LA VIE EN ROSE (2007)
So I provided the only follower of this blog with a list of 5 movies, selected randomly from my 266+ films available from Netflix Instant, and asked him to choose one for me to watch, but he must have thought that was stupid. No bother, I decided to go for the Oscar-winning performance of Marion Cotilard, even though bio-pics make me weary, especially with the running time of over 2 hours. Biopics, understandably, are focused on the life of a single person, and if you're not completely interested in that person (Frank Zappa biopic NOW please) it can be disengaging. From a single Youtube someone through on a blog somewhere of Edith Pfiaf performing, I was intrigued by finding out more to this person. Reviewing a wikipedia bio, it seems like her life was indeed so complex and fascinating that it couldn't all be filmed. Nonetheless, the story is non-linear and there's some very creative direction to represent fuzzy memories and fantasy and grief. Couldn't say those elements held my attention alone, but the performance was indeed incredible.
With spooky season coming up, I might dial up some horror movies.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Weekly Update (Tuesday/Wednesday) whatever
JAWS (1975)
The legendary film which I never saw all the way through, and for free (ignoring cable fees) on HD On Demand!
As good as I expected. If every blockbuster was like this I wouldn't be a film snob. Some refreshing surprises... the naturalistic dialogue more appropriate for a Robert Altman film... the fleshed out characters that you want to spend time with and make up for the very rare appearances of the actual shark... and the drawn out final act with a monologue from Quint that puts all monster movies that go for cheap thrills into perspective.
Thinking about what this movie would be like with CGI sickens me.
Steve Speilberg... I should check this director out (sorry).
THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARLEY (2006)
This was not on any special must-see list of mine... it only has sat on my Netflix Instant list for a long time (#30 out of #245 or so). It did win the Cannes Palme d'Or and covered an interesting subject area...
Very realistic depiction of a brutality I wasn't that familiar with, as far as the way British soldiers treated the Irish post World War I. What was devastating about this particular movie was how it matter-of-factly presents the differences and debate that led to the bloody religious political divisions that plagued Ireland for the next 60+ years. It reminded me of a less artsy expression of the seeds of conflict than The White Ribbon cryptically presented upon my viewing of it a few months ago. Very good, very sad, but very real.
Let's see what other Palme d'Or (the top award at Cannes) have I seen...
The White Ribbon (2009)
Farenheit 9-11 (2004)
The Pianist (2002)
Dancer in the Dark (2000)
Secrets & Lies (1996)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
The Mission (1986)
Taxi Driver (1976)
The legendary film which I never saw all the way through, and for free (ignoring cable fees) on HD On Demand!
As good as I expected. If every blockbuster was like this I wouldn't be a film snob. Some refreshing surprises... the naturalistic dialogue more appropriate for a Robert Altman film... the fleshed out characters that you want to spend time with and make up for the very rare appearances of the actual shark... and the drawn out final act with a monologue from Quint that puts all monster movies that go for cheap thrills into perspective.
Thinking about what this movie would be like with CGI sickens me.
Steve Speilberg... I should check this director out (sorry).
THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARLEY (2006)
This was not on any special must-see list of mine... it only has sat on my Netflix Instant list for a long time (#30 out of #245 or so). It did win the Cannes Palme d'Or and covered an interesting subject area...
Very realistic depiction of a brutality I wasn't that familiar with, as far as the way British soldiers treated the Irish post World War I. What was devastating about this particular movie was how it matter-of-factly presents the differences and debate that led to the bloody religious political divisions that plagued Ireland for the next 60+ years. It reminded me of a less artsy expression of the seeds of conflict than The White Ribbon cryptically presented upon my viewing of it a few months ago. Very good, very sad, but very real.
Let's see what other Palme d'Or (the top award at Cannes) have I seen...
The White Ribbon (2009)
Farenheit 9-11 (2004)
The Pianist (2002)
Dancer in the Dark (2000)
Secrets & Lies (1996)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
The Mission (1986)
Taxi Driver (1976)
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Movie report
THE SOCIAL NETWORK (2010)
Yeah, this was a good one. The performances, the pace, and the music (co-composed by Trent Reznor) all came together perfectly, and the direction by David Fincher made a legal deliberation across a conference table seem as the most riveting thing possible to watch.
What makes this movie ALMOST legendary is that I was surprised about how little the movie focused on the impact on implications Facebook has for how we socialize. There were some very good and powerful references to this impact, included the chilling ending that is one of the most perfect thematic conclusions to a film I’ve seen in a long while. Nonetheless, the film basically examines the characters that helped create this ubiquitous application and the protracted legal battles over revenues as facebook exploded, where amounts of 50 million dollars or more are tossed around back and forth casually as if they didn’t matter. Add in a few more subtle references to how difficult it was for this main character to traditionally socialize, and how facebook became a type of solution to his issues, and subsequently all people’s modern social hangups, and this film would have struck a perfect harmony between a straightforward drama and an incisive social commentary. But what was delivered was far from a disappointment, and perhaps I’ve got my own issues with online communication that I was hoping to see addressed by this movie.
See, I try to think I’m above a marketing campaign but I was a sucker for the acclaimed trailer and the collaboration between atmospheric director David Fincher and nine inch nails guy Trent Reznor. What it implied to me was that this movie would going to hit the alienation of the online age head-on. I’ve had trouble dealing with my predilection for interacting with people online ever since I discovered AOL chat rooms circa 1995-1996. And everytime I think I’ve beaten the temptation to deal with shyness and insecurity by leaning towards my typing keys as my social instrument, a new feature comes along that tweaks the model a little bit. Unlike younger people I actually know of a world where you couldn’t communicate in YouTube clips and if you wanted to tell someone what you were reading, listening, or watching, you had to go through a few basic social interactions before you could share that knowledge. So perhaps knowing the music of Reznor and the films of Fincher from their work in the 1990s, the same time I was going through adolescence and social maturity, that their styles would be particular modern and in tune with some of the larger themes inherent in the expansion of facebook and new forms of online connectivity.
I graduated from college in the summer of 2003 and Facebook first spread through campuses that following fall. My online vices were mostly AIM and relying too much on e-mail to communicate with people I was shy around, yet fortunately the small college campus environment kept you social away from your computer. So perhaps I had a unique perspective and expectations for The Social Network. Overall it’s a story about a cutthroat business battle among kids my age, and it was very entertaining.
Facebook this, Twitter this, and link to this. Become one of my blog followers, add it to your blog roll, and leave comments.
Also
IN THE LOOP (2009)
Yeah, this was a good one. The performances, the pace, and the music (co-composed by Trent Reznor) all came together perfectly, and the direction by David Fincher made a legal deliberation across a conference table seem as the most riveting thing possible to watch.
What makes this movie ALMOST legendary is that I was surprised about how little the movie focused on the impact on implications Facebook has for how we socialize. There were some very good and powerful references to this impact, included the chilling ending that is one of the most perfect thematic conclusions to a film I’ve seen in a long while. Nonetheless, the film basically examines the characters that helped create this ubiquitous application and the protracted legal battles over revenues as facebook exploded, where amounts of 50 million dollars or more are tossed around back and forth casually as if they didn’t matter. Add in a few more subtle references to how difficult it was for this main character to traditionally socialize, and how facebook became a type of solution to his issues, and subsequently all people’s modern social hangups, and this film would have struck a perfect harmony between a straightforward drama and an incisive social commentary. But what was delivered was far from a disappointment, and perhaps I’ve got my own issues with online communication that I was hoping to see addressed by this movie.
See, I try to think I’m above a marketing campaign but I was a sucker for the acclaimed trailer and the collaboration between atmospheric director David Fincher and nine inch nails guy Trent Reznor. What it implied to me was that this movie would going to hit the alienation of the online age head-on. I’ve had trouble dealing with my predilection for interacting with people online ever since I discovered AOL chat rooms circa 1995-1996. And everytime I think I’ve beaten the temptation to deal with shyness and insecurity by leaning towards my typing keys as my social instrument, a new feature comes along that tweaks the model a little bit. Unlike younger people I actually know of a world where you couldn’t communicate in YouTube clips and if you wanted to tell someone what you were reading, listening, or watching, you had to go through a few basic social interactions before you could share that knowledge. So perhaps knowing the music of Reznor and the films of Fincher from their work in the 1990s, the same time I was going through adolescence and social maturity, that their styles would be particular modern and in tune with some of the larger themes inherent in the expansion of facebook and new forms of online connectivity.
I graduated from college in the summer of 2003 and Facebook first spread through campuses that following fall. My online vices were mostly AIM and relying too much on e-mail to communicate with people I was shy around, yet fortunately the small college campus environment kept you social away from your computer. So perhaps I had a unique perspective and expectations for The Social Network. Overall it’s a story about a cutthroat business battle among kids my age, and it was very entertaining.
Facebook this, Twitter this, and link to this. Become one of my blog followers, add it to your blog roll, and leave comments.
Also
IN THE LOOP (2009)
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Tuesday
A bonus movie update in the next day or two, since this was a longish summary.
THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED (2006)
I had heard about this documentary for a while and despite it being ancient history for a documentary (four years ago) it was available on Netflix Instant. It was rather disturbing. I remember not having a TV available to me for the first time in my life as I was subletting an apartment in Washington D.C. for a summer internship in 2002. It was also my first urban living experience, and my first experience having access to several movie theaters showcasing only independent films that, if you were lucky, might screen at a single theater in Des Moines or Oklahoma City and that’s only if a film with more mainstream buzz or a less regarded blockbuster filled up that theater slot. At that time, being in that City was the only way for me to see the rare art films that cover a realm of creative expression that has been proven over subsequent years to be SO beyond what even the most critically regarded mainstream movies can do for me. Living in Chicago began the phase II of complete immersion in cool substantial creative culture, with the added bonus of theater and oh so many indie rock shows at your doorstep. Now I’m in a continuous Phase III, as I have the resources and technology (via Netflix, Rhapsody, YouTube, and proximity to Madison, Chicago, AND Milwaukee) to see and hear so many things. Despite the efforts of the awesome video/DVD rental place that opened near the Drake campus when I was wrapping up my time there, I simply did not have access to everything I could possibly want to view. In short, I can never watch in a lifetime what is available to me now, but I can access it. That access is what really bothered me about this movie’s subject, but also gave me a more enhanced appreciation of what new forms of access mean for the future of films. This documentary covers the operations of a secretive ratings boards that, in private arbitration, determines the ratings for all motion pictures distributed in commercial theaters in the United States. The filmmaker goes about to explain why this board is so frustrating for filmmakers, because their standards for what determines PG-13, R, or NC-17 have no rhyme or reason for the most part. The few insights into their deliberations do reveal a more lenient attitude towards violence compared to depictions of sex, a higher tolerance for heterosexual behavior than homosexual activities, and a very conciliatory attitude towards larger studio films then independent films. Then to remove the veil of secrecy over this board, the director hires a private investigator to try and put some names on these faces, and also reveal the identities of the appeals board, an ever more secretive body that hears appeals from the ratings board decisions.
An NC-17 rating passed down by this board is pretty much a commercial death sentence, as many theater chains have a policy of not screening these movies whatsoever. With such high stakes on this mysterious board’s determination, you think there would be some form of accountability, some type of process or handbook where filmmakers can at least be aware of the risks of putting their complete vision on screen, regardless of vulgarity. But there isn’t and these people just do what they want and get a full-time job watching movies all day to boot.
If your passion about films, this is extremely upsetting, but if you follow politics more broadly, there is also that nagging feeling from viewing firsthand that a small group of people, unaccountable to the public, voters, elected officials, are decided what’s appropriate for you. It almost makes you completely unsympathetic to criticisms of video piracy. Of course, 99% of people sharing videos of new movies online just don’t feel like paying for a ticket to watch a movie in a theater. But if the complete body of cinematic work released in American has to be funneled through this board that has substantial indirect powers of how this movie would be distributed, then I would champion any way that imposing force can be taken out of the equation. Fortunately, I have my own patterns of film intake and access channels to the point where this ratings board can really only keep me waiting a few months before I can watch what I’m interested in. But if it’s still operating the same way as it did 5 years ago, then the new revolution of online filmmaking and non-traditional distribution of new movies can’t come sooner.
THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED (2006)
I had heard about this documentary for a while and despite it being ancient history for a documentary (four years ago) it was available on Netflix Instant. It was rather disturbing. I remember not having a TV available to me for the first time in my life as I was subletting an apartment in Washington D.C. for a summer internship in 2002. It was also my first urban living experience, and my first experience having access to several movie theaters showcasing only independent films that, if you were lucky, might screen at a single theater in Des Moines or Oklahoma City and that’s only if a film with more mainstream buzz or a less regarded blockbuster filled up that theater slot. At that time, being in that City was the only way for me to see the rare art films that cover a realm of creative expression that has been proven over subsequent years to be SO beyond what even the most critically regarded mainstream movies can do for me. Living in Chicago began the phase II of complete immersion in cool substantial creative culture, with the added bonus of theater and oh so many indie rock shows at your doorstep. Now I’m in a continuous Phase III, as I have the resources and technology (via Netflix, Rhapsody, YouTube, and proximity to Madison, Chicago, AND Milwaukee) to see and hear so many things. Despite the efforts of the awesome video/DVD rental place that opened near the Drake campus when I was wrapping up my time there, I simply did not have access to everything I could possibly want to view. In short, I can never watch in a lifetime what is available to me now, but I can access it. That access is what really bothered me about this movie’s subject, but also gave me a more enhanced appreciation of what new forms of access mean for the future of films. This documentary covers the operations of a secretive ratings boards that, in private arbitration, determines the ratings for all motion pictures distributed in commercial theaters in the United States. The filmmaker goes about to explain why this board is so frustrating for filmmakers, because their standards for what determines PG-13, R, or NC-17 have no rhyme or reason for the most part. The few insights into their deliberations do reveal a more lenient attitude towards violence compared to depictions of sex, a higher tolerance for heterosexual behavior than homosexual activities, and a very conciliatory attitude towards larger studio films then independent films. Then to remove the veil of secrecy over this board, the director hires a private investigator to try and put some names on these faces, and also reveal the identities of the appeals board, an ever more secretive body that hears appeals from the ratings board decisions.
An NC-17 rating passed down by this board is pretty much a commercial death sentence, as many theater chains have a policy of not screening these movies whatsoever. With such high stakes on this mysterious board’s determination, you think there would be some form of accountability, some type of process or handbook where filmmakers can at least be aware of the risks of putting their complete vision on screen, regardless of vulgarity. But there isn’t and these people just do what they want and get a full-time job watching movies all day to boot.
If your passion about films, this is extremely upsetting, but if you follow politics more broadly, there is also that nagging feeling from viewing firsthand that a small group of people, unaccountable to the public, voters, elected officials, are decided what’s appropriate for you. It almost makes you completely unsympathetic to criticisms of video piracy. Of course, 99% of people sharing videos of new movies online just don’t feel like paying for a ticket to watch a movie in a theater. But if the complete body of cinematic work released in American has to be funneled through this board that has substantial indirect powers of how this movie would be distributed, then I would champion any way that imposing force can be taken out of the equation. Fortunately, I have my own patterns of film intake and access channels to the point where this ratings board can really only keep me waiting a few months before I can watch what I’m interested in. But if it’s still operating the same way as it did 5 years ago, then the new revolution of online filmmaking and non-traditional distribution of new movies can’t come sooner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)