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).

he's lost control again.

so my friends and i decided to go down to NYC to see a few movies yesterday. The day started with lots of driving, moved on to movies, and in between there were lots of attempts at eating that gave us just barely enough energy to move on. Because of the early morning drive, my energy was flagging for the restoration of LA CHINOISE (dir. Jean-Luc Godard, 1967) at the Film Forum. What the last sentence meant is that I was dozing off for most of the movie. And because the pattern of sleep was a really quick on-off-on-off, the entire movie got broken into little fragments and i missed the connecting patterns. so I'll just give a few little comments from the tiny bit i saw and made sense of. firstly, the restoration was fantastic. Jean-Pierre Leaud makes everything he's in more watch-able. Godard in between narratives and politics is a bit strange. I wish I had been alert through all of this. It's a shame. Once Criterion lets out the DVD I'll re-investiage, you can count on it.
After that we found some food and energy-related materials, then went back to film forum to see CONTROL (dir. Anton Corbijn, 2007, repeat viewing). Which I think would have packed a similar punch to the first viewing, but the conditions this time were different. What I ended up with was the "intellectual distance" that I was lacking the first time. So I realized that Control isn't as flawless as I thought. On the first viewing, it blows you away. But see it again and it seems a little wispier. It's really all about Ian Curtis, so much so that you really have no idea what's going on with the band at all. They're recording a lot of stuff and doing a lot of shows. Corbijn leaves the chronology out so that the fact that Curtis was only 23 really packs a wallop. Maybe what I'm getting at is that the film isn't as precise and on target as I thought the first time. The music was just as kickass. And the cinematography was even more stunning the second time. The performances, too, were fantastic. But the narrative wasn't as satisfying. Nothing wrong with that though, it was still a trip. Repeat Grade: B+
We were going to see The Assassination of Jesse James... but because of the intensity of the day up to that point we changed our mind and went to something lighter, THE DARJEELING LIMITED (dir. Wes Anderson, 2007). I had a surprisingly positive response to this. It's odd, but this might actually be my favorite Wes Anderson movie. I'll try to elaborate at a later date (my guess is it hits syracuse in the next week or two, i'll be seeing it again). Grade: B (if i could disregard everything and go with my gut, I'd give it an A-).
Attempted elaboration (several hours later): I think the reason I like this is because it feels freer than his past work. Odd, since he's cramped himself on a train for most of the movie, but I think in trying to be "wes anderson" in such a confined space, he was forced to loosen up a bit more. The world of Darjeeling isn't as constricting as his earlier stuff, and where Life Aquatic was a step forward, here he's starting to push out even further. It's funny, but he's actually started moving (literally). Rushmore and Tenenbaums were both isolated in their own worlds (school, the family's house), but Aquatic and Darjeeling, while still technically isolated (a boat/a train) are still forced to interact with a larger world. (I've disregarded Bottle Rocket here, it's been a while since I've watched it, and since it was his first film, odds are he didn't have his way on everything like he has since). Anyways, I think this interaction with the outside is good for him, maybe because it gives us glimpses of a larger force in control. Or maybe it's just that Wes is getting a little messier (faster pace, smaller locations, more movement, fewer inserts) and I think as a result things are getting more interesting.
But despite this, there are still a few issues-- the Indians are fetish objects instead of characters. The trip to the convent where the mother is really could have been left out. And it still feels like Wes playing with his toy actor people.
Last note (for now): I hate to say it, but Adrien Brody was my favorite character. I'm not generally a huge fan of his, but I really liked what he was doing here.

Hopefully I'll be getting back on track and writing more in the next week or so. But for now, ciao.

legalize.

MICHAEL CLAYTON (dir. Tony Gilroy, 2007): They're really pushing Clooney in this, and rightfully so. His performance is the film's best accomplishment. My brother and I had a talk afterwards about the star system, and celebrities who are more famous having more of a challenge when acting-- they have to lose their "star" status or play it to their advantage (see Jesse James, both leads actually). Here, Clooney gets rid of his own image and constructs the ever compelling Michael Clayton. You know it's true when you get to the last shot, Clayton sitting in a taxicab, looking around the city in a single unbroken shot while the first set of credits appear. That made the movie.
Gilroy does well to relax the pace, letting the characters and the situation move you along, instead of the flashy-fast editing (a la Bourne). And I'm not sure if this is him or his DP, but there are some really nice, almost stunning compositions (lots of lights out of focus, escalators moving horizontally across the frame, etc).
The script has a few muddy moments, it could be that I was tired but on several instances I had to re-orient myself to figure out what was going on. Also, the pseudo-flashback structure [we see a bit first, then jump back four days and lead up to it] wasn't as effective as it might have been, partly because the connections from the first scene to it's repeated version later in the film are pretty obvious. Revisiting them only underscores what we would have already assumed. Minor flaws, though.
Grade: B+ (does what it wants to, does it well.)

the bourne supremacy and... mouchette.

What a pairing. This'll be quick (I'm at work and wanted to get thoughts out before they became complete blurs).
THE BOURNE SUPREMACY (dir. Paul Greengrass, 2004):
I like to think of the Bourne series as what action/thrillers should be. That's a completely personal opinion, and I can completely understand if nobody else agrees with me. Sure, it's highly edited and follows a similar pattern, but it's just nice to see a movie where the only special effect is the editing (how cinematic!). As far as Supremacy, it's another solid entry in the series. Lots of cuts, fast walking, car chases, and hand to hand combat. It was actually my first viewing of Supremacy, so my series went from movie 1 to movie 3 to movie 2, and after Ultimatum, Supremacy is almost peaceful. It took a while to get a handle on what exactly was going on (something about Russians, Bourne being framed, and so on) and I'm not sure if that's Greengrass' fault or my forgetting most of the details about The Bourne Identity. At any rate, a few things stood out this time around. Firstly, why is there even a screenplay credit? I didn't realize how little speaking was actually involved in the Bourne movies. And depending on the stance you take, that's either great or terrible. On the one hand, when do big action movies ever have really great scripts that advance the plot and character development while seeming completely plausible. Bourne gets by on exactly what it needs to give us a sense of what's going on, and then the visuals do the rest.
Aside from that, the rest of my thoughts were related to David Bordwell's set of essays on the Bourne movies, you can check them out here:
1. http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=1175
2. http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=1230
3. http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=1285
He's really got a point. And the last one, on the significance of the repeated scene from Supremacy in Ultimatum is a mind-boggler.
Grade: B+ (just what I wanted)

And Mouchette...this'll be really quick: it's very Bresson. The downside/upside to certain Auteurs is that their films can sort of mesh together because they're so similar and the significant variations are more personal. I'm going to be re-viewing this soon so an actual write-up will follow. Grade: B

TIFF 07: Day 10 "straddle a goat and ride off into the sunset."

Ok, so I guess after I'm Not There yesterday, my mind said "festival's over." Today was a big, sad blur.
Woke up, went to the Cumberland and saw:
ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD (dir. Werner Herzog, 2007):
Herzog's back in documentary mode, and it's pretty much exactly what you'd expect. Some beautiful shots, some interesting stories from people, profound comments on nature and mankind, and there's a sense of humor in this one. Also, he didn't use any terribly annoying music.
Grade: B+ (nice and Herzog-y, but not a major change or revolution)

And then, blew some time trying to stay warm and saw...

ME (dir. Rafa Cortes, 2007)
I feel guilty saying this, but I zoned out about ten minutes in. It wasn't doing anything for me. I stayed up the whole time, giving it chance after chance, but it just didn't have it together. The pacing was too slow, the idea wasn't clear enough, the motivations were fuzzy. Maybe I was fuzzy. I don't know. The one credit is that for Digital, it looked pretty good.
Grade: C- (excessive, boring)

Burned some more time, then headed to:
PLOY (dir. Pen-ek Ratanaruang, 2007):
Well. It was better than the last thing of his that I saw (Last life in the Universe, I had to turn it off it was bothering me so much). However, it still wasn't too great. It felt like a generic art movie. Everyone was sort of hanging around being moody, then an argument, some dream sequences (or are they?), a twist that almost makes you think there's a story, then more moody. Just didn't do it for me.
Grade: C+ (misguided, but mildly interesting)

Then I ran an errand or two, and went to the final film:

GLORY TO THE FILMMAKER (dir. Takeshi Kitano, 2007):
The first 45 minutes or so were fantastic. It's basically the director making mini-movies in different genres that he hasn't done before. But once it settles onto what's going to be the rest of the movie, it turns into this absurd, not very funny, overly long crazy-fest. So close, but so far.
Grade: B- (it'd be worse, but the first hour was actually funny, and interesting)

So that's that. Long wrap-up essay coming tomorrow (It's my project for the 8 hour train ride).

TIFF 07: Day 8 "lars-centric"

So part one of this is coming to you early, since I've got a big break between screenings 3 and 4. The new place I'm staying at is awesome. There's a cat here that woke me up this morning with like, forced petting. It was so weird. I open my eyes and here's this cat like putting it's paw on me and all and being all "pet me!" But I like cats so that was cool. This one seems to like me a lot.

So after getting up and getting ready I went down to the Scotiabank (of course) to see...

NAISSANCE DES PIEUVRES (dir. Celine Sciamma, 2007):
Very very good. It's about this girl who gets obsessed with the captain of the synchronized swim team (also a girl). Girl A is probably 15, girl B is like 18. Both of them were great performers. The atmosphere reminded me a lot of The Virgin Suicides, and not just because the subject matter was teenage girls. It had the same feelings of isolation, of self discovery and so on. It was nicely shot, lots of rich blues with the occasional red. And the best part, for me, was the interactions of the two leads. They created the most romantic tension I've experienced in a long time. It got to the point where when the younger girl saw the older girl, my heart would start beating faster too.
Grade: A- (wonderfully done, a unique experience)

And then I went to the Elgin for:

MARGOT AT THE WEDDING (dir. Noah Baumbach, 2007)
Which I wasn't too crazy about. The emphasis (as far as cinematic elements go) was on the characters and story, which I'm ok with. Visuals were solid but standard handheld-y stuff with Baumbach's familiar slightly desaturated images. The performances from Kidman and Leigh were good. I was so happy to see Ciaran Hinds in this. He's great and never used enough. I had some issues taking Jack Black seriously though (and I never did. Maybe that was the point though. He was the loser-ish "why is she marrying this guy?" character). But in this especially (and looking back at Squid and the Whale), I see what people's issues are with Baumbach's typical character-- the intellectual asshole who's a crappy parent. I had trouble identifying with a single character. Either they were too mean, too silly, or I didn't know enough about them to make a choice.
Grade: B

And I just came from...
LARS AND THE REAL GIRL (dir. Craig Gillespie, 2007):
Another crowd pleaser, except this one had more heart than Run, Fat boy, Run, and it was better directed. It's sort of a 2007, indie update on Harvey. It went like this: Ryan Gosling's character (who probably has some kind of mental disorder), orders a life size sex doll, but instead of using it for the obvious purpose, he dresses it up, calls it his girlfriend, and lives with it. Eventually the community he lives in comes together and pretends the doll is alive with him, and he grows as a person and the community grows stronger. It was sweet and well made. I fell asleep for a little bit though (oh the fatigue). And I woke up and didn't miss anything. Although everyone was laughing, I think it was at the same joke, the whole movie. Which is the one thing that bothered me about this. Everything was funny because it was a doll. And he thought it was real.
Grade: B- (nice, but redundant)

And then I came back here, and on the way picked up a crepe with strawberries and nutella. It cost more than I expected, so I was mad about that. But whatever, I thought. I went outside and got on the streetcar with it, and headed back. The car was overcrowded and I realized about 1/4 of the way through the trip that... my crepe was leaking. It was dripping nutella everywhere. I realized this when I looked down at my hoodie, and saw it covered in Nutella. Oh it was maddening.
So I got back, tossed the crepe in anger, and washed my hoodie. The End.

And then I came back here, and had the best shave of my life. Seriously. I haven't shaved in a little over a week, and between the scruffy face and the poof of hair, I looked a terrible mess. But now I feel light years better, and ready for more movies.

Off to see...

BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD (dir. Sidney Lumet, 2007):
I just fell in love with Network, so I was excited to see that Lumet was still making movies. I need to see more of him though, since I'm unfamiliar with everything he's done besides... Network.

OK, so before I get to the movie itself, first a note about... "festival fatigue." Today was the first day that it really hit me. I think it was two late nights in a row that did it (3am and 2am, with wake ups at 6:30). So today, for everything but Naissance, I was fighting the urge to nod off.

And now for the movie:
It was everything Cassandra's Dream should have been. The writing and the acting were a lot sharper than Allen's film (it pains me to say). And of course, the plot was a little bit different. But same sort of idea: a murder complicates the lives of two brothers. In Allen's film, it's intentional. In Lumet's it's accidental. And of course, the crowd still found some things to laugh at (sort of the opposite end of the whole audience's being great), even though, if it weren't at a festival/a group of people looking for entertainment (and by that i mean entertainment=comedy), it would have played as a tense, serious drama. Hah the Cassandra's Dream thought was probably the only major thing I've got on this. The performances were fantastic (as you'd expect with a Lumet film). He was there to introduce, along with Marisa Tomei and Ethan Hawke. Phil Hoffman was shooting in Australia and couldn't make it.
So, the second place price goes to this one.
Grade: B+ (well written, well performed, well directed, not amazing, but just pretty good.)


Now there's only two days left. It's almost terribly depressing.
Tomorrow I have my first documentary. And I'm Not There (so excited). And La Fille Coupee En Deux (also exciting). And Chacun Son Cinema (again, very exciting. an omnibus film about the movies!).

Until then.

TIFF 07: Day 7 "if it wasn't, he would have fired them on the spot"

So I've relocated, I'm now staying with another random stranger courtesy of EVD. After taking care of that this morning, I made my way downtown for...

CASSANDRA'S DREAM (dir. Woody Allen, 2007):
Oh boy. He's done it again.
He's made another not so great Woody Allen movie.
OH MY GOD.
Ok, so basically, it's this story about these two guys who end up getting super paranoid and doing crazy things over money. And a bit of the way through the crowd at the Elgin found a few lines to laugh at. And then they found a few more. And a few more. It got to the point where at the end, everyone was incredibly confused. Why? Because nobody could tell if it was a really bad drama or a really funny comedy.
And I just looked it up, and...
WOODY ALLEN MADE A "BAD" MOVIE!
And of course, I mean the good bad. He wanted it to be a drama, exploring the depth of man or something through murder. And on the IMDB page it lists it under "crime" and "drama."
And yet, the audience was howling with laughter. The whole time. So, now that I know what the original plan was, I can do this...
GRADE: C+ (sorry Woody, looks like you got a bit too lazy with this one--I did watching it [I fell asleep for like ten minutes, so did the guy down the row from me])
BAD MOVIE GRADE: B+ (the moment of realization was priceless. thank you.)

Man, I still can't believe it. I'm overjoyed and saddened at the same time.

So after that, I got some breakfast and headed over to the Scotiabank (cause I don't spend enough time there), for the day's other 3 movies. First up was:

RUN, FAT BOY, RUN (dir. David Schwimmer, 2007)
Which I was prepared for, to a point. Michael Ian Black wrote the script, Simon Pegg was starring, it looked like it might actually have a bit of potential. But it fell short (I should have gone to Redacted).
I mean, it wasn't awful. It was just a standard comedy. It'll probably come out in theaters and break even. It wasn't amazing, it wasn't awful. It was just ok.
Grade: C+

A pizza and beverage later, I saw:

DANS LA VILLE DE SYLVIA (dir. Jose Luis Guerin, 2007):
Which was probably the number 2 movie of the day. It was a more of artistic film (enough so that the people next to me were complaining afterwards about how it wasn't "entertaining, it had no plot!"). Basically, there's one scene with dialogue. The rest of the movie is about this poet-illustrator guy who follows this girl around. We get lots of ambient noise. Lots of long tracking shots. And then a few sequences with some spiffy editing. I wasn't surprised to see, yet again, the influence of a certain set of filmmakers who used... non-acting, detheatrical plots, deliberate pacing, etc. It's funny that all the best things I've seen have been strongly influenced by older directors that I'm not fond of at all. But I'm glad that people are taking the lessons and making them more interesting and watchable. So yeah, I'm getting a soft spot for this sort of movie so...
GRADE: B+ (well executed, interesting {once I started taking notes and actively viewing}, and it pissed some people off, which gets points)

And lastly, today's Movie of the Day...

THE TRACEY FRAGMENTS (dir. Bruce McDonald, 2007):
Which I need more time to think about to fully comment on.
It was a crazy experience. Just crazy. Ellen Page starred. She was awesome, as usual.
But the most fascinating thing about this was what they did with the screen. It's a movie where, as the title may imply, the screen is fragmented pretty much the whole way through. and it's not fixed at all. The fragments change and move and the editing is superfast. What's great though is that I was with it all the way through. I didn't get lost (as it could be easy to do).
Grade: B+/A- (I'm on the cusp right now, when I write more tomorrow I'll update).

So that was the day. Sorry things are getting less and less... eventful? verbose? I don't know. Fatigue was heavy today (only 4 hours of sleep), so it's tough to think about everything at 1 am.
Also, today was the first day where I broughy my ipod around, and used it. I've realized that part of why I don't like hearing the waiting in line talk, and the waiting in the theater talk, is because I don't want to know more than I already do about the movie. I mean, it doesn't matter, I guess, but I'm bringing enough baggage into it already, and I don't want to be thinking about why that jerk in the line yesterday said it was godawful and so on. I want to form my own thoughts.

And also, today. I had a more positive thought about the festival at large:
I've realized why you go to the theater to see a movie. It's something that in general is missing in Syracuse. The experience. People turning a "drama" into a comedy about Colin Farrell's bad acting, or applause at the end of a musical number, people sticking around and taking a serious interest in what the filmmaker has to say. It's all wonderful and delightful, and it's what movie-going is really all about.

Anyhow
On tomorrow's agenda: Naissance Des Pieuvres, Margot at the Wedding, Lars & the Real Girl, and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.

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 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 2 "this is my winnipeg"

I'm going to get this out of the way now: One of my favorite things about Canada is that everything has a label in english and french. I can't look at anything without thinking of that and smiling deep inside. Don't ask why, I don't know myself.

Most of the day was drab, but the movies, oh the movies.
I made the 30 minute ride into festival-town early on this morning (I got there around 8:30, for a 9:15 showing). And naturally, once I got off the subway, I got lost. Well, to put it fairly, I missed a street sign, but I wasn't far off. Nor was I the only person. Which brings me to today's....

RANDOM STRANGER MOMENT:
I was walking around, headed toward where I thought the Scotiabank Theater was, when all of a sudden this girl asks me if....I know where the Scotiabank Theater is. I guess I looked pretty confident about where I was going. To which I replied, "I think it's this way, I'm going there myself." and so we had the same small talk that I had yesterday, "where are you from?" "syracuse" "school?" "yeah, film" "what're you seeing?" etc. Finally, we find the theater and part ways. In the second movie of the day, I see random stranger and wave. End of random stranger story.

Now the moment you've all been waiting for... the movies. First of the day was:

YOU, THE LIVING (dir. Roy Andersson, 2007):
Brilliant. I loved it. Which naturally means I'll have a hard time writing about it. I really liked Songs from the Second Floor, and after You, The Living I really wish I had the chance to see it in theaters with a crowd. Everyone was receptive, taking in the comedy, laughing and enjoying themselves. Which is even better because Andersson is Swedish, and we know how uplifting Swedish cinema can be. Granted, YTL still has that bleak Swedish-ness to it, but Andersson is probably the closest thing Sweden has to Jacques Tati. Andersson uses more words, but the source of the humor is essentially the same. Like Tati, Andersson's compositions shift between the exceedingly flat and the incredibly deep. Everything plays out in one long take, and most of the time the camera is pretty much static, or moving so slowly that you don't notice.
Technical points aside, YTL really hits on personal communication. Characters are often unable to communicate with each other, which forces some to speak directly to the camera (or in one notable instance, sing). Favorite moments: The opening song, the entire "tablecloth trick" sequence (complete with popcorn at the execution), and the honeymoon.
I was looking forward to this, and it was even better than I expected.
Final Grade: A- (enjoyable, entertaining, interesting thematically and technically, I got tired once)

And then, I waited around for a while (hoping to grab lunch), but failed. Everytime I try to just pick up a quick bite to eat, I fail. I'll have to fix that. So in lieu of lunch, I got ripped off while buying a bag of M&Ms from the concession stand ($4--just awful). And then I got my seat for:

THE BANISHMENT (dir. Andrey Zvyagintsev, 2007):
Which I hated. There were two things keeping me from leaving and jumping over to Voyage Du Ballon Rouge (which I should have done): 1) I was sitting in the middle of a row, and getting up would mean a lot of hassle, and more importantly 2) I only had 5 dollars, and wasn't sure if my paycheck was in the bank yet. So I had to sit through an excruciating two and a half hours of everything I don't like about Russian art/literature. By that I mean it was bleak, boring, long, full of suffering (mostly psychological), and lots of references to Jesus. The story was something like: A guy goes away for some job, and his wife has an affair, and ends up pregnant. The husband is pissed, and wants her to get an abortion, and so she does. Then she dies, and the husband's brother has a heart attack and dies too. And it lasted 2 1/2 hours. Lots of long takes that weren't very interesting and lots of pained expressions. Somewhere in there I fell asleep for a few minutes, which I don't regret. After I woke up, the pain continued and then there was this flashback that made no sense to me. I guess it was what happened to the wife while the husband was gone. It lasted forever, but the main point was that her lover wasn't actually the father, it was the husband. Or maybe I missed the point. There was enough unexplained absurdity (and not the good, Roy Andersson variety), that by the end I was stuck trying to figure out what just happened. And I still have no idea.
But, there were a handful of good shots, one was a long take while rain started pouring in the country. Another had to do with water on the windshield, and other things like that. The whole "visual textures" idea. Aside from that though, I didn't like this.
Final Grade (C-, dull, boring, nonsensical at times, but high production values and some good cinematography keep it from the D-level)

After that, I was exhausted, and wanted to try to come back to the apartment and take a nap for a bit. It took me about 2 hours to get back, mostly because I wanted to just stop someplace and get food, and ended up walking in a big circle. I also stopped to refuel my wallet and get some subway tokens (Ripoff of the day #2, I should have got the weekly pass). But I finally got back, rested for an hour and made my way to the Wintergarden theater for...

MY WINNIPEG (dir. Guy Maddin, 2007):
But first, the Wintergarden is an AWESOME venue. It's basically a super nice, older theater with some neat murals and all, but on the ceiling space there's a bunch of faux-foliage, and lots of hanging garden lamps. The proscenium and any other columns look like trees, and it's probably one of the coolest theaters I've been in.

And as for Winnipeg. I'll put it this way: Guy Maddin did with Winnipeg what I want to do with Syracuse. He's made a personal documentary (he calls it a docu-fantasia), about what it's like growing up in a somewhat dreary, winter-heavy, working class city. And it's all in Maddin's silent-era-influenced style. Maddin was there to narrate the film, which for the most part added to the experience. It makes me wish I had seen Brand upon the Brain! in the live setting.
It's hard to really describe the experience of a Maddin film, and My Winnipeg is proving the point. I think I'll have to sleep on it and update when my mind is actually working properly. But for now:
Final Grade: B+ (interesting, funny, stylized, but with a few distractions [mainly the switches to DV])
And there was a Q&A afterwards, which was fun but not terribly informative.

That was the end of the day, I came back, ordered a pizza (naturally), and now I'm going to bed. Tomorrow is the first 4 movie day, and I've got no naptime, so until then.

no end in sight

NO END IN SIGHT (dir. Charles Ferguson, 2007):
Pretty standard documentary, lots of talking heads, archive footage, etc.
But the content! The situation in Iraq is incredibly frustrating. What's even worse is how helpless you feel afterwards. It seems like no matter what anyone does, they'll end up shot down (literally and/or figuratively). It's like SiCKO in that everyone can agree with it in the end, no matter what side you're on. It could have been prevented, and now it's chaos. Which was nicely underscored by a lot of the footage shot in Iraq-- there's many horizon lines that aren't level, a.k.a. lots of dutch angles (which I always called "the chaos angle"). And chaos it is.

Final Grade: B+

superbad

SUPERBAD (dir. Greg Mottola, 2007):
Pretty hilarious. And that's just how it is. Of course, I did only graduate two years back, so part of this comedy has a quasi-nostalgic feel for me. Ask me again in 10 years and I'll probably have another take on this.
It's pretty much the standard Apatow & Co. formula (as everyone's been saying): raunch+humanity = comedy that makes you feel really good at the end. But there are certain things that got to me. One being that it was probably 20 minutes too long. As great as it is to have this many jokes and character moments, it reached the point where I was aware of how long scenes were playing out, and within the realm of entertainment cinema, that's a bad thing.
And the other thing is Seth Rogen's whole "unattractive loser going noplace must end up with the superbabe" is annoying me. And it's only the second movie where he's done this. The great thing about the Steve Carrell/Catherine Keener pairing in the 40 year old Virgin was that they were believable as a couple. But Rogen is pushing the idea. Maybe it'll inspire hot girls to go for guys who seem to be going nowhere, because a sense of humor can undo being a loser. But I guess that's probably my old film history nerve kicking in too. I've come to expect either a believable pairing of airheads or a sophisticated pair of equals (much more entertaining). In Virgin it was nice because they weren't the most attractive people around, but they were right for each other and they weren't stupid. But Rogen is leaning heavily on the idea that opposites attract (as far opposed as they may be).
Superbad is a conventional teen movie, but the Apatow "heart" and Mottola's slightly apparent style (a few fancy camera flourishes, nice grainy HD) take it a step above the rest. Plus, thank god Michael Cera is getting larger roles. Right now, he may be may favorite screen comedian. I wasn't crazy about McLovin, but he was funny. Rogen and his mini-me (Jonah Hill), were hilarious, but...there's just something about them that keeps me from flat out adoration. And Bill Hader was great. So hilarious.
So, as it's known to do...comedy saves the day and gets the grade.
Final Grade: B+

once

ONCE (dir. John Carney, 2006):
the musical i wish i made. almost. great music and a love story. the music was seamlessly woven into the plot, which is always good for a musical. no singing fantasy sequences or asides here. the main guy is a musician, so the music is his. it's the anti-broadway musical--small, indie, intimate. the relationship was...one of those frustrating things (e.g. Jim/Pam in The Office). You just want it to happen, and in defiance of viewer expectations, it never does. It's a minor letdown, I suppose. And also: props to Glen Hansard for embodying sincerity on screen. It's really affecting.
But I had some issues with Once. Mostly that....it had a bit of extra weight, since essentially it was a vehicle for the songs. Certain sequences played out more like fluffy music videos than a solid narrative. Granted, the lyrics speak volumes toward the story/emotions of the characters (the ol' "if you can't speak, sing" deal). But it'd be even better if the visuals added another layer. But it ends up just feeling like "fluff." For example: when they listen to the first demo of the tape. I went with my brother, who, when the tape was done and the producer said "let's go listen in the car," whispered to me "so we can drive someplace and do something indie to the music." and that's exactly what happened. they just hung out on a beach while the music played. little things like that got to me. It might just be jealousy, or it might be that I need another viewing to really look at it, but I'm going to go with my gut here.
Final Grade: B+

boston moviegoing (Rescue Dawn, The Bourne Ultimatum, 12:08 East of Bucharest)

What I've seen while in Boston (so far):

RESCUE DAWN (dir. Werner Herzog, 2006):
To be honest, I expected more. The film has your typical Herzog parts: crazy visionary, a jungle, being overpowered by nature. But it didn't have the gravity that I was hoping for. Christian Bale is a pilot who was shot down, taken to a Vietnamese prison camp, and planned/executed an escape. And knowing Herzog, I expected him to die on the way. But alas, he gives in to the Hollywood ending. Ok wait, I know that RD was based on true events, Dieter Dengler's story of escape and all, and obviously, he did live to tell the tale. But what Herzog does at the end of this is too smug, too happy. I would've liked the movie a whole lot more if it ended with Bale flying away in the helicopter. Instead he flies away, lands, gets interrogated by the CIA, stolen from the hospital by his old friends, and brought to his old ship complete with large applauding crowd and an MC for chrissake. It was just lame. I want to know if that's actually what Herzog wanted for the ending.
Aside from that though, everything was good. The story was fascinating. It's funny because I was expecting more style from Werner, but thinking about it now I realize that when he's not a presence in his films (aka he's making narrative-fiction) he's actually just a really good director. He's not amazing, but he knows what he's doing better than most.
I was surprised by the performances. I was expecting Bale to give his usual tough man/suffering man routine, and to an extent he did. Something in RD was different though. He just fit. The character itself was a little too...hokey? He knew more than it seemed like he should have, with all his gadgets and stuff. I'm sure you can make a career out of being a pilot, but for Dengler (in RD) to do it just didn't seem right. Maybe that's just me. And props to Steve Zahn. He may have been my favorite part of the movie.
To summarize: Good, full of surprises, some good, some not so good, but a good time nonetheless.
Final Grade: B

THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM (dir. Paul Greengrass, 2007):
One word: Awesome.
Actually, I'll elaborate. It's been a while since I've watched a Bourne movie, but now I really want to again. They're the perfect action movies. For the past four or five months I've been craving an action movie, and I wasn't sure which one it was until I saw this. There weren't any flashy effects, there weren't any superpowers. Just good old fashioned ass kicking. Matt Damon is a million times more interesting than your average generic action star. He's more of a character, less of a caricature. And that's probably why the Bourne series is a step above the rest.
I'll touch on the slight issues I had: Julia Stiles. Not to be mean or anything, it was just the way the role ended up working out, but all I remember her doing was some exceedingly blank staring at Damon the whole time, then dying her hair and leaving. She was more of a plot device here, and it showed. And secondly, Bourne's flashbacks were a hair overdone.
David Strathairn was fantastic. The action was exciting. The fights were well choreographed. Greengrass uses the same style he's always used, and in the setting of a smart action pic it worked fantastically. Note to self: give the first two movies a re-view pretty soon. Hopefully they'll at least come close to being as great as this was.
Final Grade: A-

12:08 EAST OF BUCHAREST (dir. Corneliu Porumboiu, 2006):
A lot funnier than Lazarescu. And interesting for the fact that the first half of the movie builds up to one event: a TV show, that takes up the rest of the picture. I loved the jokes about using a tripod, and how handheld is so hot right now. It was nice seeing that acknowledged by somebody. And the director follows that idea through the first half. Lots of stationary shots, carefully composed, allowing the actors to just talk and show themselves. The second half shows where the tripod can go wrong. And it was funny most of the time. The bumps, off-level frames, awkward zooms and shout outs to the camera person were all nice variations on the idea. I think the TV show could have been about ten minutes shorter, since the camera jokes and the revolution jokes were just starting to go stale when it ended. It took me a few minutes to adjust to what 12:08 was asking me to do as a viewer, mainly pay attention, don't get bored because people are talking, once I settled in, I was pleasantly surprised.
Final Grade: B+

the saddest music in the world

this is my first guy maddin film, and i'm not sure what i think of it. or rather, i like it, but i'm not sure why. and i know there's lots more beneath the surface, but i'm not really in the position to touch on it. at least not yet. i think part of my initial reaction was a style-shock. there isn't a filmmaker out there like maddin, and i'm excited to see more of what he's doing. i should probably re-view The Saddest Music, now aware of what i'm going to be seeing and better able to understand it. but for now, i got caught up in the surface and the spectacle. and i liked it a lot.

a three movie day: sunshine, sicko, and zodiac

SUNSHINE (dir. Danny Boyle, 2007)
I liked this, despite myself. The story was pretty standard for a space-movie. The plot had a few holes. The characters overall, could've used a bit more development (esp. the captain of icarus 1, i had no idea what his logic was). Performances were all in all, alright (I did like Cillian Murphy more than the rest). But damn, did this have style. Most of the time. For the first 3/4s of the movie it's thoughtful, foreboding, with hints and jabs at what's to come. In other words, lots of tension. When it finally does let loose, it's a flurry of chaos, mostly to cover the dubious plot. Apparently the budget was small, which you'd assume from a movie of the director/production company, but it doesn't show. What I liked was that all the theatrics really took me for a spin. Aside from a few moments of movie-science talk, I couldn't look away. There were several glimpses of the sublime, little snippets of something beautiful, and I think it's those snippets that really made Sunshine an experience I won't soon forget. It's one of those things that only a movie can do, and that's why I go in the first place.
Final Grade: B+
(high? yes. but it's relative. live in syracuse long enough, and you'll really appreciate the Sunshines that somehow magically make their way here. It beats a threequel.)

SiCKO (dir. Michael Moore, 2007, 2nd viewing)
First time around, I was really hit on a personal level (being young and uninsured, with a terrible diet and no exercise). Second time around, much more objective. Of course, there's the typical Michael Moore one-sidedness, but here it's a side that everyone can be on. It'd be nice if he had actually explained how the international systems he looked at really worked, and what it would mean if we were to adopt a universal system of our own, but that could be a whole other movie. And he never addressed some of the big reasons that America's as unhealthy as it is (see Super Size Me, for a hint at what that might be). But that's not how Michael Moore works. I was never really crazy about him. I always thought of him as more of a pest. But this time around, the changes to his formula (stay off camera most of the time, let the stories tell themselves, sympathize with your subjects), really helped me warm up to him. Plus the fact that since he's made sicko, he's started to take his own health into consideration. Which is something we should all start doing. That and voting. If there's anything I walked away with from Sicko, that's it.
Original Grade: A-, Revised grade: B+

ZODIAC (dir. David Fincher, 2007, 2nd viewing)
It really lives up to the hype. And it holds up. What more can you ask for? The two and a half hours whizzed by, yet again. Despite knowing the ending, I still got caught up in the hunt. It deserves the praise it's been getting. The second time around may have been more exciting. This time around I ended up really listening to the movie. One particularly interesting moment is Gyllenhaal's visit to Downey Jr, where a broken game of pong loops in the background. The digital ball hits the wall and leaves, over and over again. And sure enough, Jake gets nowhere with Robert, and leaves. As far as an overarching sound system, the first half of the film (the serial-killer movie, the media frenzy, the beginning of the investigation) is packed with the constant sound of ringing phones. But as the public interest thins out, this gradually fades to a near silence. And the tension escalates. It reaches a peak when all of a sudden, one phone rings. And we know who's calling.

Original Grade: A- Revised grade: same, A-.

welcome, bienvenue

I'm going to give this thing a try, just to see what happens. I've realized lately that stamping a grade on whatever movie I've just seen isn't enough, and it isn't going to help me go anywhere as far as pseudo-legitimate criticism goes. So here's what to expect: lots of scattered thoughts on the latest news in the world of jambot, lots of "write-it-as-i-think-it" blurbs about films, and hopefully lots of updates. To start, I'll delve into Die Hard, which I saw for the first time several hours ago. Here goes:
DIE HARD (dir. John McTiernan, 1988):
I wasn't at all interested in seeing this until I saw Harry Potter, was even more pleased by Alan Rickman's work as Snape, and proceeded to add a few movies he's been in to my netflix queue. Die Hard just happened to be the highest profile movie that I haven't seen, and considering my major I figured now was as good a time as any to check it out.
I was completely caught off guard. I loved it. Bruce Willis has never been a big draw for me, and I can't recall anything besides Pulp Fiction where I thought he was the only choice for the part. Maybe it's a generational thing (this movie's as old as I am), but I've never seen him as a plausible action hero. Of course, Die Hard changed my mind, at least for now. Willis was the only choice for this role. He's got the down-to-earthyness that you'd expect a guy with a name like John McClane to have. He's the everyman, and by everyman I mean impeccably chiseled, smarter-than-your-average cop, let's get to it sort of guy. And he might be the only actor alive who can legitimately deliver a line like "yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker."
And of course, Alan Rickman is the villain, Hans. It's weird seeing him pre-Snape (again probably a generation thing... it'll be nice to see him do other things once Potter is done). Also weird seeing him with a german accent for about half of his lines. But I liked what he did all the same. I was rooting for him, and those rare glimpses of his good side ("I'll bring the couch"..."potty breaks for all!"...the "please help me mr. mcclane" thing) added what some might call depth.
Other things: I liked that it wasn't a completely mindless action movie. And by that I mean that it wasn't all explosions set to a snazzy soundtrack and edited so heavily that a warning for epileptics must precede it. There was talking. There was pacing. There were recurring musical themes. There were characters. Even the minor parts were interesting, the TV anchor who doesn't know where Helsinki is, the insane FBI agent, the limo driver who somehow managed to sit in the garage without getting noticed and without noticing that the building above him was going to hell.
Of course I wasn't watching this for plausibility, and overall most of it fit together and eventually made sense. And was it just me or were the black limo driver and computer hacker-baddie hamming it up a lot? I don't quite know how I feel about that. I had fun watching the characters (but of course I'm no stickler for being P.C.), but the way they were being played just seemed dated. The limo driver is particularly stereotyped, and it's actually pretty sad. He spent his hours in the garage listening to rap and getting drunk. He's a nice enough guy, and plays his part in saving the day, but still. The white man chauffeur listenin to his ethnic songs, drinkin himself silly. It's just too primitive. The guy on the evil team though, playing almost equal to his compatriots, was much more interesting, despite being played for laughs. I don't know if I'd take a guy who acted like that seriously if I were planning to rob $600 million dollars, and it all rested on his shoulders.
Lastly, props to whoever did the restoration on the DVD, it looked like it could've been made yesterday. I had a blast. And that's all I've got left to say about that.
Final Grade: B+
Until next time,
-jsm