is very likely to have really occurred, but how do I know for sure? I don't know.

3) Hypocrisy? Is Chris a hypocrite for living in an abandoned bus in Alaska? No, because it wasn't his goal to abandon modern technology, it was his goal to abandon the restrictions of a superficial society, such as having a definite identity and set future.

P.S. I haven't read the book; I'm judging the film on its own merits.

The Village (2004)

It's really not that bad...

[7/10 · 10 August 2007]

People write the most accusatory things when they don't get what they were expecting. While not a masterpiece, it is definitely Shyamalan's best film since "The Sixth Sense", with the most engaging protagonist since the lovable, mature Cole Sear.

"The Village" is the story of a small community in the 1800s in Pennsylvania, living their simple lives in their utopia, under the threat of omnipresent monsters who dwell in the woods - Those We Don't Speak Of. While the social commentary of this film on American society, post-9/11, may be overly simplistic and misguided, several aspects of this film are nice. While it tends to drag a little at the end (Shyamalan likes quiet, slow moments), the pacing is generally quite good. Technical aspects, such as cinematography, acting and music and are all brilliantly executed - especially Bryce Dallas Howard's performance - she's so fun! When she laughs, it makes you smile. Her character, Ivy, is so full of joy and Howard animates her to endearing effect. Adrian Brody similarly stands out, but Sigourney Weaver is wooden throughout the majority of the film - disappointing given her reputation.

Everyone should know by now that "The Village" was marketed completely incorrectly. In the ads, it was dumbed-down to a shock-horror using the brazenly obvious symbolic code of the colour red and some nifty, atmospheric shots through twigs. There is more to this film than twigs and red: The characters are generally well developed. Ivy is a splendid character, one of Shyamalan's better ones, especially since the devastatingly dull, stunted Rev. Graham Hess who dominated "Signs". Joaquin Phoenix's character, seemingly similarly underdeveloped, is revealed to be loyal and sensitive, and surprisingly masculine. Even the retarded 'village idiot', who initially seems included for comic relief, has a greater purpose in the development of the plot, with a bizarre love triangle emerging. Most of the other characters are either left untouched, or the rest is left to the audience's imagination (particularly with the elders).

The music is stunningly good, and (in a rare case with Hollywood films) actually enhances plot development by being closely affiliated with the protagonist.

The plot - It's been said before but I'll say it again! It's a love story. Awww, how nice. Ivy and Lucius are a cute couple, and even if you were expecting a horror film, their romance is strong enough to carry the film. However, one of my major qualms with the film lies in the plot, concerning how much time is devoted to the elders, who frankly, aren't that interesting. Interesting in concept, maybe, but the actors who played the elders were stoic and stiff! But, at the end of the day, "The Village" is definitely not the worst film ever made - it was made with love, with the actors going to a boot camp to learn how to perform typical 1800s activities, and a score that mirrors the protagonist's 'internal struggle'(if I can use a cliché term). However, my one criticism of M. Night Shyamalan is this: Please stop trying to rely on one shot to carry a scene. The audience goes to a film expecting just that - and if you're not using that one shot for an effect, such as suspense, please stop pretending that you're directing a play. Yes, I realise you specially cast theatre actors so they could deal with long takes - but long scenes of one take is just ridiculous. The last scene with the elders exemplifies my frustrations perfectly. But, the long take is used to great emotional effect in the scene on the porch between Ivy and Lucius. I commend Night on that scene, but I think my criticism is fair.

Look, basically, you're into this kind of slow-moving, genre-hybrid, dystopian fantasy, or you're not. It's up to you.

Human Nature (2001)

The Wayward-ness of Humankind

[9/10 · 13 April 2007]

'Human Nature' is a completely underrated feature, intelligently written by Charlie Kaufman and soundly directed by Michel Gondry in his feature film debut. 'Human Nature' suffered from high expectations - after 'Being John Malkovich' everybody expected another brain-bending masterpiece, and instead received a subtle, wry and quietly philosophical comedy, open to all kinds of interpretation and featuring beautiful, under-appreciated performances from Patricia Arquette, Tim Robbins and Rhys Ifans.

Lila Jute (Patricia Arquette) suffers from a hormonal problem that causes hair to grow all over her body, which first appeared in her pre-teens. Convinced by her mother that she would never get a man, Lila went to live in the woods among the animals, and become a nature writer. The books were successful, and in her new found fame, Lila could afford to become "a hairless lie"; to get electrolysis. Through Louise, who performs the electrolysis, Lila meets Dr. Nathan Bronfman, a bespectacled manners-obsessed virgin and scientist, currently working on a "large sociological project" involving mice. Lila and Nathan are immediately attracted to each other, and are soon living together. One day, on a hike in the woods, the pair discover a human raised by a man who thought he was an ape, completely uncontaminated by civilisation. Nathan decides the man needs to experience civilisation ("Never to know the love of a good woman or appreciate the complex works of Moby Dick or marvel at Monet?"), and decides to 'save' him, by teaching him manners and decorum.

What results from the oddball plot is a hilarious and occasionally touching investigation into human nature, that doesn't just come right out and say, "Humans are deceitful and always will be!" or the like, but leaves it up to you to decide.

Patricia Arquette gives a sincere performance, and provides the most touching moments in the film. She shows incredible range in this film; from her naive desire to please Nathan by becoming a "real girl", wearing pink, painting her nails and taking up ballet, to becoming a warrior. Lila is vulnerable when she is with Nathan, but she transforms herself (with the help of Louise) and becomes strong and confident.

Tim Robbins is convincing as a bordering obsessive compulsive, and shows great comedic timing in the first few scenes with Patricia Arquette. It was an interesting choice to have Tim Robbins talk about his actions in retrospect, and then see him act them out with pure selfishness and inability to control his lusting.

Rhys Ifan's performance as Puff is the same standard as Arquette's. He demonstrates a large range; from an 'ape' to the apex of 'refinement'. There is one scene in particular, where footage of Puff as an 'ape' is shown, while the reformed Puff stands calmly as it plays, knowingly, in a very civilised suit.

'Human Nature' is a bit of a mixed bag film - it even morphs into a musical for a moment near the beginning, in a song sung by Patricia Arquette herself (what a beautiful, restrained voice!). Sometimes it's surreal, as with the scene I mentioned in the last paragraph. The humour in the film is mostly created by scenes where the flaws of humankind are exposed - our indifference, how we pretend to be something we're not, how we like to separate ourselves from nature even though that's where we came from, before civilisation.

I love the open-endedness of this film! It is the best thing about it. Also, I enjoyed Gondry's sneaky references to Bjork's 'Human Behaviour' video clip.

I Heart Huckabees (2004)

I Heart Whatabees?

[6/10 · 13 April 2007]

I suppose the most alluring thing of this film is the title: 'I Heart Huckabees'. It really gets you thinking: What the hell is a Huckabees? A person? With a cute little red love heart and several strange expressive faces on the front of the DVD, why wouldn't you pick it up in intrigue? You notice it has Naomi Watts in it - as in, 'Mulholland Dr.', '21 Grams' Naomi Watts - Queen of Modern Drama, and you look around you in the video store. Are you certain you picked it up in the comedy section?

Thus starts the journey of 'I Heart Huckabees'.

The film follows Albert Markovski (Jason Schwartzman) in his journey for enlightenment on a series of encounters with a tall Sudanese boy. He approaches existential detectives Bernard and Vivian, a husband and wife team, who teach him their philosophy of enlightenment and try to connect his coincidences to get their deeper significance.

In the process, several people linked to Albert become involved and end up on the client roster of Bernard and Vivian. Albert is then convinced by his 'other' (a friend who is going through the same turmoil as you, a 'buddy' of sorts) to try a different philosophy, which teaches the opposite, devised by Caterine Vauban (Isabelle Huppert).

This film is determined to be life-changingly philosophical, which it states unashamedly - "this is a story that will give a hilarious new meaning to your life!" - featuring detectives who investigate seemingly random, or seemingly related coincidences in anyone's life. It's a battle of philosophies - one dark and the other not dark enough.

Philosophy One: Practised by Bernard and Vivian (Dustin Hoffman & Lily Tomlin).

* Everything is connected (no coincidences are random)

* The blanket is the universe

* The tree (a coping technique to bring happiness and peace to the individual)

Philosophy Two: Practised by Caterine Vauban.

* Nothing is connected (coincidences are random)

* Everything is meaningless

* The ball (another coping technique) is temporary relief to escape the inevitability of human drama

Now, to answer your question, what the hell is Huckabees? Well, Huckabees is a department store, much like Wal-Mart or Target, with the tag-line, "The Everything Store".

Naomi Watts plays Dawn Campell, who is the spokesperson for Huckabees, in other words: she prances around in a bikini yelling bargain prices to a camera in advertisements for Huckabees. Watts shows comedic flair in this role, as the ditzy blonde who realises life has more meaning, and therefore she can wear a bonnet if she wants to!

Albert is the leader of an environmental group, with an artistic flair for writing riveting poems ("You rock, rock! The rock just sits and is.") who is trying to make a deal with Huckabees to save the marsh.

Brad (Jude Law) is a hate-able executive who manipulates the existential detectives' investigative process to make Albert look bad, and realises karma is a formidable thing.

Mark Wahlberg does as admirable job as Albert's 'other', Tommy, who introduces him to the philosophy of meaninglessness.

Mark Wahlberg and Jude Law sometimes try a little too hard to be funny (though, I admit, Jude Law is usually charming).

The trio of philosophers (Bernard, Vivian & Caterine) who started this whole charade all posses an annoying superiority which is reflective of their character's attitudes. They are fascinating to watch, as they spurt philosophies ("My infinite nature!") on the miracle/curse of human existence.

What you get from this complicated plot is a slightly pretentious, occasionally funny, a-bit-too-deliberately quirky, but well-acted film, which exists, not to change your life as it states, but to make you laugh at how we philosophise over our existence when we can't very well change our circumstances.

I am really torn on how to rate this film. It layers on the philosophy aspect real thick and revels in its own cleverness in a way that irritates me, but it also has some genuinely funny moments, usually provided by Jason Schwartzman and Naomi Watts. I think a six is fair - 5 for being a well-made film, and 1 extra for the genuinely funny moments.

I think if there is one major thing missing from this film, it's a relationship which the audience actually cares about. The lack of chemistry between some characters in romantic relationships and friendships makes the film less engaging. I only really cared for two characters - Albert (luckily, the main character) and Dawn.

The 'cleverness' of this film overshadows the feelings of those tangled up in it. But I wouldn't dare call it overrated, because it has its merits. Screenplay writers like Charlie Kaufman, who write 'clever' scripts (it's a matter of opinion), usually have well-developed characters who feel and who the audience feels for. One might argue, that being classified as comedy, this film doesn't need believable relationships to work. Personally, if I don't believe it I don't care, and if I don't care I don't laugh.

I know the comparison between Charlie Kaufman's screenplays and 'I Heart Huckabees' is pathetic, and I apologize. Kaufman suffers from moments of pretentiousness too. I think the link between Kaufman and 'I Heart Huckabees' that I made arose from the opening of this film and 'Adaptation' - the self-deprecating voice over that introduces the character.

Anyway, that extremely long comment is what I thought about 'I Heart Huckabees', now go and decide for yourself.

P.S. The score is brilliant.

The Hours (2002)

Hours well spent

[8/10 · 10 April 2007]

'The Hours' is a subtly philosophical film, in which the three core characters question their existence (in general, and also in relation to society's expectations) when faced by death and the passing of time, hence the title. All three characters are linked, not only by what they do as characters in the film, but by visual links conceived by the film's creators. The film is composed of three separately filmed, literal narratives, injected with symbolic imagery and metaphors.

The three characters are closely linked with each other: Clarissa Vaughn (Meryl Streep) is a modern-day Mrs. Dalloway, whose opening line is, "Sally! I think I'll buy the flowers myself.", Laura Brown (Julianne Moore) is a suburban 50's housewife currently reading Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf (Nicole Kidman), who in the 1920's has only begun writing the novel itself.

At first, I thought Nicole Kidman was a casting mistake. I've never seen Kidman give emotional depth or realism to a character, so I was definitely a skeptic. With a prosthetic nose, she is rendered unrecognizable in this film, which works in her favour as it makes her believable. The costume design and other visual aspects of the film are perfect - the film seems very loyal to the time.

Julianne Moore gives a typically great performance, communicating a deep sorrow through body language, while she helps her son bake a cake. Later in the film, in one of the most moving scenes, Moore delivers a beautiful performance as she betrays what she is feeling to keep her husband happy, but I wouldn't want to spoil the scene for you.

I haven't warmed to Meryl Streep as an actress. She certainly had an extraordinary reputation to live up to when I saw one of her movies for the first time. I'd read articles and biographies that named her the greatest living actress, so when I finally saw one of her films I was disappointed. It wasn't that she was bad, on the contrary, her performance was gorgeous, but not mindbogglingly amazing.

This is the first film where I saw some of Streep's brilliance shine through. Streep only lives through one day as Clarissa Vaughn, but Clarissa sure does have an emotional day! I have a great respect for Streep now, because I've seen a couple of her films and the roles she chooses seem quite varied.

I would like to note the appearance of Toni Collette in the first half of the film, as Kitty. Toni Collette embodied the character fleshed out in the book by Michael Cunningham so well, and she held a perfect balance between admitting her sadness and denying it altogether.

The music! Philip Glass' score nearly overshadowed the brilliant acting! They worked so well together - the music tied the three stories together, and the rolling piano and sombre strings complemented the emotional scenes without becoming overly sentimental or sappy.

The film, as a whole, is unsentimental and bleak, but still very emotionally affecting. The lack of sentiment, perhaps, makes the film seem cold and lonely, which is what all three characters are feeling. There are fleeting moments of pure love for our characters, which they receive gratefully, only to have it denied from them again. That's all I dare say about the film before I have to put a spoiler warning.

All in all, a deeply thoughtful and faithful adaptation of Michael Cunningham's novel. In fact, the novel and the film complement each other nicely. The book is very insightful to the characters, and the film is beautifully structured, with judged performances and emotive music. Neither one is 'better' than the other, in my opinion.

I believe that it wouldn't matter if you read the book before the film or vice versa, because both have the power to surprise and engage. I really loved the film, it's very re-watchable, which makes any film a great film; a film with longevity.

Grave of the Fireflies (1988)

A masterpiece, both in its skillful animation and its heartbreaking tale.

[8/10 · 4 January 2007]

I watched 'Grave of the Fireflies' about five minutes ago. I immediately recognised it was one of the best films I have seen, animation or otherwise. I sat, stunned through the ending credits, listening to the beautiful score. I love animated films that make you feel something, and I rank this next to 'Happy Feet' as one of the best animations I've ever seen.

The storyline revolves around Seita, a fourteen-year-old boy, and his little sister, Setsuko, who is four. The film details their journey of survival during World War II, and their tender and poignant relationship.

The animation is beautiful, and sometimes amazingly detailed and realistic. It makes sense that a film about Japan would be done in a Japanese animation style. The version of the film I watched was the English dubbed version, which I think detracts from the film as you notice that the lip movements do not quite match the words. So, I would recommend the Japanese version with subtitles.

The first line of the film shocked me, to tell you the truth.

"September 21st, 1945 - that was the night I died." - Seita.

This line shocked me because September 21st is my birthday. I actually rewound the tape to check that's what Seita actually said. I think the film's opening is fantastic, because knowing how the film ends only makes it more tragic, because you keep on hoping for a different outcome. It gives the film a sense of wholeness, having the end at the beginning, and then the events beforehand, thereafter.

It's really quite moving, which some people might find really weird seeing as it's an animation, but the animation is poetic and not distracting. I think I'll be recommending this film to a lot of people.

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

Little Miss Sunshine

[9/10 · 4 December 2006]

The six members of the Hoover family, Sheryl (the over-worked, stressed mother), Richard (the failed motivational speaker obsessed with winning, and Sheryl's husband), Dwayne (the avowedly mute Nietzsche-reading son with aspirations to be a pilot), Frank (Sheryl's homosexual, suicidal Proust scholar sibling), Grandpa (the heroin-snorting grandparent) and Olive (the beauty queen wannabe who is a contestant in the Little Miss Sunshine pageant) must travel from Albuquerque to California in a struggling canary yellow mini-bus.

As you can see, the characters are an elaborate set up for the most dysfunctional road-movie family ever, and a chance to milk some hefty laughs from the audience. The characters are played respectively by Toni Collette, Greg Kinnear, Paul Dano, Steve Carell, Alan Arkin and Abigail Breslin. Now, there are some reasonably well-known faces in that list, which, initially, makes the family less believable as a collective. As the film progresses, the family becomes more believable as a unit.

Now, I thought I would lay out the main criticisms of the film for you, to help you make your decision on viewing this film:

The set ups - The ridiculous situations the characters get themselves into. The film's classification as dramedy (drama/comedy) allows for film to switch between hysterical situations and poignant moments at a second's notice. I've read comments on IMDb that say the film was desperately trying to pack two years worth of drama and belief-suspending comedy into two days, which is how the film feels, with its emotional state fluctuating constantly.

Grandpa's habit - Grandpa has been kicked out of his old folk's home because of his habit, and that's why he is along for the ride in the film. Little does the Hoover family know, Grandpa has brought his habit with him. Some people aren't aware when they watch the film that the rest of the family *doesn't know* that Grandpa has heroin with him. Now, Grandpa is very close to Olive, his granddaughter, after all - he taught her the moves for her dance piece at the pageant.

I've read many complaints here that Grandpa is the most irresponsible and sick grandfather, because of his addiction and why didn't the family confiscate his heroin? Well, they didn't know for a start. Next question? What kind of parent lets their heroin-addicted father share a hotel room with their daughter? Well if you don't know that he is still using heroin, then it seems okay to let them stay together - especially if the grandfather is her coach and closest family member.

I think this film was so over-hyped that people find fun in its flaws, even if the flaws can be accurately explained. The same thing happened to 'Titanic' - people hate it when a film gets too popular, because somehow increased popularity equals decreased credibility?

Anyway, the message of the film in the end is life-affirming, and if you've relaxed during the film, you'll walk out with a smile. The film is not a masterpiece, that's why I rated it 8/10, but it certainly isn't bad and 'Little Miss Sunshine' deserves all its critical praise, simply for being a quality movie.

Japanese Story (2003)

Painful in more ways than one

[6/10 · 5 October 2006]

I watched 'Japanese Story' for the fourth time since when I first saw it about five months ago, and my opinion on the film has changed upon reflection. I initially rated it 10/10, which now seems a little too generous - let me explain why: The film starts off as a generic romantic comedy/culture clash film, but veers off in an unexpected (despite the foreshadowing in the first half an hour of the film) direction, morphing into a sombre drama. It is a slow film, and is definitely much better viewing the first time around. The first time you watch the film, the slowness of the film gives the characters more depth and the events slowly unravel in a predictable pattern. The film reaches its unexpected climax, which makes your adrenaline rush for a moment, even though it is filmed in real time just like the rest of the film, and then the film flows smoothly to its end, slowing until it stops.

I find Toni Collette very easy to watch in this film - she plays feisty geologist Sandy with believability, showing her vulnerability as well as her confidence. Sandy agrees to chauffeur a Japanese businessman named Hiromitsu Tachibana around the Australian desert in the hope of selling the company Hiromitsu's father owns her software. Sandy is at her most vulnerable when in the desert with Hiromitsu, and her most confident when surrounded with her double-monitored computers, her high-tech can opener and a large truck - civilization, basically. I suppose that everyone becomes a little vulnerable when they're in an environment as seemingly devoid of life as the desert, because everyone is scared of nothing - and it makes sense that when surrounded by nothing, you'd take advantage of something, hence why Sandy and Hiromitsu take advantage of each other and have a passionate, but awkward affair.

This film has received a lower rating not because the film has become worse in my opinion - no, it is still moving and beautiful (acting, cinematography and music-wise), and sometimes a little confronting (or humorous, depending on how you receive raw human emotion) - but because the film is so slow that by the fourth viewing, you can hardly sit through it. I wouldn't buy this film on DVD.

Many people find several things annoying about this movie, and I should warn you that you might also find them annoying. You wouldn't want to be crying at the end of film for the wrong reasons.

The music - an orchestral funereal song sung in Japanese by a woman, which plays solidly for about 25 minutes. This will either annoy the sh*t out of you, or move you.

Toni Collette - some people find her raw performance laughable, and others find it unstoppably moving. Once again, it just depends on who you are.

The plot, or lack thereof - A deliberately simple premise to investigate the love that blooms between two people when surrounded by a desolate expanse. The lack of a solid, clever plot completely infuriates the Charlie Kaufmans of the world.

The pace - The slowness can make the film seem banal and boring, but I found lots of subtle things to watch in the film. I've read reviews on this site that said the relationship bloomed out of nowhere, but I saw when it started to occur, I don't know what film they were watching. I would recommend your full attention watching this film.

So my advice to you is to relish the first viewing, come with an open mind to this film, try not to laugh at how preposterous it seems and think of the film as a chronological record of an event in Sandy's life - that's what the film is. Don't let the title mislead you in its infinite vagueness - there's nothing to do with Japan in this film at all; it's about a relationship. That said, I can't think of a better title, I think this must've been a hard film to title. Perhaps: 'They Fell In Love In The Middle of A Desert And Then The Film Went All Art-house On Us!'

9/11: The Falling Man (2006 TV Movie)

A documentary that really puts a hollow feeling inside you.

[10/10 · 17 September 2006]

This documentary was excellently constructed, but is not easy to watch. Sometimes it made me feel a bit sick, sometimes I felt just plain empty. The ambition of the documentary is worthwhile, to find the falling man's identity, and that is what originally got me interested. It was exciting - as exciting as it would be to know who the Unknown Soldier is.

But the message at the end of the documentary is what really counts.

Some of the interviews with the family members will make you cry, and the raw emotion - the cries of people on the streets of New York watching people jump out the windows is heartbreaking. Hearing the horror inside people's throats is something that makes me shiver, because it is very real.

Sometimes this documentary is unbearable, but it was important to watch. It was a tasteful and moving depiction of life and death and I personally found it very poignant.