focoproject.com

…and as promised here is the second part of my movie dump, with plenty of other good titles for you to watch. Enjoy!

Water Lilies
Director: Celine Sciamma
Genre: Drama
Year: 2007

How this movie ended up in my Netflix list, I have no idea. I think I might have gotten it confused with another movie that has Lilies in the title. Spider Lilies, maybe? I don’t know, the point is it ended up in my house and I had it there so I may as well watch it. Given that it was about synchronized swimmers…I really had to scratch my head and wonder exactly how I had this movie on my list. Then on top of that, the fact that it deals with the awkward relationships of really young adolescents…I was disturbed in a way that I had not been since I watched Thirteen.

I don’t know that I can say I would watch this movie again, but I can say that I am very glad I watched it, uncomfortable as I may have felt. Beneath it all, the sort of tabboo subject it deals with, this movie seems to have the sort of beauty that the book Lolita seemed to carry. Except the story is entirely different and it has been updated to reflect present days.

Essentially the story deals with three young teenagers, dealing with the issues of love and relationships and confused about what they want and how it is they want it. Needless to say sexuality is a pretty prominent issue in this movie and given their age it is particularly difficult to watch, at least for me (the father of two little girls). But I would be lying if I did not accept the fact that this is one of the most honest movies about adolescent relationships I have can remember seeing and though the film deals with only girls in the lead roles, the themes it touches upon are quite universal, enough that I think most everybody that watches this will be able to relate in one way or the other.

Very much an indie film, very much a foreign film, this is one that I would recommend only to the fans of those two aspects, but I would recommend it, perhaps not for purchase, but it is most definitely worth the watch, even if it has synchronized swimming….

Rating: 4 out of 5
Notes: Sexual content, nudity, adult themes. French with English subtitles.

Rescue Dawn
Director: Werner Herzog
Genre: War/Drama/Biography/Action
Year: 2006

Given that it was Werner Herzog that shot the documentary dealing with this subject, it seems to make sense that he was the one that shot this film and the fact that he knew the material he was dealing with shows incredibly in this powerful movie about one of the great escapes of the Vietnam War.

Dieter Dengler wants to fly and he wants to fly so badly he is willing to join the military during a time of war to achieve his dream. Sadly, it is during his first mission into Laos, that his plane is shot down, an accident he survives mostly intact and which puts him in the precarious situation of being an enemy in a war that they have not officially entered. Eventually Dieter is captured and held hostage along with a handful of other men, in an encampment essentially in the middle of nowhere. This film deals with their improbable escape and the amazing situations Dieter had to rise over in order to get back to safety.

Incredibly well directed and acted, with a solid cast and a solid story, this movie is an instant classic and I am surprised it did not get more marketing than what I recall seeing for it. If you are a fan of war films or escape films, this one will be right up your alley. And armed with Herzog’s directing, Bale’s acting, this movie is a jewel. Not only that, the supporting cast does a tremendous job as well including, Jeremy Davies, as a prisoner (and who looked in this movie as sickly skinny as Bale did for The Machinist. It must be noted that Bale lost a lot of weight for this role as well) and believe it or not, Steve Zhan!

A buy, if not a must watch.

Rating: 5 out of 5
Notes: Some pretty messed up situations, war and violence, language and disturbing imagery.
Quote: Duane: You’re a strange bird, Dieter. A man tries to kill you and you want his job.

Bad Guy
Director: Ki-duk Kim
Genre: Drama
Year: 2001

Whatever you want to say about Ki-duk Kim, mainstream is something he simply isn’t, but he has covered a gamut of emotions in his films and always with interesting results. Some of his films, such as Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter…and Spring, and 3-Iron are outright beautiful. Others such as Time and The Isle are difficult to watch but incredibly interesting and captivating, and then, there are films like Samaritan Girl and this one which are pretty much disturbing, but grip you like a nasty car accident and keeps you nailed to your seat.

There is nothing normal about this film, but in a way, at its core…deep deep down, it really is a love story. Probably one of the most effed up love stories I have watched on film and I say that having seen Secretary.

As most love stories will, it starts with a kiss.

A man, obsessed with a young Korean woman he encounters by chance, decides to kiss her, without her consent, which leads to a scuffle with her boyfriend at the time and eventually a few members of the military, who put the beat down on the perpetrator quite violently. As a method of revenge, the man decides to ruin her life, a move that essentially lands her over her head in debt and forced to prostitute herself in order to pay it all off.

Soon enough she is drawing the attention of many, and many become obsessed, but it is the initial man who takes it the furthest, watching her from behind a two way mirror as she is forced to service her clientele. Yet, what seems to be mere perversion actually has a certain significance and in an odd case of what I could consider a Stockholm Syndrome scenario, the young woman begins to connect to this lifestyle that has been forced on her. And the way this movie unfolds, is violent, moving, disturbing, touching all at once in unbelievable fashion.

Here, you will see great character development and much like 3-Iron you deal with a mostly silent lead and with minimalistic dialogue. Hints of his other movies are seen throughout, something you will pick up if you are a fan. Definitely a watch if you have the stomach for it.

Rating: 4 out of 5
Notes: Nudity, sexuality, disturbing imagery, violence, adult situations…not recommended for the mainstream movie watcher at all.

Marebito
Director: Takashi Shimizu
Genre: Drama/Fantasy/Horror/Mystery
Year: 2004

I have been on an Asian film kick and not purposely, it seems that most of the ones I have been watching have been pretty disturbing. I do not mind disturbing, but I am going to have to change it up, because you can only take so much disturbing content before you just need a break. I think I may have gone into Netflix, added a movie and then gone one and clicked on recommendations of similar movies, because it seems that a handful of them, right in a row, left me with my mouth open and scratching my head. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but…I will probably have to go back to my Queue and change things around.

As far as disturbing goes, this one is no exception, directed by the man that created The Ring and The Grudge (the original, Japanese versions), dealing with a man named Masuoka who sees the world through the eyes of a lens. So involved in capturing everything through video had he seems to have lost touch with the world itself when he is forced to see it through his own eyes. On top of that, he is in an incomprehensible search for the terrifying, something that is piqued to greater extent after witnessing (and recording) a self-mutilation/suicide in the subway station.

Watching the footage over and over, Masuoka is determined to find out what it was that the suicidal man in the subway station saw that caught such a terrifying look in his eyes. And he will go to the greatest depths, literally and metaphorically, to find it.

This movie is one of the strangest journeys you will watch, watching how a man spirals out of control, as if he maybe had not done so already, and only worsening when he finds in the netherworld a naked young woman, whom he decides to take as a pet and who has an insatiable appetite for blood. All of it leading to the moment of truth which is a lot more messed up than you might have initially thought.

Surrealistic at times, violent, gruesome and psychologically engaging, this movie hits a lot of the right notes as far as a horror goes, but also seems to drag on far longer than it should. There is something about this movie that reminds me of another movie I saw when I was in High School, whose name escapes me, where a good fifteen minutes of the film was the main character merely walking around. This movie does the same thing, and while I understand the message and the mood that the director is trying to create, I definitely felt the length of it and at times grew frustrated. The movie has a slow start, with 30 minutes of set up before one really gets hooked into what is going on and then another thirty minutes of build up before the main story hits.

People with a short amount of patience will want to skip right past this movie, those of you that are a still interested, go into it knowing it is not a perfect movie, it does have its flaws on a story that does not hold water too well and acting which I felt was questionable. However there are some aspects in this movie worth exploring.

Rating: 3 out of 5
Notes: Violent, gory, disturbing, nudity…messed up all around. Recommended only to true Horror and Psychological Horror fans only.

Visitor Q
Director: Takashi Miike
Genre: Drama/Horror/Thriller/Comedy
Year: 2001

If you are familiar with the name Takashi Miike, then you already know this movie is going to be all sorts of screwed up. You would be correct. This movie took the wave of disturbing movies I had been watching and took me to the pinnacle, enough for me to go over to my Netflix and rearrange some things. Thankfully the entire time I had been watching these movies, I have also been going through the series Entourage, which gave me a well needed breather and very necessary laughs.

I do not even know where to start with this film, clearly a commentary on the extremes that ‘reality shows’ will go to in order to get your attention. This takes those extremes and goes to a whole new set of extremes, when a failed documentarian decides to turn the camera on his own, disastrously dysfunctional family and a stranger known only as the Visitor, who is welcomed into the house after continuously hitting the father on the head with a rock. Confused? Yeah, that is only the start.

The family dynamics here will have any normal person squimish, disgusted, nauseous and repulsed. I am not normal, by any stretch of the imagination and I was still shocked by it. Right off the bat I am going to say I recommend this movie to nobody and watch it only at your own risk, knowing that you are going to seem some pretty visually damaging things.

The father, as mentioned before is a failed documentarian, who is desperate enough to get his idea on TV that he…basically is willing to go to the extreme to land himself the desired attention. The beginning of the movie has him sleeping with his own daughter, if that says anything. But when that is not enough he turns the camera on his bullied son, who is abused by all his school mates and who in turn takes out his own angers and frustrations by beating up his mother. The mother is a drug addicted, woman who takes the abuse from every member of the family in stride, as long as her face is not damaged, broken and saddened she seeks refuge by prostituting herself and getting more money for drugs. And then there is the Visitor, who changes the dynamics and relationships in this family on their head…except that by turning them on its head he does not make them any more normal, even if one can say that…somehow, the effect is still positively felt, even if the outcome is the rape of a business woman, the killing of school children and the complete demoralization of the family’s mother.

I was left utterly speechless. I have seen commentary on violence such as Funny Games and taken it in stride, but this movie was unlike anything I have seen before and left me with a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. There is not much that can be said is enjoyable about this film and its disturbing content is through the roof, so I find myself wondering how this film has gotten such high ratings. Clearly, I am missing something, even if I do understand what the director is trying to say, by going so over the top I feel like he over stretched himself. So much in fact that by the end it is actually comedic, the way Tarantino will take his ultraviolence and push it to the point where you are laughing when somebody gets their head chopped off. This movie does that and it is definitely a twisted effect.

So, I am looking at the IMDb rating of 7/10 and my own rating of 2/5 and I can not help but think that I must have missed something about this film. I am probably not clever enough to get it and I hesitate to have anybody else watch this in fear of retributions. So…I will just have to sit here and let it go, because I am not sure I am willing to try to sit through another viewing in hopes of finding the qualities I obviously missed the first time.

Rating: 2 out of 5
Notes: MESSED UP, and I say messed up only because I don’t want to use the F word. Stay away from this film unless, this is really what gets you your kicks. I warn that the above synopsis only touches on part of what happens in this movie and not all of it. It does get worse.
Quote: Kiyoshi Yamazaki: [as the bullies throw fireworks at the house] They’re here! Everyone, can you see this? Can you see this?
[taping with camera]
This is my home! My home! Did you see that? The big strong bullies are here!
[pans to Keiko]
This is my wife! She’s a lovely little wife! Dinner was delicious! This is…
[pans to the Visitor]
… I don’t know who this is, we’re not acquainted! Watch! It’s amazing, truly amazing! What a scene! It’s unbelievable!
[going back to the fireworks, panning to knife in floor]
My wife threw this knife! Everyone, here it is!
[filming the chaos]
How am I supposed to feel? I don’t know how a father should feel! But, I know my family is being destroyed! So, what do you think? How do we judge this wonderful bullying? I’m burning up! I just saw fireworks in my head! It’s hot, so hot!

The Girl on the Bridge
Director: Patrice Leconte
Genre: Drama/Romance/Comedy
Year: 1999

I am now very confused, because searching out this film in IMDb in order to find out when it was shot I found another film, released in 1951 which uses the picture of the actors from the movie released in 1999 as its cover. I am not exactly sure what is going on there. The title is exactly the same but the synopsis has some key differences. I think, at some point I am going to have to check out the 1951 version and figure out if the one I saw is a remake, or a variation, or a take of point, or…something.

For now, I will proceed having made it clear I am not sure what that other film is about. This one, however, is a wonderful and quirky and strangely erotic romance, between a couple of people that seem to be down on their luck, until they find themselves together and then the combination seems to be the winning formula. She, is a sex addicted, naive girl with a golden heart that is willing to believe everything that is placed before her and which unfortunately means she is used numerous times in her life. He is a knife thrower looking for an assistant to help him with his how. They run into each other at a bridge and one of them saves the other and while it may seem clear at first who is the suicide case and who is not…the body of this film explains that it is not quite that simple and also give a body to this relationship in a way that is charming to watch.

Yes, there are certain clichés in this film that may make this slightly predictable, but the character development, the black and white cinematography and the story as a whole is very much worth your time. Finely edited, deliciously shot, this film manages to put eroticism on the table without actually being erotic, if that makes sense! In the end it is a film about trust and fate and very much worth checking out!

Rating: 4 out of 5
Notes: I do not recall much sexuality, but they do deal with the theme throughout. Overall, however, it is a pretty tame film with a feel good vibe to it…even if its subjects are suicidal.

At the risk of doing some great movies a bit of dissatisfaction, I am about to unload my entire list of pending reviews or I will never get myself caught up. Such is the beauty of Netflix Instant Play and the additive of a little extra time in my hands. The list is not shrinking any time soon so, in rapid fire fashion, here is a movie dump for you, and because I am short in time, I will be forced to do it in parts.

My name is Francisco Manzo and I approve this message.

Lost in Beijing
Director: Yu Li
Genre: Drama/Foreign
Year: 2007

Slightly chaotic, frenetic, ‘Bourne‘-style, hand held cinematography meets, ‘3-Iron‘ dramatics and the result is a slightly twisted but incredibly interesting movie about a man four people that end up forced into a binding contract with each other when a man rapes a woman (his employee), whose husband is determined to ‘get even’ by making some profit off the event. The fact that the victim woman, ends up pregnant only seems to add to the dilemma that the two couples find themselves in.

The solution seems simple, Boss pays for the pregnancy and adopts the child if it is his as well as giving the younger, victimized couple a share of money for their troubles. If, DNA on the other hand proves that the Boss is not the father, then, cash is taken for the crime committed against the employee and all the two couples go their separate ways. Contract is written, sealed in red ink with thumb prints and voila!

Problem is, things get complicated when money and human lives are at stake and this movie is no exception. With interesting twists and heart wrenching moments, this movie touches on the ugliness of humanity, the beauty…and the ironic too! It has subtitles, yes, but you can deal with that, this movie is very much worth it!

Rating: 4.5 out of 5
Notes: Nudity and sexuality push this into the R rating area, the moments of violence bump it up a little more and then you have the adult content. Safe to say you should not let your kids watch this movie, even if they do not speak Chinese…er…Mandarin, I should say.

Fido
Director: Andrew Currie
Genre: Horror/Comedy/Drama/Romance
Year: 2006

Crap happened, zombies broke out, war ensued, humanity was pushed to the edge of extinction but then lightning struck, humans pulled their collective heads out of their respective arses and in a stroke of genius not only defeated the zombie horde, but also happened to find a way to control them and enslave them and make them the ultimate pet. So now you can have your zombie fetch your newspaper, water your lawn, do your vacuuming and so forth and so on.

Set in the fifties this movie has a layer of cheese and ‘campiness’ of the sort you would expect from shows like ‘Leave it to Beaver‘ and ‘Lassie‘ (except I have no actual idea if those shows are from the fifties and no inclination to go find out). Add to it the comedic element that you get from making a zombie a pet, the not so comedic potential enslavement of what could be an arguably sentient being, the drama of family dynamics, the thrill of an accidental act of gruesome violence and a twist on the idea of a romantic movie and you pretty much have this strangely likable movie. While it  may break a lot of zombie rules, and while it may not hit the funny bone quite as well as Shaun of the Dead, this one is definitely worth watching, if only for the fact that it is bound to have something that most everybody will like (except for your children, unless rotting corpses is on their list of “fun things I like to bring to show and tell”), and give you something to meaty to chew on while you are at it (I would like to say the pun is not intended, but it is, I had to think about it really hard to get to it too, so give me some credit).

Rating: 4 out of 5
Notes: Lots of zombie, plenty of gore, adult situations and some sexual content. Not for kids. Or at least not for kids that you hope will grow up to be upstanding citizens of your community, anyway.
Quote: Bill Robinson: I’d say I’m a pretty darn good father. My father tried to eat me, I don’t remember trying to eat Timmy.
Helen Robinson: Bill, just because your father tried to eat you, does that mean we all have to be unhappy… forever?

Changeling
Director: Clint Eastwood
Genre: Crime/Drama/Mystery
Year: 2008

Clint Eastwood’s latest release and lets be frank here, for an old man Eastwood works incredibly hard; Grand Turino is already being pimped out there and this movie just barely released. But in any case, the movie is still generally a good one. It deals with the true story of a woman who loses her child (he gets kidnapped, actually) while she is at work. The incompetent police department, at being entirely unable to find the kid, manages to scrounge up another run away and try to pass him off as the woman’s child.

Hilarity ensues.

Not really, this one is actually a pretty depressing, dramatic film, as you can probably gather from the synopsis. Unfortunately it is also slightly drawn out, it runs too long, and feels a bit predictable. Of course, the argument against that is: What can you do, this is what actually happened! And then I have no argument in return to that other than please make the movie shorter so it does not feel so damned long.

It does however have its good moments, some very interesting concepts, particularly when dealing with insane asylums and the manipulated, forced, unfair throwing of women into insane asylums. More so than the actual account of the movie, I found this rather fascinating. Unfortunately that is not the main body of the movie. There is some pretty good acting peppered through out and it is very well directed, so you take the good with the bad and if the concept appeals to you, then I encourage you to watch it. If it does not…then you are probably better off watching Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima, which are superior films.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5
Notes: Some language, disturbing situations, and some violence. Not a child friendly film.
Quote: Christine Collins: I used to tell Walter, “Never start a fight… but always finish it.” I didn’t start this fight… but by god I’m going to finish it.

Paranoia 1.0
Director: Jeff Renfroe and Marteinn Thorsson
Genre: Horror/Drama/Sci-Fi/Thriller
Year: 2004

This is sort of like the Matrix’s, underbudgeted, little brother and the still manage to pull of a rather impressive, twisted, but largely straight forward film. In fact, this movie is quite reminiscent of “A Detective Story“, directed by Shinichiro Watanabe and one of the animated shorts in The Animatrix, down to the stripped down, old school but somehow futuristic technology.

Essentially, a man receives an empty package and soon after his world begins to fall appart, things in his apartment building do not seem right and the packages keep coming, each time with nothing in them. It makes absolutely no sense to Simon, who is trying to come to grips with that as his life begins to spiral out of control in a way that he can not seem to help, making one wonder if the empty packages are truly empty.

Inventive in a twisted sort of way, this movie is up my alley but not most people. There is a certain noir to this and a bit of grittiness that I think will turn off a large chunk of the mainstream. Be prepared for a thriller that keeps you on the edge the same way the Matrix did, but do not count on the same visual effects. In fact most of the film relies  on very little C.G. making up for it with better acting on the part of Jeremy Sisto who plays the lead and some unique sets that will draw in the fans of movies like Delicatessen, Blade Runner and other movies in this particular vein. Though…let it be noted that the adult content has been bumped up quite a bit here.

Rating: 4 out of 5
Notes: Violence, language, disturbing imagery, nudity and a bit of S&M of sorts. Adults only for this one and open minded ones, at that.
Quote: Howard: The bad people can save you but they won’t. The good people wanna save you but they can’t.

Song of the Day: “Fuera de mi” - La Ley

• Director: Gus Van Sant
• Genre: Drama
• Year: 2007

While most people have praised Gus Van Sant for his more mainstream films like Good Will Hunting and Finding Forrester, I personally gravitated more to his introspect, quieter film Elephant, which was as haunting as it was beautiful. Paranoid Park follows in the vein of the latter and not the former, which in my opinion is a good thing, but something which in most people’s opinion may be more difficult to enjoy.

Here, like in Elephant, GVS gives us a look into the mind of a teenage skateboarder who has been linked to a gruesome murder on the rail road tracks near Paranoid Park, a skateboard park in Portland. Told in broken segments, scrambled and out of sequence, we follow Alex as he narrates in an imperfect, compositional way, the events that have plagued his life in recent days.

Filled with long, dreamy shots, an abundance of slow motion and cinematographic quiet, GVS creates a portrait that is both troubling and peaceful alternatively. Once again–as he did in Elephant–it would seem that the director has called on a list of teenage non actors, which give the film a dose of realism, even if some of the secondary actors–Lauren McKinney, Jake Miller, I am looking in your direction–drop the ball a couple of times. While the actors certainly managed to taint the film with a few of their short comings, I can only point the finger at GVS, because they were things that could have been easily edited out or edited differently. Nevertheless, Alex, who is the main character as played by Gabe Nevins, strikes gold with his performance.

While this is not a perfect film, it is certainly a thought provoking journey into teenage angst, where numerous events collide to make, but sparing us the overly dramatic MTv crap. The way the film is narrated, like the way it is shot, adds to the mood of the feature and  it seems to deal with the teenage mind in a rather honest fashion, to the point where you actually feel like smacking a few of the kids in the back of the head, they feel so real. If you are of the independent mind, able to handle slower pacing in movies, then this is a film you will most definitely enjoy.

Rating: 4 out of 5
Notes: Rated R due to a couple of disturbing scenes, language and brief, adolescent sexual content.
Quote: Macy: They should be out now, dude.
Alex: What are you talkin’ about?
Macy: The war, Iraq, no? What do you think?
Alex: I really don’t care.

Song of the Day: “Konga” - Van Gederen

• Director: Michael Haneke
• Genre: Crime/Horror/Drama/Thriller
• Year: 1997

Chances are, if you put this film in your Netflix list, or rented it, or are watching it willingly, you probably knew what you were getting into. A horror film-slash-thriller about two young, bored, rich kids wanting to entertain themselves at the cost of an unsuspecting family. What you probably did not expect was to be made feel guilty for coming in with this mindset. How many films invite you to watch them and then give you a spanking for it? Not many, but that is exactly what Haneke achieved with this film, with a slight tweak of the rules that make the film not only unnerving and uncomfortable, but also technically questionable. It is the sort of film that in the end will stick with you long after you have ejected the DVD.

The synopsis has already been given and it really is not that much more complicated. A family returns from vacation with their young kid, to find themselves visited by friends of the neighbors, who soon enough make it known they are neither friends of the neighbors, nor are they stopping just to borrow some eggs. It would seem, that the two young antagonists, who look to be boys in their late teenage years, are simply looking to find themselves entertained by torturing others, but perhaps more importantly and more troublingly (is that a word?), they are looking to entertain us by actually breaking the fourth wall, something Paul does in a handful of occasions.

Now…it is my understanding that addressing the audience directly is something largely frowned upon, at least, that was the impression I have gotten over the years, and yet I think Haneke has done something very clever with it in this example. To the director’s credit, the mechanism is utilized seldom and with calculated effect. The result is an uncomfortable moment which begins to build guilt for your continued interest in a movie which becomes increasingly violent. The fact that the we are drawn into the moment as accomplices is quite rattling, personally making me flinch. In one instance, when Paul turns to the camera and gives us a small wink and a smirk, it becomes enough for me to recoil and think: Don’t you be making me part of your sick-ass games. And yet that is exactly what makes this film disturbing. It is not the violence itself, because in all honestly, there are thousands of films out there far more violent, more gory and visually more distasteful. So one can not say that the violence of this film is really what becomes so controversial, but rather that they antagonists snatch up the audience and force them to join in, whether willingly or not.

Much of the horror is left implied, not to say there are not some rather brutal moments, but that most of the punch this movie packs is either in the implications, the consequences or the escalating sense of dread that continues to build even after the two young men have finally decided to leave the home (not without having made a true mess of things). In that sense, I have to applaud this film for being so unflinchingly honest about what it is doing without gratuitous gore, but it still does bring up to the forefront, the ‘violence in the media’ question, which these last few years has become more and more prominent.

It took me a while to figure out what troubled me about this movie so much, was it the violence itself? No, not really, because as I stated, I have actually seen much much worse. Was it the breaking of the fourth wall? Initially I thought this was the case, but in the end and after much deliberation, I realized that what bothered me was not the breaking of the fourth wall itself, but rather the violating feeling one gets by being pulled in at such uncomfortable moments. In essence, this movie makes captives of the audience, asking you to side with the two young men, when there is absolutely nothing there to sympathize with. In fact, they have made a conscious effort to give us a very sterile background on Paul and Peter, granting us no information with which to sympathize. We can not say we can understand their motivation, because they may be abused children, or certifiably insane, or any other excuse. There is no cushion for comfort.

There are two versions of this film by the same director, the original (which is the one I saw) which was released in 1997 and the American version released in 2007, which is essentially, shot for shot the same movie, but made with actors you will recognize (Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt). My understanding is that the only changes between the two movies was updating the movie to Americanize it and that is it. I chose to watch the original simply because by seeing non-familiar faces in the roles, I tend to buy the story much more convincingly. And in the case of the original release, the four main actors and the child actor, are so good, that it actually makes this movie much more painful to watch, particularly during heart breaking moments when we are forced to watch form a detached distance, the aftermath of Peter and Paul’s reckless actions.

Kudos to the directing and the acting and solid story telling. But be aware that, though this film may not visually be a gore fest, it does bring with it a tempest of riotous violence that it may provoke pressing the fast forward button which is ironic, given the effect of one of the scenes in this film towards the end, which make the audience feel as if they have been terribly cheated. I mean that in a good way, which may seem awkward, but in this film the utilization of this movie’s self awareness actually serves to drive the point that much more effectively. Ultimately, this film may sicken you or thrill you with its stark commentary on violence, but whether you like it or not, it will certainly give you something to talk about.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5
Notes: Violence, adult situations, graphic imagery and brief nudity. German with English subtitles. Also, it must be noted that the foreign version got significantly higher marks than the American version. I personally can not make comments on that, since I have not seen the American version myself, but you may want to know that before choosing which version to watch.
Quote: Georg: Why are you doing this to us?
Paul: Why not?

Song of the Day: “In the Aeroplane Over the Sea” Neutral Milk Hotel

• Director: Martin Scorsese
• Genre: Biography/Drama
• Year: 2004

Not at all what I was expecting. Perhaps I heard the wrong people talking, or maybe I filtered out the information I heard and settled only in bits and pieces. However, due to high amounts of hype on a film that based on the trailer I really did not  feel like watching, I made the decision to put off watching it until later on in the future. I do that a lot, if there is a movie I am not too sure about and they hype it up, I tend to give it some time to cool before  I watch it to keep myself from hating on it too much. Part of my nature I suppose.

Quite frankly, I ended up forgetting all about the Aviator until I bought a small Scorsese box set which came with The Departed, The Aviator and Goodfellas. The deal I got at Costco was worth buying two good movies and getting the third as a freebie.

If I were forced to compare this film to another, for referential or recommendation purposes, I would probably compare it to A Beautiful Mind and essentially that is what this is, the biography of an eclectic man that ends up falling victim to his mental disorder but achieving a tremendous amount in the process. Both stories share the same concept, which to me is a turn off. Thankfully, the particulars of each movie are unique enough, different enough and interesting enough that you still do not feel like you are watching the same movie on a different setting.

Personally, I did not know much about Howard Hughes prior to watching this film and I have done no research on him after watching it, so off the bat I was not sure what to expect. The portrait that is presented by Scorsese is an interesting one, of a wealthy man obsessed with planes and movies and trying to do and create the best of both, an endeavor that eventually leads to his acquisition of TWA airlines and puts him in heated conpetition with Pan Am. It does not help that from the onset, Hughes is a terribly eccentric man, ambitions, driven and motivated, hindered only by his obsessive compulsive disorder and his depression.

It is an interesting movie, depicting the life of a very interesting man and Scorsese does a great job bringing the audience in to the movie and setting them in the era. Needless to say, the star studded cast delivers across the board with memorable performances starting with Leonardo DiCaprio as Hughes, Cate Blanchett as Katharine Hepburn, Kate Beckinsale as Ava Gardner, and ending with the secondary roles played by John C. Rielly, Alec Baldwin and Ian Holm among others.

I have no complaints about this film, technically, visually and thematically it is interesting enough, though I still felt myself not quite being able to love this film. Perhaps it was the setting itself that I have a hard time getting into, maybe it is the subject of planes (which I like as much as the next guy but am not passionate about) or maybe it was the fact that it seems there are enough biographies out there already that in the end, good as it may be, this film still feels like one of a bunch. Whatever it is that was missing, it was not there to make it stand out as one would have liked and because of that, I think this film will end up living the same fate of A Beautiful Mind in my opinion, a good film to watch, but once is enough.

Rating: 4 out of 5
Notes: Nudity, language, some violence and a potent crash sequence.
Quote: Howard Hughes: I want ten chocolate chip cookies. Medium chips. None too close to the outside.

Song of the Day: “I” by Andrew Bird

• Director: Ridley Scott
• Genre: Sci-Fi/Thriller/Action
• Year: 1982

My sister was being born when this movie came out! Actually my sister beat out the movie in arrival by about five months but that is neither here or there, I am simply pointing out the fact that this movie is getting old. Oh dang I am so screwed if my sister reads this. But aren’t we all getting old? Facts are facts and age in a movie, particularly a Sci-Fi movie, in my opinion, can often be crippling, because more and more they become reliant on special effects and as technology improved visual effects as well and because increasingly the new generation of MTV children get bored with the old school of watching films. Therefore, it is the signature of a well done movie when one can watch a twenty-something sci-fi film this day in age and still be blown away by it. Empire Strikes Back, anyone?

This is not the first time I watch this film, in fact I can still vividly recall coming back into the house after rolling around in the sand piles of Toño’s construction site with my friends and walking up to my dad who was seated in the family room watching this film. I was hooked from the go (I walked in on the scene where Pris paints her face like a harlequin). I spoke no English at the time, so you can probably imagine me staring at the screen, trying to figure out what was unfolding. So, perhaps after that verbose explanation you can understand why I had to watch the film again and judge it properly. It is unfair to say I liked a film because it looked really cool when I was a seven year old (I saw it a couple of years after it came out).

I watched it, twenty-six years after its release and I can still happily say this movie is flippin’ good!

Based on a novel (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep) by Philip K. Dick, Ridley Scott presents us with the story of Rick Deckard a formerly retired Blade Runner, who is called back into action when four replicants sneak back into earth where they are no longer allowed. In a future (2019, but honestly I am saddened to see how far off the mark we are from this version of the future. Where are the flying cars???), where robots have been created to be an equal match, if not better than a human as far as physical traits and intelligence go, it was only a matter of time before the robots became sentient enough to rebel against the slavery that was imposed on them. Blade Runners are officers that are in charge of retiring replicants that make it back to earth. Retiring is a nice way to say executing.

On a purely entertaining level, this movie is solid, with a theme that is constantly moving, intriguing and set in a world that is still visually stunning and which was clearly the influence of many films to come. Yes, the effects are not quite as polished as what you are likely to encounter in recent movies, but they hold up surprisingly well, to the point where it becomes a non-issue, allowing for the audience to sink itself into the film without questioning the how’s and the why’s on the mechanics and design of things.

But the beauty of this film, and surely the novel (which I have sadly not yet read), is in the complexities of the issues it deals with underneath the surface of this techno-punk world. The central question being what is it to be human? These replicants, modeled after ourselves, are like us in just about every way and the newer models (Nexus 6, or something like that) are even more complete in that they have been implanted with memories. Needless to say, the film offers a group of antagonists that are both interesting and easy to relate to. All they want is to live! Trying to get rid of the coding inside them that allows them to have a lifespan of no more than four years. Never is it mentioned that they are looking to take over or displace the humans. Life…a proper life is all they want. All of this set in an dim, neon highlighted littered with garbage and automated advertising. Mixing a sense of Noir along with the futuristic vision of our society, the setting alone is enough to get one involved in the story.

Leading the cast as Rick Deckard is Harrison Ford, who looked really young compared to the latest installment of Indiana Jones (hurl!) which is the last film I saw him in, and there is no question that he carries his role solidly. The supporting cast, which includes Daryl Hanna as the replicant Pris, Rutger Hauer as replicand Roy Batty and William Sanderson who is immediately recognizable as J.F. Sebastian the moment he steps out of his vehicle, is good in their delivery. This, coupled with good directing add up to a very enjoyable Sci-Fi film, that reaches beyond the stereotypical borders of the genre opening a can of philosophical worms that will make for great, late night conversation with your friends.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5
Notes: Some violence. I do not recall much language but then again I seem to have a filter when it comes to that and swear words do not register with me until my parents are in the room and watching the movie with me…only then I seem to be aware of how potty mouthed many of my movies are. No question on the violence, however, which is mostly what earns this film its R rating along with brief nudity.
Quote: [after Rachael kills Leon]
Deckard: Shakes? Me too. I get ‘em bad. It’s part of the business.
Rachael: I’m not in the business… I *am* the business.

Song of the Day: “In the Absence of Sun” - Duncan Sheik

• Director: Olivier Assayas
• Genre: Thriller
• Year: 2007

Occasionally I will take a chance on a movie I know nothing about, but whose trailer or look may seem promising. Occasionally, I get burned this way.

It is truly a sad thing, particularly when you go into a movie excited and wanting to like it, wanting to give it a chance. You never know which independent film willl turn out to be sleepers and which ones can be swept under the rug. With Michael Madsen and Asia Argento in this cast, I truly wanted this movie to take off, but it only took the very first scene for me to realize the acting would not be up to par, the second scene for me to realize the directing would not be up to par, the third scene to realize the screenplay was as unfocused as it seemed and by the fourth scene I wanted to break my television.

This movie dubs itself a thriller, which is a complete misnomer, because I was not thrilled the least, save for a couple of T&A parts which did managed to get me to pay attention for almost a full minute. Quite remarkable actually. Now…this is the point where I normally tell you about the plot, except that in this case I am having a real hard time figuring out exactly what the plot was, and that is largely the problem. Asia Argento (daughter, I believe, of Italian horror director Dario Argento) plays a woman torn between her former love and her new love to two dangerous men working on both sides of the law. Suffice it to say that all sorts of backstabbing take place, some which make no sense at all but which add confusion to the film and apparently somebody decided this amounted to intelligent interest.

This movie does not know what it wants to be, an action film, a thriller, an edgy romantic triangle sprinkled with low level S&M or something else altogether, but in the end it fails to be all of those, mostly due to a cast that can not deliver, a director that  has a hard time guiding the movie, and an editor that needed to work on his transitions. In the end, you are left with a very barren film with a cool look and enough T&A to keep your eyes on the screen at random intervals, but truly, this is the sort of film you can watch with the sound down and while surfing the net. They tried, you can tell there are parts where they were trying to put the effort and save this film from itself, unfortunately there were too many things working against it. Like a freak car accident, there is simply just “nothing here to see.”

Rating: 2 out of 5
Notes: Violence, nudity, brief sexuality, language. The movie itself is in English for the most part but there are subtitled parts which are in French and what I am guessing may have been Japanese or Chinese (call me ignorant but I am not good enough to tell the difference and the characters were supposed to be Japanese, but they were in China…so whatever….)

Song of the Day: “Desperate Guys” - The Faint

• Director: Mary Harron
• Genre: Biography/Drama
• Year: 2005

For a film dealing with the Notorious Bettie Page, this film is surprisingly tame, light hearted and comic almost to a flaw. It is not that this film is necessarily bad, but rather that it fails to truly connect the audience with the subject, which is always kept at an arm’s length. Obviously, this is a subject matter that needs to be treated with care, for anybody that is aware of Bettie Page knows that the pin up girl was in the naughty business of modeling and not always for cutesy swimsuit pictures.

On the basics, this film delivers nicely. The story is interesting, giving an very brief overview of Bettie’s childhood, a brush through of her adolescence and focusing for the most part on her rise to fame. The story is told mostly in black and white, with the occasional scene in color, brightly saturated matching the color quality of film at the time. This technique makes for an interesting look which although it does not quite actually match the grainy film footage used between some scenes, it is close enough to bring a convincing nostalgic mood to the film. From her religious, conservative background to her modeling fame and her return to religion, we see Bettie enter a highly questionable, but also lucrative business with the wide eyes, the easy smile and the naiveté of a little girl.

There is a fun, entertaining, almost tongue in cheek attitude to this film that bothers me, because it fails to recognize the subject matter at hand. The film almost seems guided, in the sense that through out the main body of the film one sees the fun shoots, the laughing, the goofy footage of spankings and S&M in a way that is almost reminiscent of grown girls doing nothing more adult than say…a tea party. And yet, on occasion, when a certain pamphlet of photographs is brought up to Bettie to sign or certain footage is shown during the court scene, we see a quite darker side of what transpired, much more realistic and one that fails to amuse quite as much. It is during those small bursts that this film gains its seriousness. But the inability of the director to project this reality throughout left me in the end feeling that she was opening windows and telling me when to look where.

My wife, who watched this with me brought up some interesting insight, which makes for a valid point in the defense of the director’s choice to show the movie in this fashion. Perhaps, we are meant to see the movie through the eyes of Bettie, who throughout is extremely naive and childish in her approach to her shooting sessions. And the bursts that we see in the pamphlets and the court are meant to be seen the way the public sees it.

This is a valid argument, though one that fails to convince me personally. Why then bother to show the key points in Bettie’s childhood that would traumatize any person. I do not with to spoil the film by discussing it in detail, but suffice it to say that there are a pair of incidents that should have given Betty more insight as to the reality of the world, a lesson which according to this movie was not learned. And it is quite possible that Bettie Page was actually this foolish, in which case, I would be fine with it as long as the director did not hold my hand for so long. I think that even in matters such as S&M I am perfectly capable of being able to tell the fun from the serious and do not need it funneled in the fashion that was done here.

That being my chief complaint on the film, the story itself is quite engaging, and as I said, tame enough that makes it approachable even to the person that may not quite be comfortable with this subject. It is actually quite easy to laugh during this movie and label it a bit of naughty fun without coming out of it with a feeling that something terrible just happened.

It also should be noted that the acting was quite impressive, by Gretchen Mol in the lead role and by the supporting cast who make a convincing job portraying the characters of that time. The technical aspects of the film, including the choice of coloration when it happens, the black and white shots and the old school transitions also do a very good job of making this film fit with the times that it deals with.

Bottom line? Expect a fun, naughty film that will deliver entertainment, but will not necessarily a great drama.

Rating: 3 out of 5
Notes: Adult themes, nudity, S&M imagery…do not get me wrong, I say this film is tame in proportion to the subject matter it deals with, there is still a number of provocative scenes, acts and nudity to make some people blush.
Quote: John Willie: Do you mind if I ask you a question, Bettie? What do you think Jesus would think about what you’re doing now?
Bettie Page: Well, Mr. Willie, I’ve thought about this quite a lot and I’m not really sure if I know anymore. I think God has given us some kind of talent and he wants us to use it. That’s why he gives it to us.

Song of the day: Green Grass - Tom Waits

• Director: Julian Schnabel
• Genre: Drama/Biography
• Year: 2007

I have used the term visual poetry to describe a film before: The New World. I would like to use the term again, but not in the same fashion. If we were talking music, The New Word would be the symphony and this would be far less orchestrated, simpler, definitely more approachable, but by no means lacking power.

You know that shot that I loved from Joe Wright’s Pride and Prejudice? The peach colored veil with dancing patches of salmon and gold that is meant to represent Lizzie’s closed eyes, aimed at the sun registering the shadows produced by overhead foliage swimming over her? Well, it seems to me Julian Schnabel liked it as well and decided to dissect it, study it and then run with it.

Tilted shots, indecisive focus, streaks and blurs all culminate to create an unorthodox way of telling a story where part of the time you become, with surreal effect, Jean-Dominique Bauby, former editor of Elle magazine and highly acclaimed journalist as he wakes from his coma. His world, becomes our world, his frustrations our own, his sadness and triumphs, become that much more personal.

No intrusive soundtrack here, but the sound of lightly reverberated voices that lock you up, in that diving suit he continues to see himself in, as if a sheet of glass separated him - us- from the world. The effect is frighteningly real and though the story is not entirely told this way and we are given the opportunity to step out for a ‘breather’, so to speaks, this first person tool is utilize with great effectiveness throughout the film.

Make no mistake, the artistic touch is here, in every askew shot and blinding flash of light, from the sideways buildings that threaten to collapse over you after granting you a novel angle to the alienating, symbolic shots of the wheelchair on a barren platform surrounded by the chaotic play of the waves.

The reality of the event, a man who lived success only to have it taken by him when he suffers from a stroke that leaves him almost entirely paralyzed, which leaves him - in his words - with three working parts, his imagination, his memories and his left eye. He communicates through blinks and after forcing himself to pick up where he left off, he goes on to write a memoir which eventually became the basis for this movie.

Humorous at times, highly emotional at others, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is a tremendous biographical ride of the sort that leaves you watching the credits quietly, trying to digest the affective load that has been dumped on you and connecting dots together, in an effort to marry what has just been witnessed and the way it applies to one’s individual life. In a word: profound.

Rating: 5 out of 5
Notes: Brief nudity, adult situations and some highly emotional moments. French language with English subtitles. I should also note, Marie-Josee Croze is as charming as ever and Mathieu Amalric continues to impress.
Quote: Jean-Dominique Bauby: A poet once said, “Only a fool laughs when nothing’s funny”

Song of the Day: The Love Letter — Blaqk Audio

• Director: Christopher Nolan
• Genre: Action/Crime/Mystery/Thriller/Drama
• Year: 2008

Believe the hype! I was hesitant, because more often than not the masses get entirely hyped up about a movie that is simply different and are quick to label it ‘the best ever’, one look at 300 or Transformers is enough to prove my point. How many people do you know that came out of there saying it was the best movie ever only to come out scratching your head? Furthermore, I had my hesitations. Last year, while Turtle Pellets was still running, we announced the cast of this movie and the fact that they had signed Heath Ledger as the Joker. I will be honest and admit to not being thrilled about the idea. I think, looking at Heath’s record, there was nothing to support that he would be able to carry out this role and at the time I was thinking of a Joker much more like Jack Nicholson’s rather than the one presented to us in this movie.

Needless to say, I went into this braced to take things with a grain of salt, but the movie is not meant for you to sit back and be cautious with it. It opens with a brilliant scheme to rob a bank and propells you from there into a roller coaster of action that never exactly lets up. Gone is the origin story, which I love. While I loved Batman Begins, the thing that I did not enjoy quite as much was having to get another origin story. It is interesting, yes, intruiging, yes, but the entire time I just wanted to see Batman. That is one of the beauties of a well done sequel, that you no longer have to worry about setting things up. Christopher Nolan makes the assumption everybody saw the previous movie and he jumps off right where he left off and never lets off the pedal.

This is what comic-book movies should be like, and I know I said that about X-Men 2, Sin City and Iron Man, but Dark Knight has just topped them all and truly moved itself to a higher tier of credibility. Already, I have heard this movie being compared to The Godfather 2, Heat and Seven and be that as it may, I think the bottom line one must take out of this, is that if you are squimish about seeing a comic book based movie, that should not deter you from seeing this masterpiece, which is every bit as good as Nolan’s gem, Memento without the unorthodox storytelling.

All the talk you have heard about Heath Ledger’s Joker being brilliant, is absolutely on the mark. Finally, I am seeing a Joker that is so psychotic, so unscrupulous and so genial, rendered with believability, that at this moment I really do believe he is my favorite movie villain. Oscar worthy or not, the point is that Heath Ledger’s last role, was a true mark of his exceptional gift and it is sad to think that he could have only gone upwards from this. As a result, The Joker is brought to us as a mad genius that is frightening in various levels and who pushes the plot of this movie in so many directions that you never feel like you can fully recover your feet.

Driven by an obsession to unmask The Batman, the joker hatches up plans that fully delve into terrorism, lacking any sort of conscience for his actions, pushing a city that had recently begun to clean up, into desperate measures, where its hero’s and polititians are struggling to get a hold of the situation which is careening out of control into an obscenely orchestrated orgy of violence that pits innocents against themselves.

By now you may have heard the one major complaint: the movie is long. Yes, I will not argue with that, it is a long movie, but in this case that is not a bad thing. There is no part in this film where I felt there was still fat to be trimmed. It is a movie that keeps all the crucial parts and if you are a fan of Batman, are you really going to complain that you are given more content instead of less? There are so many layers to this film that the time it takes to tell the story is quite enough and never feels like it drags. So see it as a blessing and not a curse.

There are a couple of things I did not like, the first one being Batman’s voice while under the mask. I realize what they were trying to do, protecting Bruce Wayne’s identity while under the mask, but frankly, Baele did not have to make it sound like he had a pencil stuck where the sun does not shine. That’s it. That is my one complaint. There is one other thing I could comment on but it is so minor I do not think it is worth bringing it up and risking the spoiler.

So, in short? Go watch this movie and go watch it multiple times and be reminded that Nolan is in fact on of our generation’s greatest.

Rating: 5 out of 5
Notes: So you like bringing your kids to comic book movies, I do it all the time, but believe me when I say this movie is NOT for kids. The moment the Joker makes his pencil disappear you will understand why.
Quote: The Joker: I am an agent of chaos.