Tuesday, 27 September 2011

NEWS

I've moved here. I'll be reviewing music as well as film from now on. Although my focus will probably be more lenient towards music, as I tend to listen to more albums than I do watch new films. Thus leading to me providing more output for you, dear reader.
I'm also kind of experimenting with this new one, I'm not 100% sure where I'm taking it yet so give me a few weeks to get my feet on the ground. Until then I hope that all of you who are currently subscribed to this blog head on over as I'll be providing a more full and consistent service as opposed to one maybe two film reviews a month, I hope to be posting most days out of the week from now on, and I'd like to have your support.
Also I'm running the same blog on tumblr, for those of you who prefer that site.
Thanks,
-Seth.

Sunday, 19 June 2011

The Tree of Life

Director: Terrence Malick
Writer: Terrence Malick
Year of Release: 2011
RECOMMENDED 


This is it ladies and gentlemen, the moment that a handful of people have been waiting for, The Tree of Life. Really it's almost a miracle that this film didn't come off of the backbone of a 20 year hiatus just as The Thin Red Line did. Seeing as this film is larger in scope that all four of his previous films combined (Which, good Lord, I truly didn't think that was possible). In this film director Terrence Malick covers everything from the infinite to the infinitesimal with utter grace and passion. This is the epitome of a Terrence Malick film, from the opening frames through to the final ones, everything about this film proclaims a perfection of craft for Malick. This feels like the film he's been trying to make throughout his career. It is hard to really comprehend and recant just how graceful this film is. Even when nothing is particularly happening to move the plot forward, the viewer always feels Malick's omnipotent spirituality on every frame. Malick's films have always done a wonderful job of resonating with the audience in a very unique way, but it seems he won't settle for mere resonance anymore, he's aiming for transcendence, to create a true piece of art in every sense of the word. A film that not only poses questions, but for some, may provide answers.
Lovers of narrative beware, because there isn't much of it to be found here. For the most part, The Tree of Life grips the viewer on a more thematic and emotional level in a way that a conventional plot couldn't achieve. I hear a lot of critics referring to echoes of  '2001: A Space Odyssey' as an obvious influence, and I would have to agree. However what really differentiates the two is Malick's sense of the spiritual, the passion for and the nostalgia of human experience, and the aching need to understand it and not only accept but transcend it. From the films frequent references to the book of Job (which the two really share quite a bit in common, thematically speaking) to images of dinosaurs grazing on a shore, to cells multiplying, to the relationship and internal struggle between a father and his son, between man and God, there isn't a single forgettable moment in The Tree of Life.
Malick's use of the O'Brien family (in particular Jack's voyage into adulthood) works as a perfect archetype for all human behavior and understanding, it is doubtful that one will find they cannot relate to these people. The father with his wisdom, anger, principles and strict disciplinary actions, and the mother representing a more forgiving, affectionate and benevolent kind of parent. Jack's odyssey and his eventual understanding of his parent's flaws and his angst is a surprisingly broad representation of the human impulse to fight against the universe, to conquer it, to be completely secure and in control of one's own existence.
The film's epilogue (or coda or whatever you'd care to call it) is really the most perplexing and arguably ambitious sequence in the film. It is interesting to note that really, in any other filmmaker's hands the film would have ended with Jack's internal struggle unresolved. However Malick chooses to take one bold step further, with a rather mystifying sequence which will leave room for many audience interpretations, although it's place and intention is clear: To help us make peace with our own demons. If that isn't the true essence of art, then what is?

Overall rating: 10.0
Status: HOLY BALLS


Side note: Alexandre Desplat's score is so achingly beautiful. 
-The same should be noted of Emmanuel Lubezki's cinematography. 

Biutiful

Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu
Writer: Alejandro González Iñárritu
Year of Release: 2010

Alejandro González Iñárritu is perhaps best known for creating dramas with multiple narratives majestically weaving in and out of one another without sacrificing character development. Biutiful however does not follow suit. The film focuses solely on Uxbal, a divorced father trying to leave his mark in the world as he passes through it. Sounds pretty esoteric right? Right. 
The truth is I was really excited about this film, I love the director, I love the premise, and Javier Bardem is a pretty cool guy too. Unfortunately this film takes far too many missteps for me to simply turn a blind eye. As transcendent as this film is it simply lacks proper direction, it takes stylistic shifts and turns and takes risks yet doesn't reap any reward. There is not a single moment in the film where the viewer feels guided into the life of Uxbal. There is nothing which unfolds, nothing which develops, everything is thrown together in this big sad cosmic slop. 
Switching from neo-realism, to more traditional melodrama, to (on occaision) straight up horror fantasy (There appeared to be a very vague and unexplained subplot about Uxbal being some kind of soul whisperer type dude, yeah, I don't even-). It isn't that these sequences or styles aren't crafted well, it's really more of a problem that they just don't fit in, yet Iñárritu keeps throwing them into the crockpot together without any transitions or explanations. I guess the word I'm looking for is indulgence. There are too many moments in Biutiful where it seems nobody has a clue exactly 'what' or 'why' besides Iñárritu himself. 
If I had to choose standouts though, I would definitely refer to Javier Bardem's broken man performance, it really is quite harrowing, though it merely plays as the duct tape barely holding this shattered piece of a film together.  The flaws are still very evident. 
This isn't necessarily a bad film. There are a lot of wonderfully heartfelt sentiments and ideas within Biutiful, don't get me wrong, and there are some rather powerful scenes which will grip the viewer and leave one rather emotionally drained. Unfortunately though many of the ideas in this film are not given the care and attention they deserve to manifest into their full potential, which really is quite grand. Whilst others soar in their fully realized beauty. Overall the film plays like a series of episodic ideas, could-have-been's and WTFs. A relatively enjoyable experience which is however, on the whole, underwhelming. 


Overall rating: 5.4

Monday, 23 May 2011

Meek's Cutoff

Director: Kelly Reichardt
Writer: Jonathon Raymond
Year of Release: 2010

I'm pretty pleased to see a nice little Western boom (what with True Grit grossing over 170 million in the box office and all...) this year. However fans of the genre may be a little hesitant to march into the theaters to watch Meek's Cutoff. It's stiller-than-Kubrick-and-longer-than-Tarkovsky camera work can be potentially off-putting (and lets face it, if executed poorly, quite pretentious). However Meek's does an adequate job of keeping things moving whilst retaining a more meditative atmosphere, it's mode of story-telling is actually quite reminiscent of Coppola's Godfather's or a handful of Ingmar Bergman's films, in that it utilizes a very straightforward style of direction, cutting/panning only when necessary, a simplistic style which really harmonizes with the nature on screen. This gives way for a nice, tight piece of filmmaking - consistent in plot and character development which does not command your attention, but giving it is surely rewarded.
However this film does come with it's share of gripes. It does take a while to really get going, it dips a few too many times into the area of self-indulgence, and it trades a satisfying ending for artistic integrity (an increasingly popular trend which in all honesty is starting to grind my gears). However these prove to be relatively minor flaws in an overall impressive production.
Fans of the Western may be disappointed as (contrary to the film's poster) few guns are slung in this film, trading bullets for brains (excuse the terribly, terribly crude pun) in this harrowing landscape infested affair, which reflects largely, and weightily, on themes such as human bondage, faith and trust. Although it is the film's emotional capacity which far succeeds it's intellectual breadth. The desperation and hope which is felt manages to touch the viewer on quite a basic, human level. There are a handful of very poignant moments in Meek's Cutoff, moments which resonate with the soul and while perhaps forgotten in memory, manage to instill and glow in spirit. And it is unlikely that any number of (arguably pretentious) allegorical endings will change the indescribably human feeling that arrives when the final frames begin their descent into blackness, and we experience a kind of hurt that we get to stand up and walk out of the theater, intuitively convinced that somewhere in some time, these people still linger on in hope and despair.

Overall rating: 7.9

Tuesday, 15 March 2011

Terrence Malick



I don't know about you guys but I'm pretty stoked for Malick's upcoming film The Tree of Life. So let's have a little discourse on the man whilst we sit in anticipation. If you're not familiar with him (and I suggest you should start familiarizing yourself with his work), what you should at least know is that he has a keen eye for symbolism, his flicks look like they were directed by a wildlife photographer, and he is a master of the oft-dreaded voice over, utilizing it in very expressive ways that not many people have before. Loaded with dynamics -whether they be in script or on screen, his films are philosophical, atmospheric, and overall poetic. There aren't many directors who have perfected the craft of a 'mood piece' quite like this man. And what is so fascinating is that he has perfected his craft with so few films on his resume (the petite number of 4), however it is still enough to proclaim auteur from the rooftops, his concern with culture, nature, individuality and the self are thought provoking enough to warrant a thumbs up from the great philosophers on camera such as Tarkovsky or Bergman. And his filmic language is unique enough to warrant no homage to any other filmmakers, this is what interests me about Malick - He doesn't 'feel' like a filmmaker, rather a genuine intellectual and a poet who uses film only as stomping ground to project his thoughts, he does not seem concerned with his peers in the business, whether past or present (hell, the man even went to film school with David Lynch). However this is my opinion upon a mountain of opinions of this man, each quite diverse due to his reclusiveness resulting in an unwillingness to speak about himself or his work. So let's take a look at the man's mythology - his films.



Badlands (1973)


Malick's lovers-on-the-run film lacks the romanticism that most in the genre have, instead we are faced with a rather melancholy-tinged affair. As we witness the genesis of the style which Malick has become recognized for, we will notice that it hasn't fully come to fruition (as with most debut feature). It feels like Malick is trying to come to terms with the language of film, all of the traditional Malickian traits can be found here, although all in their most basic, primordial form, lacking full definition. This is all of course forgivable, as Malick never punches above his weight in this debut, and the finishing result is a rather beautiful film about youth, marking the teenage ennui that many face, and perhaps not all can relate to the whole killing spree thing (God help you if you can), but it still touches on some very basic, very human ground about the confusion we face when we're on the verge of becoming adults and comprehending just what exactly we're capable of and what we aren't. Recognizing evil and temptation in the world and having the unfortunate amount of just enough naivety to become lured by it. Even on it's rather simple surface, there's quite a lot of profundity to be seen here, and it is as great a prologue as any to found a career upon.
Overall rating: 8.2




Days of Heaven (1978)


Oh me, oh my. This is quite possibly the largest stride forward in any filmmaker's career I've ever seen. We skip straight past the usual sophomoric level of filmmaking and directly into the territory of a true artist. Malick's direction here-forth takes a rather omnipresent turn, side-tracking the main plot and characters for landscapes, bugs, animals, and even takes lesser seen characters and placing them at the forefront of the film, giving them their due time to shine. Malick's meandering has an unusual amount of focus and attention paid to it, giving each and every side-tracking justification for it's being there, so much so that without them, the film would not be whole. It has the characteristic of both turbidity and clarity, of both precision and peregrination. Everything is where it should be, and all of it is pulsating with vitality and mood. The themes are abundant, on the face is another lovers-on-the-run story, however this story is much more broad and all-encompassing than that of Badlands (with quite a few more Biblical overtones), as if Malick were trying to perfect what he originally set out to do. It touches on human emotion and how it can poison rational thought, the nature of love, the nature of guilt, and nature itself, and it's corruption thereof. The film is told through the eyes of young Linda, our protagonist's sister. Her simplistic analysis of the things around her give the films normal moral ambiguity a duality of straightforwardness. Nothing is directly clear in this masterpiece, it is a film ultimately true to the glory and downfall of human existence and the dichotomy of lines and boundaries in which we co-exist, and how we eventually come to cross them in the name of love or fear.
Overall rating: 10.0



The Thin Red Line (1998)


Yes, you are seeing those dates correctly, it was 20 years from Days of Heaven until the earth was graced with another Terrence Malick film. And the film we were given was his most ambitious feature yet, doubling the length of his first two films, grander in scope than the two of them combined, and with a cast so large that A-listers like George Clooney are practically extras. Here we are presented with lush green landscapes, overcast skies, and hills abound. Smoke, fog, water and fire all play as vital natural elements here. Malick's perfection of the ephemeral can be found here just as glorious as it was in Days of Heaven (and arguably more-so). But most importantly the films philosophical quest is at the foreground - a meditation on the nature of evil, the purpose of killing and it's justification, and a rather Platonic questioning of reality and how we perceive it both as individuals and a collective whole. Every man has his story to tell, and each is as meaningful and meaningless as the next man's, and in the face of death and war, who are we really, and what permits us to have individuality or personal freedom, do such things even exist? Or are we pawns in God's game? This is heavy stuff, and Malick really shows his boldness in asking such big questions and does so without pretentiousness, it is such daringness that defines this film as his magnum opus. It is the be-all-end-all Terrence Malick film, it is an experience of the highest intellectual and sensory kind and I would pit it up against the greatest films ever made for contention.
Overall rating: 10.0




The New World (2005)


Terrence Malick's take on the story of Pocahontas plays as a companion piece to The Thin Red Line. Whereas Malick's concern in The Thin Red Line was that of death and killing and the dark nature of mankind, The New World is much more concerned the positive end of the spectrum, with that of love and passion, freedom and the fundamental experiences of human relationship. By this point in Malick's career, it is clear that the man is a genuine auteur, his style is utilized here just as much as ever, and for the first time (and you can take this as either a good or a bad thing) he isn't pushing himself, it is clear that this kind poetry flows through him like blood. Overall however the film does fail to impress as much as it's predecessors have. Although I feel that this film was more for Malick's own absolution, expelling the demons that were breeding in The Thin Red Line (and quite possibly his own cranium). It is an offering of peace to the world, because the truth is any colonization film (especially one in the hands of Terrence Malick) could have taken a very sinister turn, however he seems to have made his peace with the demons of this world. The usual duality of man is presented here, returning with themes of emotionally convoluted rationality, however he is fighting it here, as before he was presenting it. John Smith's passion, and his desire for peace parallels Malick's own search for good in the face of evil. The film is quite dry (mind you I've only seen the 172 minute extended cut, not the theatrical cut), and could do with about 20 minutes of footage shaved off, but overall, it isn't too detrimental to this beautiful piece of art. So sit back, relax and get in touch with your inner human.
Overall rating: 8.0


I suggest you invest some time into this man's films if you haven't already, they are deeply emotive, human experiences. Also, what are you looking forward to in his upcoming film The Tree of Life? What direction do you think Malick will take? Will he be able to rival his other two masterpieces with this film?

Monday, 7 March 2011

127 Hours

Director: Danny Boyle
Writers: Danny Boyle/Simon Beaufoy
Year of Release: 2010

To be totally honest, I'm just glad the flick wasn't named after it's source material ('Between a Rock and a Hard Place'). Little films like this with minimal characters and settings always do tend to astound me if they are successfully pulled off, and in this case - it is. However the film didn't necessarily astound me, so I s'pose that's an overstatement. As entertaining, inspirational and (occasionally) existential as the film is, there wasn't a whole lot that struck me as profound, or new. Danny Boyle's creative flourishes have lost their flare somewhat, and now strike me now as quirks more than anything else, they frequently left a stale aftertaste. To the films credit though, I honestly can't think of a single moment where I found myself bored, it is supremely entertaining, and Franco's performance was very exceptional (although I think I preferred him in Howl this year), if there is any highlight to this film, it is most definitely him. The now infamous arm cutting scene is most grueling, and a brilliant showcase of some of the hat tricks that the sound design dudes have up their sleeves (or y'know... in their hats... whatever). I think what dragged the film down most (at least for me), was it's lack of ability to really hit me on a gut level, there were no emotional highs or lows, and whatever was present was glossed over with effects and Boyle's aforementioned 'quirks'. While I did feel quite happy for the poor sod once he found his helicopter, I wasn't exactly biting my tongue in anticipation. Which brings me to another unfortunate point - It is doubtful that anyone who goes into the theater is unaware that Rolston comes out at the end a limb short (I almost wish the pun were intended). Which isn't to the film's detriment at all, however it does take away from the viewing experience, and if you honestly didn't have a clue - well then good on you. However I think Danny Boyle was aware of this, which may be the result of the film's watch-ability. Either way, the film on the whole was quite enjoyable, and I would definitely recommend it. Although I'd have to disagree with any comments asserting 'film of the year'.

Overall rating: 7.9

Sunday, 27 February 2011

Blue Valentine

Director: Derek Cianfrance
Writers: Derek Cianfrance/Joey Curtis/Cami Delavigne
Year of Release: 2010
RECOMMENDED


It's so radically emotionally overwhelming. This flick really puts you through the motions. I think I can safely say this is one of the more intense viewings of the year (on par with Enter the Void or 127 Hours). It's not just a simple acting piece, it's lightning in a bottle. All those tragic or joyous moments in your life where you wish you could have just had a camera, what you would have learned, or felt the second time around. The air of redemption around this film populates it just as much as the somber, oppressive melancholy of it all. It's an ode to dark days and to happy memories that age like wine, to young love and lust, to the youth, the hardworking. It's a love story. A fully realized, brutally honest love story. What is probably most depressing about the whole sordid affair however, is that it reads like less of a cautionary tale and more of a slice of life (which in all fairness, it really is). The emotional weight this film carries delivers like a bulldozer, it is more shocking to the soul than it could ever be viscerally (I mention this due to it's original NC-17 rating in America), and I believe it is the staggering, bold truth contained within this film that is truly degrading to one's spirits. Now don't let me convince you that this film is soul shatteringly bleak, there are moments of true happiness captured on screen, consistently juxtaposing the good with the bad - not necessarily the most original narrative in the world but it is certainly executed appropriately here. There is a line towards the end of the film is which Gosling's character states "You said for better or worse... This is me at my worst, but I'm gonna get better". Blue Valentine is not a pessimistic, 'why bother with love'-esque film. It's an eye opener towards the extent of effort and hard work that goes into a marriage, trying your damndest to always be young and in love, and the frustration and sadness that comes with the realization that love really can dissipate. If you gain nothing from Blue Valentine, you'll at least be able to take a nod at those old couples you see walking together in the park, or going about their daily rituals, and to them give utter and sincere reverence.

Overall rating: 9.1
Status: MEGA AWESUM

Thursday, 24 February 2011

The Kids Are All Right

Director: Lisa Cholodenko
Writers: Lisa Cholodenko/Stuart Blumberg
Year of Release: 2010
RECOMMENDED 


Alright I guess I should review some of the flicks I've been watching. I feel quite bad, I've watched quite a few new and old films and not reviewed them. Right, so. Lets do this. 
Sexuality is a funny thing. And one would think that this is the central theme of this film, which would be quite alienating to a large majority of audiences (yes I'm talking about you, libido-less heterosexuals). However it is about something much more universal (somehow) - Family. This is a film about family at it's core, as heartwarming, realistic and beautiful as they come. What's so fascinating to me is how successfully it avoids becoming a gimicky, unrealistic "oh this situation isn't ideal so let us commence in laughing about it" romcom. Each character is fleshed out, their actions and reactions imperfect and confusing and somehow absolutely lovable and forgivable. The nuclear family gets schooled here on how to maintain a happy, functional family, regardless of conventions, and it's the lack of which that makes the film so utterly appealing and engrossing. The final frames of the film resonate in such a universal way, that it manages to strike almost every core of human emotion, in which we ask ourselves - Will everything be all right? It is in this moment that one comes to the realization that the film not only stands for love and family, but also for hope. For where we'll be in the next five years, or 50. Hope that no matter where we'll be, what shocking or horrific experiences we go through, that everything will be okay in the end. And while it doesn't provide the answers, it does a damn poignant job of posing the questions.


Overall rating: 8.7
Status: AWESUM

Sunday, 9 January 2011

Somewhere

Director: Sofia Coppola
Writer: Sofia Coppola
Production Co.: American Zoetrope
Year of Release: 2010

Well, if you don't know by now, I'm a very, very big Lost In Translation fan. So naturally I'd love this to bits right? It has the same slow, meditative pacing, depressing neo-realism, the same socially awkward character interactions, but something is most definitely missing... A soul.
This is one of the most lifeless films I've seen in quite some time, the entire first act is very long, very boring and goes absolutely nowhere (oh the irony!). I would be more than happy with Sofia Coppola's meandering if she actually gave me something to think about, however there is no theme or pathos in watching a good minute (or two, or three) long shot of Stephen Dorff breathing with prosthetic masking goop on his face. Coppola really is trying hard to create a sense of atmosphere here, and she does succeed, however it is not until the second half where she starts providing the audience with something worth their attention. Essentially, the film is structured as if she's waving her hands in the dark trying to find something to hold onto. Which eventually she does, but it takes a good 45 minutes. It's a shame, because this really had quite a bit of potential to reach the bar that she set for herself with Lost in Translation, however quite a bit of it feels lazy and devoid of inspiration. Although I wouldn't say that this isn't worth watching, if not for the performances alone, Elle Fanning absolutely shines playing a budding teenager, conveying a sense of youth and splendor with a growing perception of the world around her. And there's a bitchin' soundtrack (as always). However, the film really does lack an appropriate ending. It is not even enough to call an ambiguous ending as Coppola doesn't even give any hint or idea as to the ambiguity of the stories finale. There is no question that the film leaves you with other than "what the hell?". Which was supremely disappointing for me, as the film had just begun to win me over. All in all, Somewhere feels like deleted scenes from Lost in Translation which Sofia Coppola tried her best to slap a narrative onto. There are many filler scenes and it's themes are spread paper thin throughout. I do hope Coppola gets her act together soon enough, because it's a shame to let such potential go to waste. However she seems to have already become too complacent to handle her characters' sallow-faced apathy with the tenderness and empathy that is required of her, and what's most frustrating is that we've seen her do it successfully before.

Overall rating: 6.2

Someone buy this book for me :(. I spent all my monies on a nice new blazer.

http://www.amazon.com/Sculpting-Time-Tarkovsky-Filmaker-Discusses/dp/0292776241/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1290131535&sr=8-1

Saturday, 8 January 2011

NEWS

Well I was planning on culminating a best of 2010 list this month, but there's still quite a few contenders that I haven't actually seen. I've been lazy folks ><.

Here's a list of flicks I need to see:

127 Hours
The King's Speech
Somewhere
The Kid's Are Alright
Blue Valentine
The Fighter
Enter The Void (well I've seen the first 45 minutes...)
Biutiful
The Town

I'm sure there are quite a few others I'm missing. But y'know, give it a little time.

Don't worry Skeletor, I'll have the list soon.


In the mean time though, what was your favorite film from 2010? Why?
What are you looking forward to seeing in 2011? Also why?