backlogged

just a few brief bits on things i've seen lately:

AMERICAN GANGSTER (dir. Ridley Scott, 2007): Something about Ridley Scott's direction is infinitely satisfying to me. Anyways, the main issue/strength is the length (about 2 1/2 hours), enough time to make you uncomfortable and guessing when it'll finally end, but also enough time to get a good sense of who most of the characters are. And if not, enough time to give each of them a small scene to do their thing in. Few (if any) of the roles are thankless. Denzel does the righteous, intelligent, Denzel-thing again, what's strange is how quickly the corrupted surface is accepted (from the first scene, actually). So aside from being a murderous drug-lord, he's a pretty respectable guy. Another minor shock, although it shouldn't be anymore, is Russell Crowe being non-annoying as the only "moral" person in the movie, of course it's only professionally speaking, personally he's as bad as the rest of them. I've decided that Ridley Scott is the only director who can get me to really like Russell. And the showdown between Crowe and Denzel is superb. It's great seeing two actors square off like that. Other perks: Chiwitel Ejiofor, Cuba Gooding (finally in a decent movie again), Josh Brolin (as always), and Harris Savides (who I realize now, shot a lot of stuff that I like), and the final shot. Grade: B+

THE HOAX (dir. Lasse Hallstrom, 2006): Bland, but not so bland as to be unwatchable. My brother and I had a talk after this one, and decided that really, the story is interesting enough (both as a story and thematically) that a whole lot more could've been done. It gets downright ridiculous when it dives into "A Beautiful Mind" territory. The most interesting moments were when the film delved into Irving's hoax-ing process, with a strange combination of flashback and conjecture. Props to Alfred Molina, cause he's awesome. Grade: B-

FIDO (dir. Andrew Currie, 2006): If you're going to do a zombie movie parody, this is the way to do it. The jokes are great, the idea is pretty ingenious (zombies meet lassie films). The performances are great, especially Dylan Baker as the dad. It's a great, enjoyable riff on the 50s. Props to Billy Connolly for most sympathetic zombie ever. Grade: B+

THUMBSUCKER (dir. Mike Mills, 2005): I saw this about a week ago and don't remember a whole lot. It reminded me of Wes Anderson. Uh... oh yeah! Keanu Reeves was ridiculous. I'm not sure I can ever take him seriously. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't amazing. Apparently not very memorable, either. Grade: C+

RATATOUILLE (dir. Brad Bird, 2007): Ah, pixar. I like the play of ideas running the whole time: anyone can cook, but that doesn't mean everyone should. Breathtaking animation, great character work. Seeing it again, the music bothered me just a tad, it's a bit--dull for the material. Grade: A-

NETWORK (dir. Sidney Lumet, 1976): Sharp. Despite current relevance (has the news/world always been so full of shit?), it still feels like a product of its period (mostly because of acting and that 70s look). But honestly, that's a good thing. There's no real equivalent to a movie like Network today, although some movies try. Grade: A

MANHATTAN (dir. Woody Allen, 1979): Special thanks to: Woody Allen, Gordon Willis, Michael Murphy, and George Gershwin for coming together to create a masterpiece. Grade: A+

FARGO (dir. Joel/Ethan Coen, 1996): I worry that every time I talk about a Coen Brothers movie, I just end up talking about the Coen Bros, and why I like their movies. They've got a weird sort of stylization, a lot of it has to do with the writing and the barely perceptible but extremely economical visual sense. They know exactly what they're doing, at all times, and you can rest assured that when they get it right (which they do here), you're in for something fantastic. Grade: A

MOULIN ROUGE! (dir. Baz Luhrmann, 2001): The first 45 minutes (exactly that long, I timed it), or as I like to call it Act I, shouldn't be there. It's too manic, too fast, too trippy, and just plain ridiculous. (On a sidenote, because it's just like a slower version of these 45 minutes, I didn't like Across the Universe). Once it moves into Act II, and III, it becomes leaps and bounds better. The arrangements are better, the recontextualizing is more interesting, and the pacing is a lot more controlled (or at least as controlled as luhrmann can get). It's refreshing to see something that's so blatantly about love. The tone and emotional shifts are handled smoothly. Ewan McGregor gets pretty infectious. John Leguizamo bothers me. Nicole Kidman stuns me (at least here). Grade: B+/A- (I'll decide next time I see it).

TIFF 07: Day 6 "youtube."

I'm proud of myself. I kept myself well fed and wide awake all day. And each of my movie's was at a different venue, but I made my way around on time. It was a delight.

Also, for a couple minutes I got really annoyed with everyone talking about what they've seen and voicing opinions. Which probably doesn't say a lot about me. Except, OK, I'm glad they're discussing and all, but it's the loudness of it all that bothers me. I just need to bring my ipod for those times when I'm waiting in line/in a theater for a movie to start. Or maybe next year... I'll bring an entourage, and we can be those loud opinionated people who everyone needs to hear.

Anyways, that's out of the way, so now for the movies. Today was pretty damn interesting, all around.
Firstly...the one you've all been waiting for:
ACROSS THE UNIVERSE (dir. Julie Taymor, 2007):
Certain people will love this movie. Actually, most people will. I didn't. And I won't.
As far as expectations going in... it sort of rested on the trailer. Oh, and the Beatles songs. I wasn't going crazy about the trailer, but as it went on I liked it. I was hoping the same would happen during the movie, but it was the opposite. I considered walking out a few times. But I stuck it out, trying to pinpoint what my issues were.
And I think they're something along these lines:
- It was set in the 60s, but all of the political crazyness of the times seemed forced in. Taymor was trying too hard to put in that "spirit of revolution."
- I didn't like one of the leads. Her singing just hurt my ears.
- I know, as a musical, it has a license to go into choreographed fantasy dance numbers and grand spectacles and all of that. However, I think the stronger musicals either take it in one direction or the other, or somehow manage to strike that perfect balance (see Bob Fosse on how to do that, Luhrmann on the spectacular, and Once or more recently... Chansons D'Amour on the realistic). What bothered me about this was that, it was trying to stay firmly rooted in reality, but at the same time it really wanted to be a big flashy spectacle. And the struggle between those two took away from the experience.
- Also, there was some needlessly trippy stuff.
- And she wasted Bono. Wasted. She gave him "I am the Walrus" which was OK enough. But his strength is in the high soaring upper range, and he hardly went there at all. I was saddened.
- I laughed at the dialogue/delivery a few times. I was the only one. Of note "this is a revolution mom!" Oh, so funny.
So that's most of my reasoning on that one. Feel free to disagree, as I'm sure you will once it opens like next weekend.
Grade: C+ (boring, sometimes preposterous, overwrought, disappointing, grade would have been lower if Taymor hadn't done the Q&A, but her talk gave her a bit more credibility)
Also, Taymor was there for a Q&A, which softened me up a bit. She talked a lot and was really nice about everything. (more to follow maybe soon)

Now on the other side of the universe, I grabbed lunch and.... a festival hoodie. Finally, I have a hoodie to call my own. And then I saw...

SLEUTH (dir. Kenneth Branagh, 2007):
Which was pretty freakin sweet. Watching Caine work is always incredible, and Jude Law held up against him very very well. Pinter's screenplay was sharp as a tack. I love his writing, so this was a treat. Oh, and there were only two characters. It felt like an incredibly satisfying night at the theater (which works, since it was based on a play). There was some sort of thing going on at the start, where we don't see the faces of either of the characters. Maybe the play is starting out level or something like that. But yeah, it was short, sweet, and solid.
Grade: B+ (satisfying and fun, not incredibly stand-outish though)

So, a subway ride and a milkshake later I saw...

DR. PLONK (dir. Rolf De Heer, 2007):
Which was a silent comedy! It was great. De Heer nailed the look and humor. And we got to see 2007 in silent movie mode. I had a blast, for the most part. There were a few moments where the jokes were stretched a little thin. But snap this was cool. I'm glad that he was actually able to make this in 2007.
Grade: B (great idea, funny throughout, enjoyable, but with some issues)
He was there for a Q&A, which yielded two interesting bits of info:
- He came up with the idea of making a silent film when he found a ton of old film stock in a fridge one day.
- The dog in the movie was obsessed with balls. You couldn't even say "ball" around the dog or it would go crazy, so you'd have to say "spherical object." The balls were used to get the dog to do what they wanted (like run across the frame or look at a box).

And lastly...

PARANOID PARK (dir. Gus Van Sant, 2007):
Beautiful. I feel like if I say more it might take away from it.
Grade: A (visually stunning, perfect Bresson-ian performances, wonderfully edited)

Also, I asked Van Sant if he had any advice for the aspiring filmmaker. He basically said to use youtube. It's your own distribution company.

And lastly, I've calmed down about Control, it's now an A-. It's tough grading everything when you think about stuff in relation to each other. Is No Country for Old Men really as good as Paranoid Park or Jesse James? What about Control? (which isn't, I've decided). I might end up switching systems.

Oh, to be a blogger.

I finally have a hoodie.

TIFF 07: Day 5 "i've never been a 16 year old girl before"

The fatigue is starting to set in. Also, I realized something that may or may not be an issue: I might just be slightly overrating things because I'm getting caught up in the whole festival frenzy. So take things as an approximation for now, and maybe when I get to re-view some of these things I can be a little more level headed.

I had pizza for breakfast and lunch today. I almost did dinner, but a bag of popcorn covered that.

Talking about today's movies is going to be very difficult. I skipped coffee this morning, and I'm starting to get very worn down. But tonight ended early, and tomorrow starts late, so hopefully I can pull things together again by then.

And so today went like this:

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (dir. Joel/Ethan Coen, 2007):
They finally pulled it together again, and man is it good. I want to say it's their best since Fargo, but I'm not certain. Mostly though, I think it is. The story is pretty similar to The Man From London, but the plot actually moves. A man finds a case of money amidst a lot of dead bodies. The police are interested, so are the owners of the money. So we've got these three leads (all of which are incredible, especially Javier Bardem), each sort of a step behind each other. It's complex, enthralling, funny, and spot on.
Grade: A (as good as Fargo, which I love, sharp all around)

Also, today was my first day with screenings at the Ryerson. Not a particularly amazing venue, but the crowd really comes alive. Everyone laughs and applauds and loves it all. No wonder they have the midnight madness screenings here. I mean here I am at 9 in the morning, hungry and still tired, and yet still completely absorbed with the movie. And so are the 1499 other people in the place.

And one last sidenote to No Country: Julian Schnabel was sitting behind me for the movie. (oh, to be a film nerd).

So after that I rushed to the Scotiabank, got pizza, and saw:

CHRYSALIS (dir. Julien Leclercq, 2007):
Which was a french sci-fi movie. Shot in the typical sci-fi fashion (lots of blues and metal, dark). It looked like it might have been good. But unfortunately I may never find out. I fell asleep for probably over half of the movie. I tried so hard. And still, despite being in the front section during a bunch of super-loud action scenes, I still managed to pass out for a while.
But from what I did see, it seemed like I may have been disappointed. I inferred that the plot was something about this machine that steals memories, and some people were fighting over it.
Leclerq was there to present and do a Q&A, but I left before it began. I was feeling guilty having to see him in standing right in front of me when I accidentally slept through his movie.
I think if I were awake I would have given it a B-/C+ though. While I credit him for using mostly hand to hand fight scenes, the choreography got a little redundant.

And so, I got food this time and managed to make my way back to the Ryerson for the spectacular:

JUNO (dir. Jason Reitman, 2007):
Did I mention that this was spectacular? It was another Control-esque surprise, since I didn't like Reitman's earlier Thank You For Smoking very much. But this. Man.
It definitely falls into the quirky-indie-type of movie, although it's on the good side of the spectrum.
Ellen Page (who was there), played Juno, a girl who accidentally gets pregnant (thanks to Michael Cera). She decides to keep the baby and put it up for open adoption (the parents are going to be Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner). And of course, Juno is your "weird" girl, she's got more in common with the girls in Ghost World than American Pie. She also has a best friend who's into teachers. Her dad fixes air conditioning and heating, her step-mom is stiff, but hilarious.
I suppose you can go either way on this one. I think most people will enjoy it though. The writing was almost too sharp, but in today's age of "make it up as you go mr. vaughn and mr. ferrell" it's a VERY nice change. Reitman doesn't let this one go crazy (even though he admitted that he let a whole two of Cera's ad-libs into the final cut). The strength of this is in that writing and the performances. Page is fantastic as Juno. I've read/overheard (from older types) that she's playing it too mannered, she's going too quirky with it. But alas, I disagree completely. Probably because I've met people like Page's Juno. I know I have, and the whole time I was wondering who it was that she reminded me of. Cera actually tones down a lot of his super-hilariousness, and he's got some really great moments. I'm so glad Jason Bateman is still working. He's just as good as ever. I was surprised by Garner. I didn't realize she could actually act.
I think one of the bigger surprises (or at least the actress who came up most in the Q&A, besides Page/Cera) was Allison Janney, who played Juno's step mother. So funny.

I feel like I'm gushing again. But I was really looking forward to this and it didn't let me down.
Grade: A- (great great great, but I concede to some of the points made by the detractors)

So there was a Q&A after this one too, with Reitman, Page, and Diablo Cody (the writer). Interesting points:
- the relationships in the film were autobiographical (for Diablo)
- Cera wasn't there (damn!) because he had to fly out to Berlin or something last night on a private jet. Which is funny to picture.
- We found out about those two ad-libs that Cera slipped by. Aside from that and one or two other small things, they stuck to the script the whole way through.
- And part of why they could do this is because Diablo was kept a part of the process the whole way through. If they needed more material, she'd write it and 20 minutes later they'd be filming.
- It took Diablo 2 months to write the script. She was "discovered" by one of the film's producers, who read her blog and suggested that she write a script. Reitman happened to be friends with this producer (or a friend of his), and got his hands on the script early. He dropped the script he was working on because he felt that if he didn't direct this he'd regret it forever.
- Ellen Page is super cool. I want to be friends.
- Reitman doesn't really see the film as about the open abortion thing. He looks at it as a take on the struggles of growing up. In the film, it happens either too fast (Page) or too slow (Bateman)
- Jason Reitman has never been a 16 year old girl.

So I went back to the Scotiabank to see:

THE OLD MISTRESS (dir. Catherine Breillat, 2007):
And my brain was pretty fried for this too. Breillat was there to introduce and Q&A, although I had a hard time understanding most of what she was saying (combination of accent and slow speech).
I'm not sure exactly what to make of this (probably because I'm young). It's the story of a guy who's about to get married, but (for the first half of the film) tells the story of this affair he's been having for 10 years to his future grandmother (who is concerned about the affair getting in the way of his new marriage). Of course, we get the flashback and see everything unfold. And then it picks up from the wedding, and the affair ends up starting up again. There's also some explicit sex in this, but unlike Lust, Caution, it actually did help the plot along significantly. And it wasn't just "ok here's explicit sex for a while" it actually progressed as the affair went on. We slowly see more and more of the sex and we learn more and more about the characters. It didn't really do a lot for me. It was good all around, and I stayed involved.
Grade: B (solid, some nice things, not tremendous at all, but still pretty good)

and that let out early. so now I can clean up and sleep. Tomorrow (or maybe Wednesday) I swap my lodging. Woohoo.
Tomorrow should be exciting though. I start out with Across the Universe, go to the re-make of Sleuth, head over to the silent-comedy Dr. Plonk, and close the day with Van Sant's Paranoid Park (I have no idea what to expect on this one, besides skaters). It's all so exciting. And hopefully I can rest, too.

TIFF 07: Day 4 "I think she was actually french."

I'll get the in betweens out of the way first:
After getting back at 2:30 because of the Brad-debacle, I got a whopping 4 hours of sleep and then got up and got ready for a fun filled 4 movie day. After the usual shower-commute-coffee-seating deal, the movies started. On today's list: Lust, Caution/Starting Out in the Evening/Les Chansons D'Amour/Silent Light. Completely fatigued by the end of Chansons, I rushed back to the apartment to rest for an hour. My neck and eyes were sore. And I'm having wisdom teeth issues again (they bite me while I sleep), so I think the little sore at the back of my mouth might be ready to sprout an infection. Which means I pick up the mouthwash and saltwater routine for the next few days until it blows over.
And just as I get over that stupid cold...
But now for the movies:

LUST, CAUTION (dir. Ang Lee, 2007):
My first reaction: Eh. I liked Black Book better. Sure this was more "sophisticated" and "serious," but in this case I don't see those as compliments. I've given this a spot as a contender for the most overrated movie of the year, and we'll see how that pans out. I mean, sure it looks great, and it's got solid leading performances, oh and there's sex that's "essential" to the story, and graphic (gave me some ideas). But at the end, it was just too... commercial? predictable? It reeked of a prestige picture, and it left me pretty cold.
Grade: B- (solid, mostly engaging, but again, not for me)

STARTING OUT IN THE EVENING (dir. Andrew Wagner, 2007):
Pretty standard, all around. It's the story of an older man (this time Frank Langella, who was present) learning about himself. This older man was a writer past his prime, and his self-discovery is kickstarted by a young grad student who is doing her thesis on his work. And she's sort of got a crush on him. The dynamic between the two was the best part. The writing was... very writerly, which was a nice change, but I ended up rolling my eyes at a lot of it. I suppose it works, since the main character is a writer and everyone involved is (presumably) well educated and literate. But I don't know if I've met anyone who talks that way. Maybe once. I did really like the little debates (Langella and the literary critic, Langella and her daughter's boyfriend, etc.). Aside from the two performers, those were fascinating little bits on their own.
Oh and there's this sub-story involving his daughter and her boyfriend issues, and her own little mid-life crisis. I could have done without it. But I guess it served some kind of purpose.
And, of course, Langella was great. There are a lot of really talented older actors out there, I'm just getting a little tired of them playing guys who are rediscovering themselves. Which might be why I was interested in seeing King of California (different deal, older guy who's crazy, bonds with daughter--gah I don't know. Maybe it would be different! Maybe!). But it didn't fit in my schedule, so why complain.
It was also very cute watching Wagner tear up a little before the screening while thanking Langella for all he's done, how he's helped him find his dreams, and how happy he was that he could be there for the screening (the first showing of the film Langella has been present for). The Q&A didn't yield anything terribly interesting (to me), but I did learn that Langella is a pretty cool guy, and Wagner isn't too bad himself.
Grade: B- (again, entertaining enough, but pretty standard, nice dynamics with the leads and a performance from Langella that grows on you.)

And then...
CHANSONS D'AMOUR (dir. Christophe Honore, 2007):
Very very cool. I actually liked this a lot, despite my brain being completely fried for reasons listed above (max fatigue, low on coffee, soreness, etc.).
Basically, Honore made a musical. It's not a Moulin Rouge/Chicago-y thing, or anything with any dancing at all. No spectacle. It's more in the vein of Demy/Once/et al. An alternative musical, basically. And the songs... some of them were catchy/touching-ish. Others were annoying and redundant. Most of it wasn't very sophisticated (but why should it be? These are the common folk).

So, story follows a young guy through a few turning points. It's divided into 3 parts, each marking a change in the direction of the character/story. First part: Guy is part of a 3-some, one guy, two girls. There's fun stuff and it's nice. Then all of a sudden the guy's girlfriend (the one he really loves, the other is just "a bridge between the two" or something), has a big ol' medical accident. Which was actually a surprise, and it made things more interesting.
Then other fairly realistic stuff ensues, guy gets depressed, sleeps around (with girls and guys), etc. It's plausible enough.
Sorry this isn't sounding very enthusiastic. I did like this it's just hard for me to rationalize it at the moment. I loved the look and feel of it, the atmosphere. It was wonderfully shot and it did have that nouvelle-vague feel to it. I kept thinking of Umbrellas of Cherbourg/A woman is a woman and smiling. There were some cool little things Honore did with stills and fast motion. And I actually do want to take another look at this and give it a closer viewing. The timing was just iffy. However...
Grade: B+ (kept me involved, loved the look, and the premise/execution was admirable, I'd like to make something along these lines one day)

And lastly...
SILENT LIGHT (dir. Carlos Reygadas, 2007):
Which I actually liked a whole lot. Which is incredibly bizarre. Normally this Ozu-Dreyer-Bresson influenced stuff really bothers me, but this time it didn't. I'll try and attribute that to a few things: Reygadas was a lot more fluid than the abovementioned masters. And I like his eye for things a lot more. He does stick to long takes, and he does use nonactors, and he does have a pretty loose plot. But the way he uses it just worked for me. The images, all of them, were gorgeous. It was a beautiful, beautiful film. My eyes were able to relax and take it in. It didn't force anything on me, it just was there, happening, calmly. I could look around and interpret things.
The Q&A with Reygadas also helped me appreciate it more:
- He thinks of acting with the Kuleshov effect in mind. He gives his actors the lines, when to say them, and the feeling he wants. Then they say them. The cinema does the rest. Some guy behind me was like "well Kuleshov cut to something, there was no cutting." But I don't think he was implying that the performance was created in the editing (a la the Bourne movies, for example). He was letting the film take care of it. The words themselves and the layering that slowly builds implies the performance. If that makes sense. It probably doesn't, but it works in my head (something Reygadas also said repeatedly).
- Along those lines, when he talked about the feeling he wanted, he didn't encourage the non-actors to read the script and look for psychological subtext and all that super actor-ly stuff. He did more of a method thing, having them recall personal experiences and let them bring the feelings forward.
- He wasn't looking for a fixed meaning. His main rule was to "let things happen, as they happen in life" which reminded me a lot of Mungiu's idea for 4 months, although here it's taken in a slightly different direction of realism. And that's because...
- The story is about a mennonite who gets stuck in a love triangle. Reygadas said that he started with the triangle, and stumbled on the mennonites in his travels. He decided that it was the perfect setting for the story (which it was) because it was it's own self contained world, free of distractions (like money, social classes, etc.) it allows you to focus on the characters and the atmosphere (and stay involved, because it's foreign but not alienating), and it really really worked to his advantage.
- He also thought about time's place in the movie. As someone in the crowd pointed out, the clock stops while the main character is having his personal dilemma over his triangle. Reygadas gave this two reasons: firstly, the mennonites sort of exist outside of time, they've got their own universe that's not very similar to our own. and secondly, it's the feeling that you're stuck in limbo when you're having this kind of a personal dilemma, that you're stuck, time's frozen and it's not going to move on until you make up your mind. but you will make up your mind, and time will go on, as it always does. He kept referring back to cosmos and chaos, and life being a cycle.
- Also, he was influenced by Ordet, Sleeping Beauty, and Ozu.
- Jacques Brel is one of his heroes.

Grade: A (beautiful, interesting, superbly made)

And there you have it, a two so-sos, one pretty fly and one awesome movie. Another great day at TIFF.

TIFF 07: Day 3 "I felt like a gumball in a machine"

I thought I could relate to the above quote after my rush line experience at Young People Fucking, but I had no idea how true it was. I'm going to start at the end and work my way to the start for this entry. So here goes:
I just got back, after a longer than usual streetcar ride (some traffic jam), the biggest slice of pizza I've ever had (it was bigger than my head...which says a lot), and...

THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD (dir. Andrew Dominik, 2007):
Well. Things were off to a rough start here, and it may take a second viewing to confirm whether it was situational, or the movie itself. I think it was the movie (although being hungry and swept away in "ohmygoshisthatbenaffleckmattdamonanddoncheadle" mode might have something to do with why I had a hard time following the first two reels). Basically, the title tells you exactly what the movie is about. It follows Robert Ford (Casey Affleck), a young fella who's in awe of Jesse James (Brad Pitt), the notorious outlaw. Ford becomes a double agent, and things get tense.
After hearing that it was long, and slow (from the director nonetheless), I ended up expecting something different. But I'm completely satisfied with what I got. Two things stood out (for me): The performances by the two leads, and the incredibly tight command Dominik has on the tension that's steadily maintained throughout the film.
To elaborate: I didn't know Brad had this much depth. All of the traits that make Brad Pitt the star that he is are used (and twisted) to his advantage as Jesse James. The sly charisma, the "piercing blue eyes," and his bad boy nature (which gets taken to the next level, and then some). James alternates between a genuinely nice guy, family man, celebrity, friend, and a nervous, cruel, and suspicious outlaw. Casey Affleck holds his own as Ford, the man destined to takes James out. He's the perfect choice for the part. He's got the innocence, but intelligence. You can sympathize with his conflicted feelings over James (civic duty vs. hero worship).
And now for the tension. Dominik really gets points for this one. First off, the title. It tells us exactly where things are going, and Dominik does a few things to keep you on the edge until you get there.
He said it was slow, but of course, when you slow things down it ups the ante. The pacing (which you may call elegant), did wonders for the movie. It reminds me of Leone in a way (especially the... assassination scene--which does reference The Good the Bad and the Ugly).
Dominik also makes use of opposing forces to heighten the response. Or so I thought. You've got James and Ford, two different types playing against each other. Visually, scenes alternate between very warm, candlelit interiors and cool, unforgiving exteriors (it could also be read as an expression of James' character).
The other great thing about The Assassination... is that it's an epic. And nobody makes those anymore. It's very classic, mythic, etc. I like it.
Also, the music rocks. I was happy to find out it was done by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis. Mad props.
Grade: A- (entertaining, fascinating characters, nice spin on a familiar plot (the double agent meets the western), and there are some experience points, for the star-studdedness of it all)
REVISED GRADE: A (the more I think about this the more I like it. And it keeps coming back to my mind. Which is odd. I've been getting more and more fascinated by the how different it is. All the genre bending. The way it fits in with older offbeat westerns, but doesn't actually involve the typical "wild west." It was just so good.)

But to get to this movie, I had to wait in line...for 3 hours. And I already had a ticket. Basically, TIFF does this stupid thing at the Elgin, where VISA gold/platinum cardholders get in before regular ticketholders. Being VISA platinum-less, I was stuck in the regular line. And being in line for a movie starring...Brad Pitt, the wait for everyone to arrive and the crowd to settle took longer than expected. A lot longer. But I did get to see Brad and Angelina (close-ish, enough to get a semi-decent picture on my ever so crappy cell phone camera). It was insane. My heartrate went up, I was straining on my tip toes to catch a glimpse and snap the shot. Unlike anything I've been through before in poor, celebrity-free Syracuse.
So that's where the application of the quote comes in. After waiting FOREVER, we got squeezed out (like gumballs) in little groups, so as to avoid the already enormous havoc caused my so much starpower in one theater.

While in line, I devoured my third cup of coffee for the day (man did it help). I just went against my coffee-ban of the past... 6 months or so? Maybe longer. But now I really appreciate it. And I REALLY need to stock up on some snacks for future screenings, since the whole "oh I'll just pick something up quick between shows" will never work. I don't want to starve myself here. I noticed during Assassination that the whole hunger thing kind of impairs your ability to... follow a story. Although I think the celebrity thing was part of the distraction as well.

Anyhow, before the Brangelina insanity, I was at...
4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS, AND 2 DAYS (dir. Cristian Mungiu, 2007):
Also known as "that romanian abortion drama"
Which is as good as they're saying it is.
It's one of those movies that in theory, isn't inherently cinematic, but at the same time couldn't work any other way. It follows a woman whose friend is getting an abortion (the title is how far into the pregnancy she is). And it's in the new... Romanian Realism style (a la Lazarescu, but I liked this more). It puts you right there, and as many people said after the screening, that's how it was. Most shots are long, everything is dark. I found myself completely engaged throughout.

Grade: A (Wonderful, and affecting [at one or two choice moments], grade will probably get bumped up from A- to A when I've slept and can think about it.[after sleep: yes, it does get an A.])
Also, Mungiu was there for a Q&A afterwards. He basically said that he wanted to present things as they were (which many agreed that he did). He refused to give an explanation or interpretation of events, saying that it's really up to the viewer (which it is). He also said that he just writes. He doesn't sit down and say "ok, this character is going to be naive and needy, while this one is that other thing" life's not that simple, according to Mungiu. It's chaotic, and frenzied and imperfect, and that was what he was going for with the film.

And before that...

THE MAN FROM LONDON (dir. Bela Tarr, 2007):
I'm not crazy about Bela, I guess. I mean, I respect what he does and I appreciate that he's doing it. But it's boring to me. As much as I love camera movement, I don't want to have to sit and think about it for over 2 hours. Everything was well choreographed and beautifully shot. But, it was just boring. It should have been interesting, but no. However, if you go by Tarr's Q&A afterwards, he did exactly what he wanted. He said that he was most interested in the atmosphere of the place, and he captured that incredibly well. You get that it's a monotonous, dead town. You get that this man's life is less than interesting. And you get that Tarr had something specific in mind and achieved it.
And lastly, I devised a little game going into this that I call "count the walkouts." After hearing about lots of walkouts at Cannes I wanted to see what would happen here in Toronto. Total count: about 40. It was fantastic.

Final Grade: B- (I respect it, even though I didn't enoy it.)
Tarr did a Q&A afterwards, more to follow soon.

Oh and there was also a minor flash of film nerd celebrity awareness... Chicago Reader critic Jonathan Rosenbaum was at this screening, and Tarr was present as well. After the screening the two of them were planning a dinner or something... like two steps behind me on the escalator. I really wanted to talk to them, but being the shy movie-nerd that I am, I didn't say anything. Maybe next TIFF.

And before that... the biggest surprise of the day...
CONTROL (dir. Anton Corbijn, 2007)
Which I was planning to hate and find over-rated. But boy was I wrong. It was devastating, in the best possible way. The reason I wanted to hate this was because I've only seen a handful of Corbijn's music videos, and I hated them all (I turned them off before the chorus, in most cases). But wow. Maybe it's that he knew the parties involved, maybe he just got lucky. I think a lot of it was thanks to Sam Riley's work as Ian Curtis. It was so gut-wrenchingly-tear-jerkingly perfect. Basically, I got misty a lot and cried a few times, and when it was over for a while. Maybe it was fatigue, maybe it was the early morning, or maybe I just saw something amazing. I think it's the last one.

Final Grade: A (devastating, in the best possible way. an experience I can safely say I've never had in a theater before.) [note: I'll follow up with a repeat view once it either gets to Syracuse or DVD, so I can actually comment instead of enthusiastically gushing about how amazing it was.]

Naturally, the morning was a commute in to the Scotiabank, so nothing terribly exciting there.
But man, was a crazy day. I've seen more famous people (both actually famous and film-geek famous) in one day than I have in my lifetime. Only at TIFF...