Posts Tagged ‘see’
american drug war »
Monday, April 14th, 2008
… is a smart, though skewed, look at the current state of our all-out war on drugs and how ineffective (depending on your perspective or self-interest) it really is. The numbers are startling and the commentary is thought-provoking. There are many things that peaked my interest and held it easily. Kevin Booth does well in the Michael-Moore-esque genre.
The progression of the information and his pace in laying it out does a great job. The smartest points drop unexpectedly and the impact resonates as he further explains the point. This fits into the film category that Micheal Moore created. Booth fits himself in as an average white guy and has some biting commentary throughout that lessens the credibility and increases the entertainment value at the same time. One example: the descriptive tags under the names of his interviewees change depending on the comments and are humorous to boot.
I think everyone should watch this, though it’s hard to get hands on. It sparks discussion and informs those that are content with swallowing the government line on all things. There are a lot of people out there that will disagree, but many of the facts are hard to dispute and even then, you’re at least talking about an issue that gets swept under the rug by every administration. The drug war has done nothing but damage to many different parts of our society and this film is an entertaining step in addressing the issue.
****
once »
Friday, March 28th, 2008
This one was created in three weeks with a handi-cam. It’s the first, and so far only, role for both Glen Hansard (as Guy) and Makéta Irglová (as Girl). It’s a simple story following these two as they meet, make music and cut an album, all almost completely on chance. It’s far superior to any romantic comedy/drama that’s come out in the last couple years.
I don’t want to overstate it, because the movie speaks for itself, but it’s realistic and impressive. The music is awesome and the acting is surprisingly solid. As some of you know, I liked the Notebook, but this is better. Notebook had the parallel plots and strong acting and story, but this one is brilliant in its simplicity.
I recommend it as a date movie, because you’ll wish someone was around when you’re watching it (cheesy right?). It’s smart, aurally awesome and is remarkably subtle.
****1/2
3:10 to yuma »
Saturday, November 24th, 2007
I have yet to see the first version. The remake is the one starring Christian Bale and Russell Crowe. It’s a western. It has a lot of violence and a clear distinction between good and evil, at least to begin with. It’s a solid film. It’s entertaining, thought provoking, and has more character development than anyone born in my generation is used to.
The acting, as anyone who’s seen a movie in the last six years would assume, is top notch. Bale is great, Crowe is subtle in his brilliance. The remaining characters are played fairly well, some impressively. Bale’s eldest son, played by Logan Lerman, does a pretty good job for someone only fifteen. I very much enjoy Ben Foster. The kid plays insane like no one else. I hadn’t heard of him before alphadog, but that one brought him out as crazy quite well. From the look in his eyes, he could snap at any moment.
The story is smart, deep, and intriguing. The characters are ambiguous, their intentions are vague, and their orientation to good or evil is constantly in question. Films generally spark character development with events, but in this one, the characters mature with interaction between each other. The directing wasn’t really astounding. I saw it a few weeks ago, so specific examples are hard to recall. The scenery plays a large role in the film, giving a sense of place and distance that helps further the time line.
There’s an intensity that’s lacking in most films of recent release. The film is driven by dialog more than action. The characters aren’t necessarily driven by a sense of something to do, but more a sense of purpose. It’s a different sort of film.
I never was much for westerns, but this one is a modernized version of what made the genre so great. It’s the basic storyline of good versus evil. Some of the westerns are modern tragedies. This one doesn’t disappoint along the lines of a battle between just and corrupt, but it’s more a journey where the pushing and pulling from both sides takes the place of the duel at noon.
I don’t know how it compares to the original, but this one is worth watching. The acting, the directing, the story, are all far above average and good for a night in.
**** 1/2
in the valley of elah »
Wednesday, September 19th, 2007
I knew this would be a political film. I.M.D.B. had warned me. I knew it would be a decent film because Jones and Theron were starring and Haggis was writing. But I still had my doubts. Haggis’ brilliance comes with the emotions that saturate his work. His screenplays—Crash, flags of our fathers—are wrought with feeling. My doubts stemmed from this one being more like last kiss than flags of our fathers.
With Crash, Haggis went too far. The film was intentionally racist, but to its detriment. A film about war brings the same emotional layers and I was worried he’d get too caught up in them. With his signature of character contemplation and growth, he doesn’t put a lot of plot into his work. I was right, and I was wrong. It was action-packed with emotion, but the story built itself in a great way. It wasn’t as slow as I thought it would be, but it still felt long.
The story follows Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee) as he searches for his son, who was reported A.W.O.L. just days after arriving home from Iraq. As a former M.P. investigator, Hank knows his way around a crime scene. He digs where the M.P. doesn’t out of fear they’ll taint their own image. He goes over pictures Mike, his son (Tucker), has sent. A tech repairman emails him videos, ripped from his son’s defunct cellphone, that paint a picture of his experience overseas. With the help of Det. Emily Sanders (Theron), he tries to piece together the truth.
The acting was decent throughout. Tommy Lee did a great job. It’s not his usual character or film, but he made it his own. He had more range in this film than I’ve seen, but I’m admittedly a bit low on my Tommy Lee collection. This film seems to put him on a similar career path to Clint Eastwood (who was originally slated for the role). From the looks of it, he should be able to handle it.
Charlize was good, but she’s relatively consistent. She spent a lot of time staring blankly, appearing to be in deep thought, but that may have been more screenplay than acting; it’s hard to say. Tucker was barely in the film, but showed the desperation, and then hostility, of Mike Deerfield with ease. I’m not a huge fan of Sarandon, but she carried her weight as Mike’s mother and alongside Jones.
Haggis did well with the directing. He conveyed the loss, helplessness, and devotion with ease. He liked to shrink the screen to provide emphasis, using light and silhouettes. It was effective. The use of the videos, recorded off Mike’s cellphone, was smart. The long shots, used to show a character on the verge of a breakthrough or breakdown were strong at first, but grew tiresome. The technique was used too often and slowed the film.
And on the political side of things, it’s intense. This is the most hard-hitting war commentary I’ve seen. The documentaries do their part in relaying facts and realities of what goes on on the ground, but the story that Haggis weaves into this one is outstanding. The subtlety he uses displaying the atrocities of war is incredibly astute. His brand of storytelling, which relies heavily on foreshadowing cues and multiple perspectives, seems to be made for this sort of film.
The conservative see it as an attack and an anti-war film (one woman on I.M.D.B. went as far as to say the actions in it never happened). There’s a strong argument for that. Any film that tries to realistically depict war will cast a dark shadow on warfare itself. But they fail to see the deeper messages. At the heart of this film is a story of loss; a man who has lost a son, a boy who has lost his innocence, and a country that has lost its way. There are hundreds of reports that support the claims made in this film. They may not have happened to a specific family or soldier, but the fact that they collectively happened makes this movie stronger.
It’s the best I’ve seen from both Jones and Haggis as respective pieces in the making of it. Eastwood’s direction made million dollar baby a better film, but this has a stronger message. It’s probably the first to arrive in this year’s film season. I don’t think it has the power or longevity to get the best picture nod, but it touches on controversial issues—and that’s what made everyone swoon over crash.
It’s slow, and subtle, but going into a Haggis film you almost have to expect that. It has many layers, but the sense of loss and despair is heavy. This is not a film for the die-hard conservatives. The message will be missed, which is a shame, in favor of claiming it’s unpatriotic. On the contrary, it is one of the most patriotic films I’ve seen. And I commend Haggis for that.
*****
das leben der anderen »
Monday, September 10th, 2007
[the lives of others]
Masterful. Maybe that’s a slight overstatement, but this one was incredibly good. It’s a story of modest heroism in a time of societal unease. The intensity is genuine and throughout. Most deriving from an audience knowing more than the characters as their lives are being surveilled. There is a voyeuristic quality that saturates each twist.
It’s the story of an intelligence officer (Captain Wiesler) in the East German Secret Police. He is chosen as to lead in the surveillance of a playwright (Georg Dreyman) and his actress girlfriend (Christa-Maria Sieland). During the project, Wiesler starts to question his own believes and loyalties.
It’s suspense lies in the consuming oppression of the regime that these characters live under. There is a constant unease and this is brilliantly directed. One scene in particular, involving Lieutenant (I forget specifically his rank) Grubitz at the lunch table, exemplifies that oppression. Everything from where they’re sitting, the joke from the subordinate, the Lieutenant’s response, and Wiesler’s expression, paints a picture of deep unrest.
The film is drab and colorless. The characters rarely change clothes. While watching, the emotions felt are incredibly subtle, and thus more impactful. The story draws you in. The characters are dramatic and multifaceted. There is even more tension in the fact that Wiesler and Dreyman never directly interact.
There are a few knocks against it though. There are quite a few continuation tweaks. And, almost ironically, the actress chosen to play the actress (Martina Gedeck) was terrible. Her character was tormented throughout, but instead of a layered and complex character, she comes off as stale and superficial. Even in her most intense scenes, she has the cold, blank eyes of a German statue.
I don’t mind it, though, because of the other characters covering for her. Dreyman is brilliantly acted by Koch and the subtlety of Mühe in his portrayal of Wiesler is great. They both express with ease the thankless heroism that makes the story so powerful.
I’d recommend this for a night in for two reasons. First, there are subtitles. Second, it’s not the subject for light viewing. It’s an intense movie with a lot to follow, but if you’re paying attention the subtle nuances are incredibly entertaining.
*****