A collection of my idiosyncratic thoughts & film reviews. I find spending time sitting in the dark watching far too many films back to back a deeply relaxing experience. International, Indy, Hollywood, Vampires - I have very flexible tastes...
Michael at the aptly named Michael's Telluride Film Blog has scouring the net for leaks as to what's going to be showing at the famously secretive Telluride Film Festival that kicks off in less than a week. If you're really interested in the guessing game you should definitely check out his site.
Regardless of the leaked lists - I'm really looking forward to trying the Telluride experience in just a few days...
While looking up the above I've also had some fun checking out what additional data is available under my new super deluxe IMDB pro subscription. It's sort of cool with more involved notes, some metrics of the films popularity on search, etc. Not of any particular use to me most of the time - but I always get a kick out of more data.
I love SIFF. But I'm slightly perplexed at the way they're handling publicity for their fall film schedule. Every week or so when I check on their site there's a new film, or mini festival added to the page. But it's always sort of subtle - just in the left navigation, or maybe only in the calendar if you happen to look up a specific date. I've been told they may not print out glossy paper schedules this year for budgetary reasons. That seems completely reasonably. But why not put all the offerings into a digital version, post it on the site, mail it to members etc? Otherwise you can notice some things too late, for example the The Festival of New Spanish Cinema which I was very much looking forward to seeing is playing at a time where I've planned to be out of town. But it still looks great, and at $40 for a series pass for SIFF supporters seems like a steal.
Other films and/or programs that have popped up since I last posted about the autumn offerings are:
Courtesy of the blog Row Three the list of films showing at this year's Vancouver International Film Festival (VIFF) is starting to come out. The list and descriptions of each of the films is here.
Mainly what's announced is the content making up two of the festival's section titled Follow the Money and The Way of Nature. The first is a new section for films with economic themes, the second seems to be a renaming of their environmental programs section.
I've seen just one of the films The Market - A Tale of Trade back in Palm Springs. Really enjoyed it - so if you're heading to Vancouver in Oct I can officially make my first recommendation of the festival.
Bright Star is popping up as likely to show at the secretive Telluride Film Festival over labor day weekend. So I was very excited to get a chance to see it early at a press screening this week. Especially as I would have thought I was the near perfect target audience for that (as unlikely as that might sound to some). Here's the list of pros - I am a near complete sap for anything romantic as readers of this blog will likely attest. - I tend to like period pieces from the era this film is set in. And not just because everyone onscreen seems to look good in a corset. - For some reason I cannot explain I enjoy overly formal dialog from this era if written reasonably well. - I have never to my recollection disliked anything based on anything written by Jane Austen (yes, that includes fare from Bride & Prejudice to Pride and Prejudice and Zombies) - I cried at the American remake of Hachi - shouldn't be hard to pull a few tears from me at the conclusion of a tragic true story of young romantic love undone by the painful demise of a great artist - I in no way find the female lead of this film unattractive - Have I mentioned the part about being a sucker for anything romantic?
In the cons column I suppose it's fair to say that I'm not a huge lover of poetry. Nothing against it - but I've never spent time reading Keats for fun. As this is a biopic around the last few years of his life and features he and other characters reciting his poetry that could be construed as a negative. But that's one small thing against many so I was truly expecting to like this film.
As it turns out I should update the above pros that convinced me I was going to like it with the conditional, "only if I actually care at all about the characters onscreen. even a little bit." While this film seems to be getting great reviews across the net - and there seemed to be people at the press screening I attended who were moved to strong emotion I found myself pretty numb to the overall experience.
I wasn't that knowledgeable about the life of John Keats going in. Over the course of the film I learned that he died young of tuberculosis, he had a passionate affair of the mind (though perhaps not the body) with a neighbor Fanny Brawne, and that he had limited success in his lifetime (though obviously tremendous acclaim later).
As I mentioned the film features a good deal of poetry being read aloud. In a bad film that would have perhaps been laughable. This is not a bad film. It just never grabbed me in a serious way. It's generally well put together and the poetry reading seemed reasonably integrated into the presentation. I think my main objection is that I had a hard time seeing the attraction that Fanny had for Keats. Just almost never felt like I was observing a strong chemistry between them. I know this wasn't an era where folks were literally pawing all over each other - but if I didn't "get" the relationship all the other beauty and/or pain that I was supposed to take away from their none too subtle longings was lost on me. If I were to be brutally honest - towards the end when the Keats character is becoming ill and heading towards a tragic end I had two thoughts. First, that intellectually this is very sad - but I feel completely detached. Second, great, this movie is almost over.
Many other films from this time period and about characters of a higher social standing focus on lush costumes and furnishings. Bright Star has a bit of that - mainly around Fanny's skill making clothing. There's perhaps not enough of that as I was actually far more interested in the filming of those parts and her descriptions of her creations than of the poetry (maybe more suited to the visual medium - or maybe I have an undiscovered interested in the fashion arts). Visually it's almost as though the film is trying not to make a big deal of the character's appearance or homes - often shooting very close up on them (with a narrow depth of field and a soft lens) in a way that blurs the surroundings in a way I found most distracting. And shooting under lighting conditions that sometimes struck me as so dark I wondered to myself jokingly if this was a Dogma inspired production. That would have been a reasonable decision to focus on the characters, not their surroundings. But given my interest level in the relationship more of the pretty stuff would have given me something else to enjoy in its place.
Abbie Cornish does deliver a good performance - it may be the dialog (which also didn't pull me into their world), her male partner, or just a grumpy mood today on my part but something left me less impacted by Bright Star than I expect the film maker intended. I knew I'd seen Cornish somewhere else so was pleasantly surprised to confirm that I'd seen her in Somersault several years ago.
Anyway - as some would say - just not entirely my cup of tea. Hope your experience with it is better than mine if you give it a whirl.
The one complete bright spot was the young actress who played Fanny Brawne's younger sister "Toots" - a super cute little kid - it's impossible not to enjoy her presence onscreen. Assuming you're human of course. At least I still seem to have that...
Film Trailer
Notes from a critic who liked it considerably more than I
Looks as though (fingers crossed) I'll be heading to Telluride Colorado over the labor day weekend to attend the film festival there. I've heard really great things about it so I'm rapidly getting very excited about it. Even though - It's a bit of a pain to get there. Not sure I have enough Xanax for what I suspect is the small plan from Denver into Cortez, CO. - They don't announce the schedule in advance. Actually, that's sort of cool. I checked out the program from last year and it was filled with great things. This top secret schedule leads to a lot of internet speculation which is sort of fun. Most of the leaks seem to be summarized here. - I'm not that psyched to be standing on a bunch of lines. Though as always I'll make the best of it. Should make for some interesting conversations.
Overall though I'm very much looking forward to it. Also - I seem to be getting some nice traction from folks willing to participate in the Twitter film rating experiment I've been working on. Which is a great bonus.
BTW - if you're looking for Telluride Film Festival info on Twitter most of it is being marked with the #tff36 hashtag.
This afternoon I checked my email to find the pleasant surprise of having received the NW Film Forum's Fall calendar. Really more a newsletter combined with a calendar seems like it'll make worthwhile reading. As I finally got around to joining as a member I'll be on the lookout for a class to join or something of that sort.
Haven't gone through it much yet - but a quick skim through shows me that Beeswax (the new film from Andrew Bujalski) will make it's Seattle debut at the forum in the last week of Oct. So at least that's one thing I'll get my member's discount at. :-)
Post Telluride Update: Participation has been a little lower than I'd liked, but at the same time initially it seems the software is working as expected to gather and aggregate ratings from Twitter. So huge thanks to those who're trying it! I also realized there's the possibility that some folks might view the chance of a film getting "bad" ratings as a really negative outcome for a festival. We've had a similar concern in Seattle as part of a comprehensive survey done by the Fool Serious organization of passholders at the Seattle festival. The way it's solved here is they only publish the "top" ratings winners publicly and only share the full list of ratings with fellow passholders. As the numbers of ratings are likely to not be particularly significant at present I'll probably only publish resulting "votes" to folks who participate and would only publish a top 10 list regardless for now. So if you haven't done any tweeting please consider doing so. :-) The data is definitely helping fine tune things on my end - and maybe if all goes well it could replace our existing system of hand voting here. At the very least the effort's amusing me and for that I again thank everyone involved.
And back to the original post: Well, a while ago I tried to generate some interest in a twitter based film ratings system at the Palm Springs Shortsfest. I didn't really fully have my act together then in terms of getting the word out. So I figure I may as well try again.
If you're attending The 36th Telluride Film Festival over labor day weekend would love your help with a little personal project I've been kicking around. The goal is to use Twitter to enable on-the-fly film festival ratings. The basic idea is that after a film you tweet your rating. The system picks up these ratings and
Produces live/public scores for each film
Post fest gives you a personal report of what you liked
Enables creation of a personalized report of other films that you might like that similar attendees gave high scores to
I'm not 100% done with the work - but I think enough of the moving pieces have been sorted out to try it in the wild. Given the short nature of Telluride the full ratings may only be something I publish on the blog once the weekend is over. But if you participate I'll be sure to send a summary report of your ratings post-festival, and hopefully some personalized recommendations soon after (depending on participation).
How would this work you ask? Just follow the simple steps below 1. Get a Twitter account if you don't already have on. 2. See films at Telluride 3. Anytime after you see a film send a tweet from your computer or phone with the following format
@cinema_ratings ___________ #rate5 #tff36
where _____ is replaced by the name of the film, and #rate5 is for a top pick (fantastic) and #rate1 is for the opposite (not so fantastic). Of course feel free to also use #rate2, #rate3, #rate4 as the case may be.
So for example if you loved "Mystery Movie" you'd tweet
@cinema_ratings Mystery Movie #rate5 #tff36
The system should be able to handle modest misspellings of film names - but it's not psychic so try to get relatively close. ;-)
4. Repeat from (2) for each film you see
If you're thinking of giving it a try would love a quick note via email, twitter dm or in the comments. This is a working experiment, so cannot guarantee the results - but thought it'd be an interesting application that might grow into something useful for future festivals. Because each rating is associated with a specific Twitter account it's relatively easy to foresee extending it to for closed group ratings such as the Seattle Fool Serious survey done at SIFF each year.
Thanks for reading.
Update:
Two questions came up in the comments and wanted to address them in the main post. Thanks again for people's willingness to participate. Hoping it's going to be a fun addition to the festival for everyone.
First off - any Twitter account will do just fine. One of the nice things about the twitter platform is that posts made in the format proposed above are pretty easy to keep straight - so whichever account you use to cast a "vote" I'll be able to attribute the scores that that account. Even if you've never let me know you'll be using the system. Which is great in that you don't really need to pre-register or anything like that. I'm just asking for folks to shoot me a note if they may participate to get a gauge about how much interest there is. :-)
Second - there was a question about "Sounds interesting. How are you going to tab the results? For example, how am I, as a festival goer, going to use this info? Or do I have to dig thru all the Tweets? "
Answer is that you won't have to dig through the tweets. I'm planning to post aggregated metrics along the lines of the dummy example below at daily at this blog. Also, I'll be happy to send anyone participating a summary of their personal votes (along with whatever other cool personalized data analysis might be interesting).
Here's a movie I totally expected to hate. From the trailer I'd seen in theaters it seemed to be about a group of Jewish American soldiers lead by a comically accented Brad Pitt who terrorized Nazi's through sheer brutality in occupied France. Much as I can understand the potential visceral thrill a Nazi getting hit in the head with a baseball bat could engender I was a little less than enchanted with the prospect of 2.5 hours of bloody torture porn. Regardless of the deservedness of members of self titled "the master race." I'll also admit that I'm not a complete Tarantino fanboy. Liked some of the early work was less especially excited by the Kill Bill films. But the relentlessly positive reviews drew me to the theater.
But as it turns out there's a reason the theater was pretty packed for an early morning film. This is a good movie. Not to mention not at all what I expected from the trailer. Yes, it does in feature a group of Jewish American soldiers dropped into France to seed fear in the German ranks. And yes, as hinted at in the trailers it is a bit of a revenge fantasy. But that's not all it's about. It's a richer movie than that I'd expected and it completely pulled me in from the first scene and the two and a half hours seemed to fly by.
This is a revisionist history of WW-II that ends differently than the real one. In this one the conclusion is driven quite literally through the power of film. The Nazi theme is played with in a far lighter way than most modern films would dare to. But for some reason it didn't bother me - perhaps because the framework he sets up uses them as stock movie villians - but the reaction of the characters is attuned to the true evil they represent. Somehow Tarantino seems to balance the talking, the violence, the themes and an actual story arc in just the right way. At the moment I think I'd have to say that for me Inglorious Basterds is the best of his films (not counting his bizarrely entertaining appearance in Sukiyaki Western Django - the only part of that film I felt I got). Sins against the movie title spelling police notwithstanding.
For me most of the pleasure was watching the film unfold without really knowing where it was going. So I'm just going to give a sense of the broad strokes so as not to take away from the viewing experience unnecessarily.
Structurally the film is divided into 5 chapters - each clearly demarcated and occurring in roughly chronological order (this is not Pulp Fiction). The first ("Once Upon a Time") is set at a farmhouse in the French countryside. A Nazi contingent comes knocking looking for Jewish farmers hiding from them. The father of the family meets (along with us) a key actor in the film - the Nazi colonel played by (scene stealer) Christoph Waltz. He seems to be modeled on a great (albeit evil) detective, able to suck people into thinking their safe while getting exactly what he needs from them. You hate him, but still are stunned to the point of being impressed by what he's able to do with his words. His seemingly quiet conversation with the farmer about the family hiding directly below them ratchets up the tension dramatically both verbally and visually as the scene builds. I won't speak to the conclusion except to say that at least one of the family members in hiding gets away and we meet her again later in the film playing a pivotal role.
Things meander along throughout the rest of the film converging towards the picture's main set piece. A film premier in France at which all of the key leadership of the German government will be in attendance. Can "The Basterds" or any one of the other players that pop up throughout the film take advantage of the situation to deliver a single decapitating blow against the Third Reich. Based on nothing in reality as far as I know this isn't hamstrung by "facts" in the way that Tom Cruise's recent attempt at a similar storyline (though in an oh so different) way.
There is definitely some gore along the way - it's rated R for a reason. But there's also some great dialog, strong performances (Pitt's comic leaning on screen persona nicely blunts the edges in some tough material), well chosen music and great visuals. A lot has been said in other reviews that Tarantino demonstrates throughout this picture his love of all things cinema - from the themes to various nods to earlier work throughout. All true and it may be a cinephile's delight. But more importantly it's a way to spend at least a few hours in air conditioned comfort in a way that rewards a lot of senses.
Just remember, it's a dark room - no one will see you turn away or cover your eyes when the Basterds scalp someone. So don't let that keep you from it.
That Nina Paley - always up to something. Mainly I was just going to post that she's freed not just her film for distribution - but the tools she used to create it. So say if you're doing an animation class, felt something just wasn't right in the film, or want to do your own Sita v. Donkey Kong mashup the source files are yours to play with. That's a pretty cool continuation of her goal to keep the Sita content free. In her post about it she alludes to the fact that some folks seem to have cautioned against taking the whole "information wants to be free" thing in part because the content could be misused in a way she wouldn't approve of. But decides to distribute the content nonetheless;
"Yes, I know bad bad people can also use the .fla files for dastardly deeds (the dreaded hypothetical “Nazi Porn Version” that always comes up at Q&A’s)."
Not totally sure - but isn't Quentin Tarantino releasing a live action version along those lines this weekend?
Anyway - right below that the posting about the animation source being published I ran across her link to a musical remix of the opening scenes of Sita partly to what's described as Tibetan ritual music which segues into Hava Nagila. Now ain't that something...
The fall schedule seems to be slowly drifting out for SIFF Cinema. Not sure when they're going to getting around to publishing a complete list. Or advertising it in some way. But a lot of the details are actually posted on their website if you have the patience to go through the listings by day. I needed to take a break from some work - so that's exactly what I did. Here's a piecing together of the schedule so far. Doesn't include the Spanish mini festival there's talk about on their press site which I'd posted about earlier. No dates forthcoming on that yet.
When we first meet Will he's the midwest movie geek stereotype. Vaguely witty with the ironic, cynical detachment that comes from not quite fitting in ("High School is like Guantanamo, only with lunch period"). You know, the one who will end up with Ione Skye in the end but takes a lot of crap along the way. During much of which you'll want to scream at his mother to at sign him up for Krav Maga lessons (sorry for mixing film issues there, I'm aware Lloyd Dobbler could handle himself - but you get the point I expect).
By the end there will be life lessons learned, some predictable twists and if you're lucky a pleasant memory and the feeling you didn't completely waste the last two hours of your life. By those measures I feel Bandslam more than delivers.
Oh, right, the movie itself...
At the start Will is writing a one way letter to David Bowie in what's a device the film uses to express his inner thinking without resorting to voice over narrative. It generally works as you eventually decide that Will isn't delusional and expecting a response (or thinking Bowie is actually speaking to him through aliens in his brain, etc.).
After some pretty standard teen movie taunting Will catches a break when his Mom does a reverse Karate Kid and moves them to New Jersey. Arriving at a new school is a chance for him to remake himself (and yes, is perhaps the first time in movie history that moving to Jersey is portrayed as a good thing). Upon arriving it's hard for him to miss the new school's population affection for a local battle of the bands competition called "Bandslam" that the rest of the story revolves around. Then in pretty rapid succession he meets both his blond and brunette possible love interests. The blond one (Charlotte) is a senior who (badly) drives a caddy, fronts a potential Bandslam competitor and is so out of his league that even he is wondering why she's friends with him. The other is the "weird girl with a hat" character. In other words the odd girl forever placed in the teen romantic comedy to be thought of as plain by her peers until the hat comes off (at which point he should be out of his league too). In Bandslamthe hat is metaphorical, but you get the idea (btw- apparently it's a real life thing too as depicted in American Teen). In this case the brunette is Sa5m (the 5 is silent - and no I don't get it either) who he meets on the first day. She appears aloof from the whole Bandslamcult thing, and drinks her Coke with a Twizzler straw. Ok - that's a little goofy but it does come across as sorta cute so I give 'em a pass on that.
The rest of the film's arc covers Will becoming the manager of Charlotte's band and guiding them along their quest to win Bandslam. And of course him growing up, facing his fears, finding success and learning how to juggle two women. Or something like that.
Mixed in is a nice scene where he makes a pilgrimage to CBGB's which was cool to see onscreen as it looked exactly like I remember it (if it was a set it's pretty well done). Of course there's a dramatic last minute big battle of the bands scene that's hard not to enjoy. It's sort of goofy fun - but I enjoyed it and am not (that) ashamed to admit it. The film doesn't quite go where I'd expected it to at all times which in and of itself was a nice surprise. It's not like there's a Usual Suspects twist hidden in there, but still... Funny, sweet and some good music (another surprise as it's not all cookie cutter modern pop) - what's not to like?
Screening Note: The show I attended had the trailer running for New Moon though it's really more like a cheesy press interview with the actor who plays the shirtless Jacob in the new Twilight movie. Or an ad for some weightlifting supplement product - depending on how you look at it. Sadly there were only a few teens in attendance so I didn't get the full fun of the "OMG - Jacob! - Edward! - wahooooo! - OMG!" team Jacob experience. But the two that were in attendance did their best. Afterwards I found out it was well known that Bandslam had the "exclusive" trailer before it (I assume to boost attendance). Anyway, you should try Bandslam - for itself but to get you prepped here's one of the New Moon trailers below.
The Goods was a bit of a disappointment for me. Not absolutely horrible - just not quite as good as it's more positive reviews yet not as bad as it's worst ones. At the end of the day it's a comedy that takes the shotgun approach, throwing things in every direction to see what sticks yet misses too often. Part of the problem as well I believe is that it ignored any concept of story/characters so much so that it's difficult to build up to anything better than a one-liner.
Don"The Goods" Ready (Jeremy Piven) is a hired gun of a car salesman you call on when you're desperate to move merchandise off your lot. At the start he's hired by James Brolin to turn around his failing family owned used car dealership. Perhaps in part failing because he seems to employee way too many salespeople, even if they weren't all slightly insane.
With respect to Ready, there's a hopeful bit in the trailer demonstrating his ability to sell anyone anything. Sadly though there's not enough of that feel in the film which is as mentioned before more a series of one liners than a script building towards something. Don travels with a crew of 3 other mild defectives. Ving Rhames as a salesman tough guy who dreams of "making love" to a woman and harbors a great love of Dawson's Creek ("James Van Der Beek is my nigga"). A less than scrupulous loan officer (David Koechner), and the (apparently) requisite tough and slutty female salesperson character, Babs (Kathryn Hahn). In a throwback to every movie (serious and spoof) Ready is haunted by an event in their past where a sale went wrong and they lost one of their own - yes - just like in Airplane. While the actual incident when it finally makes it onscreen is funny hearing about "the incident in Albuquerque" that haunts Don over and over is not.
I really had hopes for this film. While some of the cast are not my favorites it sported enough folks that have done things I've enjoyed that I was hoping for something at the level of Old School. But at the end of the day it just didn't deliver the goods. Sorry, couldn't resist.
A quick summary to funny/not funny (mild spoilers may follow) in the film:
Funny:
Craig Robinson as DJ Request, the DJ who refuses to take requests.
Will Ferrell's initial cameo depicting his death. Whether it's entering into Thailand after meeting a cute guy who held your luggage or jumping out of a plane the rules are the same. Always be sure to check what's actually in your pack.
Anyone saying the line "who brought the alligators"
Some of the one-liners, especially the more unprintable ones.
Less Funny
Ed Helms doing a character you'd expect to find on Saturday Night Live. Even if the thing about him being in a boy band is supposed to be funny.
James Brolin playing the married car dealer constantly hitting on David Koechner. Actually just Brolin anywhere in this movie.
The Vancouver International Film Festival (VIFF) is starting to creep up on us here in the northwest. Scheduled to run between Oct 1-16th this year, a little later than usual it seems. New info is just now starting to appear on their website. Including what appears to be their tagline ('An open mind is advised') along with a rather colorful looking poster.
Full lineup will be posted Sept 12th. Passes are listed as being on sale Aug 9th. But as it's past that and the link isn't live yet seems things are just running a smidge behind schedule.
BTW - if you still haven't seem the great trailers they showed before screenings in Vancouver in 2008 they're on the VIFF website - here.
This is one of those times I've seen the movie ahead of the opening and just want to get some thoughts out quickly. That said, my opinion of the film is still evolving so hoping I'm not sorry that later I posted prematurely.
There's some story out there that when the Halo film (based on the famous videogame) fell through Peter Jackson and Neil Blomkamp decided to make this film instead (on a considerably lower budget - around $30 million). They've managed to make what feels like a big budget sci-fi action movie that actually has a real story and acting to go with it (including the CGI non-human characters). So in short - well done.
When the film opens we learn that aliens arrived on earth 20 years ago. And perhaps in the worst decision as to where to stop off for supplies ever they park right above a city in South Africa. When the authorities learn than rather than being a super cool race of brilliant dudes they've got a million tired, hungry, and seemingly worker class aliens everyone gets shunted off to a ghetto style shantytown camp. Seems the South Africans of this film's world aren't big students of history and/or irony.
Of course the aliens have impressive weapons which the humans cannot operate and obviously some other useful technologies (exhibit A is their giant spacecraft hovering above the shantytown). But for whatever reason everyone seems to think the best thing to do is treat them poorly, quarantine them, and give them the occasional cat food (apparently they love cat food - maybe it's an Alf reference. not really sure). It was pretty easy to suspend disbelief during the film, but it raises so many practical questions afterward. Perhaps humans really would behave this way to a new race of creatures with obvious intellect (again, note the spaceship). But the poor conditions they have them living under seem guaranteed to not elicit help in understanding their world/technologies/etc. Then again given the world's past history around racial differences, not to mention watching the level of discourse in the current health care debate, maybe I'm giving mankind too much credit.
As I mentioned the quality of the film is high. It combines some documentary style film making including fake news footage and handheld camera work (that avoids getting you Cloverfield nauseous) with hardcore action scenes (with more than a little dismemberment, blood, and slime). The most noteworthy performance is from Sharlto Copley as the main character Wikus Van De Merwe. A sort of jerky doofus (another reviewer used 'nebbish' which is equally applicable) who's an employee of the multinational corp administering the aliens. He's partial to the casual racism of many of the humans towards the aliens. At least until an accident begins a literal metaphasis into one.
Wikus works for a big evil multinational corporation who administors the aliens. At the start of the film they're about to move them to a new (of course) worse location. During the sham period where they're giving them 24 hours notice of the eviction Wikus is infected with alien DNA. Authorities are more than a little interested in Wikus's new found ability to operate alien weaponry. Though rather than use him to hold the guns their first instinct is to cut him into pieces (literally) for genetics research. Though to be fair that's no worse than they've been treating aliens in their underground vivisection playground. Wikus decides not to stick around and the chase is on. Over the course of his evading human authorities Wikus begins to work with the aliens (derogatorily referred to as 'prawns') and his world view evolves along with his body.
There's a lot going on visually throughout the film some of which might be more clear on a second viewing. In what I assume was an intentional tip of the hat to the film's origins (and Halo) Wikus and his new alien buddy (did I mention there's a point where it briefly become a Lethal Weapon style buddy flick with everything short of the alien going, "I'm too old for this shit" Murtaugh style) jump into something eerily reminiscent of a Warthog as they escape an evil laboratory. The footage as they drive away seems to be a direct homage to the final scene of Halo. Which by the way in case you haven't played it is in a word - "Awesome!"
So while I did enjoy the movie (and it's getting getting great reviews) it didn't completely blow me out of my chair as much as some of the reviews would suggest. Could be my innate fear of things that look like giant insects, could be the standing in line for the preview, or it could be the heavy handed metaphor kept pulling me out of it. By the second half though I was more thoroughly enjoying it and felt it ended well. Mainly, I just super appreciate a film that's not talking down to its audience along every dimension. Which seems to be a big difference compared with a lot of other films out now.
Also, refreshing in that it's not a 100% shoot em up - though there are suitable levels of action and bloodshed to get the adrenaline up a bit. Mixed in are some parts to engage the brain, at least a little bit. Which is a nice jump back to when sci-fi was supposed to make us do just that. Another good example of sci-fi without just explosions is the recent film Moon. Though I think Moon is a stronger example one as I appreciated it's character's emotional depth. But still so nice to see a movie that's partially a summer popcorn flick yet still engages your brain. So I do recommend. Just be aware of it's a harsh world in the film. So not for little kids nor the especially squeamish.
If the intent of the makers of this documentary was to make me think that dolphin meat was delicious then they've failed miserably. Second only to the shock that people eat dolphins (on purpose when they're not stuck on a desert island) is that the people who sell such meat don't seem to care too much that it's way off the scales in terms of mercury content. Even when trying to feed it to kids. Yes, I know some critics of the film claim that eating dolphin meat is a common cultural heritage thing in Japan. But based on conversations I've had afterward and the reactions of many of the Japanese folks interviewed in the movie that point seems a bit exaggerated
Anyway - back to the movie. It's about the efforts of a dolphin trainer turned activist (the trainer of "Flipper") and a motley crew of folks working to get footage of the killing of dolphins in a small town in Japan. Actually it seems that their main financial goal is the capture of dolphins who are sold for as much as $150,000 to water parks. The use of these captive animals is portrayed as a bad thing. But the film focuses on the easier to document fate of the captured dolphins who are not selected by buyers. They're killed for food. And like any mass operation of it's sort it's far from pretty. The film makers turn their effort to get footage of the killings into the bulk of the film. Resulting in a a documentary that feels like a thriller as they try to evade local authorities to get footage of the goings on in "the cove" where the animals are slaughtered.
Folks I'd spoken to who saw it at SIFF tended to mention that the build up was so long and intense that by the time you got to witness the actual dolphin apocalypse it wasn't quite as bad as expected. Though in reality is is very horrible (picture the cove in question literally turning red with blood). Maybe it's more that you're slightly numb at that point - though I'd be lying to say the footage didn't affect me.
If you stop and think about the caper part of the film it does seem to raise some questions. First, it's pretty clear to everyone that the dolphins are being killed en masse. No one is trying to hide that. Does the footage of them being killed make the story that this a bad thing more compelling? Maybe viscerally it does, and it certainly makes a better movie. But really, even if the killings came across as more humane than they do, would you think this was all OK? (assuming you're not a fan of dolphin killing for the sake of argument). Second, one of the biggest problems the team had was that they seemed to stick out like a sore thumb in rural Japan. Sort of surprising that no one recruited anyone from Japan to participate.
One of the most confusing parts about the film to me is the underlying financial justification on the part of the government of Japan to support this activity as presented in the film. There's a lot of talk about Japan paying countries around the world to participate in international whaling organizations to gain voting support to their desire to continue to hunt dolphins and whales. But given the economics of the dolphin slaughter (they mention how much each sells for as food) and even adding a multiple on top of that for the whale trade it doesn't seem to quite make economic sense. There's some brief talk about a theory put forth by the industry that the dolphins are eating all the fish contributing to the failure of their commercial fishing industry. But that seems a bit shaky - and just made me think it was possible that someone took the Hitchhiker Guide to the Galaxy books a bit too seriously. Then again maybe special interests and government spending never really seem practical when viewed in the light of day. Food Inc. made a similar point around farm subsidies in the US.
Bottom line. Well done technically. Certainly makes me want to help the dolphins. As that's the purpose of the movie I think they were successful. Would I say you need to run out and see it, maybe not exactly. But it was interesting to watch and thought provoking in a variety of ways.
While there's some harder data from Nina Paley about Sita Sings the Blues' commercial results to data on her blog I heard a personal story this morning that made me smile. Even though one can buy a nicely packaged version of the DVD from Amazon now Nina has made the DVD master available free online. So in order to get a lot of folks to see it I burned a bunch of copies and have been handing them out. Always with a little reminder about the scarce goods (t-shirts, pins, etc.) she's selling to make money off the product (not to mention the opportunity to donate directly).
Before the weekend I'd given one of these copies to a co-worker. This morning I heard her whole family had been enjoying the film - and not just a little bit. Even their 5 year old daughter seems to be in love carrying the DVD around the house (hint, hint - seems the Sitaline maybe needs some plush animals in addition to shirts/pins). She even watched the commentary track. They have ordered a pin, bought a copy of the film, made a donation and passed the original copy I made on. So maybe there is something to this "giving non scarce goods thing" away after all...
Charlyne Yi doesn't believe in love. Or at least she's not sure she can love. So she decides to make a documentary about love, mostly consisting of asking people about their experiences with love. Throwing in a few scientists along the way. This might have made a pleasant if uninspiring doc along the lines of watching the couples in When Harry Met Sally plus a bit of Charlene and her friend's shtick. But the film goes in a slightly different direction when she starts to fall for Michael Cera. That additional dimension gives a narrative to the film that holds it together. That and some incredibly clever low budget "reenactments." Of course at some point you start to wonder if you're watching a documentary or a scripted film with folks playing characters named after themselves. I'm pretty sure scripted fiction is the case, but the relationship is believable enough that I pleasantly wondered.
It's not as though Paper Heart makes huge new insights about love and relationships. But it's a very entertaining ride done in a way that feels unique. It's possible that Charlyne Yi and Michael Cera will rub some people the wrong way. In that case this might not be the film for you (you'll probably get a good sense one way or the other from the trailer). Leaving out people who find Yi/Cera annoying - I'm not saying that if you don't like this film at least a little you have a cold, shrunken hearts made out of a lump of coal. But you might want to check with your doctor just to be sure. Another hint in that direction if you're dying to see The Cove 'cuz you heard those dolphins finally get what's coming to them. Be sure to mention that as well.
The New York Times, liked it less than I - but at least agreed on the interviews and the re-enactments. Though they do make a point that both the leads seem to occasionally be slightly devoid of basic survival skills. Maybe they're just upset they didn't get a little souvenir notebook at their screening. ;-)
Screening Note - I saw Paper Heart on Thurs courtesy of The Warren Report. So I hate to knock a free screening, but why do so many people feel the need to talk through a film. Outside of festival screenings this seems to be happening to me more and more. A very sad development indeed.
SIFF Cinema sadly closed up for the summer for a much deserved (and a presumably fiscally helpful) rest. There's starting to be some rumblings that their Fall calendar will be published soon. Not a lot of details floating around but I'm getting the distinct impression that we'll be seeing a mini Spanish film festival as part of the mix
"The Festival of New Spanish Cinema, now on its second run, continues its annual celebration of films from the 25th to 30th of September 2009,with 8 films, mainly premieres in the U.S., online exhibitions, university screenings, filmmaker appearances and more surprises!
With films by such veterans as Juan Luis Iborra, Javier Fesser and Gabriel Velázquez shown side-by-side with cutting edge debut productions from the younger generation including Albert Arizza, Irene Cardona, David Planell, Santiago Zannou, and Miguelanxo Prado, there is much to relish in this year’s festival. Presenting new and outrageous interpretations of classic genres including melodrama, horror and animation, this year’s styles range from superb examples of Spain’s offbeat thrillers like Ramirez and the brutal, wrenching fairy tales Camino and De Profundis, to socially engaged cinema like A Fiancé for Yasmina or One-Armed Trick."
Films to appear seem to include:
DESPERATE WOMEN aka CRAZY Enloquecidas by Juan Luis
THE SHAME La Vergüenza by David Planell
CAMINO by Javier Fesser.
AMATEURS by Gabriel Velázquez
A FIANCE FOR YASMINA Un Novio Para Yasmina by Irene Cardona
Iborra by Juan Luis
DE PROFUNDIS- The Sound of the Sea by Miguelanxo Prado
RAMIREZ by Albert Arizza
ONE-ARMED TRICK El truco del manco by Santiago Zannou
If this is any indication of the rest of the programming through the fall it's going to be a very exciting season at SIFF.
Finally, a romantic drama where the guy is harder to figure out emotionally than his female counterpart. That's probably mostly due to his Asperger's syndrome.
Adam has been living with his father (who dies at the start of the film) and works as an electronics engineer at a toy company. While socially stymied by his difficulties understanding what others are thinking he's very smart and passionate, especially about out space. He meets Beth a grade school teacher when she moves into his building. Both living alone they start up a friendship and then possibly something more. Both seem to have reservations about it and they stumble along dealing with more realistic troubles than you normally see in the standard movie meet and fall in love films.
I've been told by others who really enjoyed the film that Hugh Dancy's portrayal of Adam is dead on. I can't speak to that though the characters felt authentic and truly human to me. There are some very well done scenes, particularly standing out for me are the sequences where Beth helps Adam prepare for job interviews. I didn't completely love this film but did enjoy it enough to mildly recommend it. I can't quite put my finger on why I didn't fall completely, but I think maybe I just never connected enough with the main characters. Or perhaps the problems Beth's father has that remind me a little too much of the subplot in Say Anything.
If you want something more directly shooting for laughs just stick with 500 Days of Summer. Though they make an interesting pairing as both have at their core the message that relationships are harder than they appear in movies.
Screening Note: I saw this as a preview via The Warren Report and both the director (Max Mayer) and Hugh Dancy were in attendance. The Q&A was of a higher caliber than a lot of recent ones I've seen with both of them appearing truly interested in the interaction. For that I'll even forgive Mr. Dancy's slam on the Amy's Mac&Cheese which appears in the film. ;-) Unless it's the low sodium one - in which case I'm in complete agreement with him on that.
Judd Apatow wrote and directed this film starring Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen and what appears to be everyong Apatow knows (including his wife & kids) about a comedian who thinks he's going to die only to be granted a temporary reprieve. Use of the word temporary isn't meant as a spoiler (beyond the trailer), just meant that such a reprieve is always temporary (not counting Twilight). A lot of the film's advertising does it the disservice of selling it like a comedy. Because it's about comedians there are definitely funny bits, but it's mainly about more serious topics. So you shouldn't go expecting to see the latest episode of Superbad even if much of the cast of that film is in this one too.
Not going to write a great deal about the plot. There's a perfectly good review of the film that covers that in the New Yorker. Overall I liked the film which at 2 1/2 hours went by faster than expected. Nothing about it is absolutely standout but the pieces worked for me. The scenes of the comedians joking (or more often competing) amongst themselves felt reasonably authentic and were definitely funny. Sandler's portrayal of someone regretting choices but then struggling with not remaking them once the fear of death abates was both interesting and struck a personal chord. Given the choices in the theaters last weekend (not counting things I'd seen) this was definitely the right one. At least for me.
now Nina has made the DVD master available free online. So in order to get a lot of folks to see it I burned a bunch of copies and have been handing them out. Always with a little reminder about the scarce goods (t-shirts, pins, etc.) she's selling to make money off the product (not to mention the opportunity to donate directly). 
