thanksgiving (looking back)

So I watched a bunch of movies over break. Here goes.
Theatrically,
AUGUST RUSH (dir. Kirsten Sheridan, 2007): Don't ask why I saw this. I did. It was enjoyable in its implausibility, even within it's weird little movie-world where shouting "10%!" into a phone makes you a businessman, and banging on a guitar makes you a musical prodigy. Also, his Julliard composition sounds like a bad Ennio Morricone ripoff. Which makes sense I suppose, since neither of his parents are particularly original musicians themselves. There was just too much music everywhere. Grade: C-

At home/apartment on DVD that was new (to me):
ELEPHANT (dir. Gus Van Sant, 2003): I really was interested in it formally, and kind of amazed that Harris Savides could make a high school look so good, especially with natural light. Aside from that though, I'm not sure the approach really worked. Showing everyone in the minutes before, but giving the shooters more time really undermined the effect. It wasn't as violent a reaction as I was expecting. Although once the firing started, I really was freaked out (having been in hallways similar to that, being stuck in a class once bullets were found in the building, etc. etc.). Grade: B

CACHE (dir. Michael Haneke, 2005): For some reason I can't recall a lot of this. Haneke does an interesting thing implicating the viewer and playing with point of view and perspective. Naturally, it's open ended, but not in the satisfying way. Usually there'd be at least a direction or two that you're pointed in. Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention (highly likely). Grade: B

NOW, VOYAGER (dir. Irving Rapper, 1942): I wasn't really hooked, but the ideas were interesting, sort of. Grade: B-

And things I've seen before:
SPIDER MAN 2 (dir. Sam Raimi, 2004): I think out of all the Spider man movies so far, this one is definitely the best. Raimi hit's the perfect balance of comedy and action, focuses on a single villain, and gives us more time to really take in what's going on. Although the third movie beats this as far as effects, the action scenes are still really great to watch. And Alfred Molina rocks, despite the Spider Man villain mold-- brilliant scientist deformed by his creation. On that note, the villains in Spider Man 3 were a nice break, but because there were uhhh 3 of them, it really took away not only from the movie but the franchise at large (that's 2 more, wasted!) Grade: B

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (dir. Steven Spielberg, 1998): The anti-war war movie-- graphic, brutal depictions of battle and the physical costs of the effort, plus the constant questioning of the group vs. the individual (is one man really worth it?) face off against duty and national solidarity. But the entertainment value nearly undermines it. It made me want to have a war movie festival, probably not the best response, but still, really interesting. Grade: A-

BLACK BOOK (dir. Paul Verhoeven, 2006): Ok so, I over-reacted a little when I first saw it, it is a little long and a little too "what a twist!" as my brother says. Basically it just gives you too many hints. Still though, a lot more entertaining than Lust, Caution, and the last shot is still really powerful. Grade: B+

RESERVOIR DOGS (dir. Quentin Tarantino, 1992): Oh Tarantino. Fun, but it really feels like a first feature. And my attention slipped in and out. Grade: B

KNOCKED UP (dir. Judd Apatow, 2007): I don't have much to say here. I'm glad it's smarter than your average comedy, but there's no visual flair, in fact there's a sort of anti-flair that feels more like TV than the movies. Naturally, it bothers me a bit. But I still laughed. Not as much as the first time though. Grade: B-

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 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 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...

election/bamboozled

ELECTION (dir. Alexander Payne, 1999):
fantastic. reminds me of an alternate (funnier) american beauty. oh politics. i wouldn't have pegged it as alexander payne, although it does seem to fit in his body of work somehow (more on this when i think of it). stylistically, payne borrowed a bit from tarantino and wes anderson, or at least that's what i thought. the cast was superb. i didn't know reese was so funny.
final grade: A-

BAMBOOZLED (dir. Spike Lee, 2000):
started out hilarious (and also insightful---aka good satire), then delved into almost campy melodrama (aka bad satire that completely undermined what the first half set up). the montage at the end would work as a stand alone short, or a full on feature (i'm sure there are enough examples in cinema's racist past--and present). it touches on a lot of points, spreading a wide net, but like most movies destined to spark debate, doesn't elaborate on either why it's there or what there is to do about it. but it raises the issues, which is important nonetheless. as far as the videography, i can't decide. the closeups look great, but everything else just looks exactly like cheap video. i don't know if that helped it much, but it was only a minor distraction (more proof that if the story/characters/style works, you don't have to shoot 35mm). and of course, my major spike lee qualm bothered me again---music. it was just bad. so bad that where i should have been affected (and could have been by the images alone), i was just scoffing at the music.
final grade: B-

Catchup (Haunted Highway, Blood Diamond)

Well. I've slowed down a bit since I've been on the road lately, but I'm catching up with some things.

HAUNTED HIGHWAY [aka DEATH RIDE] (dir. Junichi Suzuki, 2006):
My friends and I started having "bad movie nights" back in the spring, and having been apart all summer, we finally met up again and watched "Haunted Highway," which is indeed a bad movie. In fact it's bad by bad movie standards. The premise: A man accidentally kills his wife, and on the drive to the lake where he's burying her he's haunted by ghosts, creepy highway drifters, black cops and his mistress. I wasn't scared for a minute. And, to be honest, I wasn't entertained either. Normally this sort of movie has that campy-ness that makes it worth watching, but in this case there was nothing. These people were trying to make a movie, trying so hard that it turned out terribly. The pacing is awful, there's no energy, the performances are terrible, the images look like they came out of a bad made for tv movie. There were a handful of laughs, but not enough to make it all tolerable. It makes sense that this was direct to DVD. I'm surprised it even made it that far.
Final Grade: D-
Grade on the Bad Movie Scale: D+

BLOOD DIAMOND (dir. Edward Zwick, 2006):
Everything about this was solid. It wasn't a very bad movie, but it wasn't very great either. Anyone could've directed it. DiCaprio delivers, as usual. I was hesitant at first about his accent, but as far as actors with accents go, I'd rather watch Leo than Meryl Streep. I'm glad that Jennifer Connelly is still getting some work, even though her performances can sometimes be annoying. But she's elegant, and I like that. The experience might have been stronger if the movie had a real focus for its criticism. It seemed like it was trying to blame everyone for the conflict diamond situation, which I suppose is completely valid, but for the sake of the story and the effectiveness of the movie at large, I think they should've picked a single target.
So I guess it could've been more important than it was. But Leo was good.
Final Grade: B-

galaxyquest

GALAXY QUEST (dir. Dean Parisot, 1999)
...the Alan Rickman film festival continues.
I'm not really sure what to say about this one. I remember hearing about it and maybe seeing it once when I was younger, and not really being that entertained/interested. So part of me always had it in mind that this wasn't going to be very good, but again, I was surprised. It wasn't great, or even particularly stand-outish; but it was solid, and I laughed (both are important for comedies). I'm unfamiliar with the Star Trek universe, and I'm sure that if I was I'd have enjoyed it more. That said, the most entertaining aspect (despite being mildly offensive) was the alien race looking for their new commander, which they find in Tim Allen. Which brings me to another surprise: Tim Allen. Again, my childhood gave me a general distaste for him. I was entertained by the Santa Clause when I was about 8, but since then he always seemed like one of those washed-up has-beens. He hasn't really done much to improve that standing lately, but something about his performance here convinced me that deep down, he may just redeem himself someday.
I liked the reflexivity of this. It reminds me of the Edgar Wright we-spoof-because-we-love movies. And like those movies, if you tuned in halfway through you'd almost mistake it for the real thing.
Performance-wise, everything pretty much worked. Again, nothing stood out. All of the performers seemed just a hair under-enthused. Of the crew, Tony Shalhoub and Sam Rockwell were the most interesting to watch. The pilot boy, like die hard, was hammed up more than I'd expect. Maybe I'm being too critical, but it's really disappointing to see black characters in mainstream entertainment portrayed as annoying and incompetent. Example: throughout the movie the pilot just can't seem to fly the ship properly, so during the final "let the white folks save the day" sequence, he gets the wonderful job of watching himself (as a child actor) maneuvering the ship, so that he can practice for the big leagues. I'm not really tryng to be a jerk, but there's just something about the way these actors end up coming across that forces me to look at the race card.
So final grade: B-