AAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!
This movie just screams cutesy-cuddley and heart-warming, and i am not complaining. The type of movie you wouldn't mind curling up in front of a fire watching when the weather outside is frightful. A simple story, with incredibly truthful portrayal of the Americanized christmas: Crazy department stores, long lines to visit a grumpy santa, and of course: the fog on the display case of your favorite toy.
A Christmas Story tells the tale of Ralphie Parker and his never ending quest to get the perfect christmas gift: the Red Ryder (numerous adjectives) BB gun. He must convince Santa and his parents of his good behavior, attempting to do well in school, helping his father change a tire, anything - despite cautions that he would "poke his eye out" with the beloved BB gun.
What i love most about this movie is its genuine nature. It was truly what i imagine being the All-American Christmas (in an almost entirely white neighborhood barring a few gospel singers around a trash can fire). I have had the same desire for gifts - for Channukah mind you - and would do anything to get it. What is so interesting to me is that the materialistic desire does not stop with the kids, everyone is obsessed with material goods - including an outrageously hideous leg-lamp - which is in the nature of American capitalism: greediness is ageless.
I find it hard to "review" this movie, because while watching it i found it difficult to pick at the cinematic and directorial nuances. While watching this movie, one can't help but be engulfed by the honesty and heart-warming essence of this film.
So if this blog is lacking, it is only because i can't put into words the kind of feeling one recieves while watching this movie. It is a film for all ages, and most importantly: all religions. Feliz Navidad.
Totally Innapropriate, but hilarious:
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Run Away
I am always willing to appreciate avant-garde films, foreign films, even mediocre films. But i draw the line at bad films
Run Lola Run is certainly an interesting film that makes you think about the importance of time, that every second counts. So in that field I give it credit. I even enjoyed the music choices that perfectly mirrored the feeling and emotion of almost every scene.
I go to the movies to be entertained, for the most part. A film where a woman is running for 70 minutes is just boring from my point of view. Not to mention the fact that only the smallest things changed each time. It is not like in the movie Memento, which i believe is similar in style, in which a little bit more is revealed each time; in this movie it is the same plot for every single scene.
I also had absolutely no attachment to any of these characters. When Lola got shot in the first scene i remember thinking: "that doesn't even look real, her blood looks like paint." When i should be thinking "Oh my God, is she gonna be ok!?"
Then comes the inexplicable nature of this character: Lola. She seems like a super hero with these mutant powers: she can run for incredibly long distances without getting tired, and she can scream to affect probability. Now i am a huge comic book fan, i love X-men and all of that, but at least some of that is explained a little bit. This is just some girl who runs places and screams a lot. That is honestly my feeling about the character of Lola.
By the way, if this guy Manni is doing all these drug deals anyway and he is wiling to shoot up a grocery store, then maybe he deserves to die.
I may be too critical. If you like movies like this (for 70 minutes):
Then be my guest.
Run Lola Run is certainly an interesting film that makes you think about the importance of time, that every second counts. So in that field I give it credit. I even enjoyed the music choices that perfectly mirrored the feeling and emotion of almost every scene.
I go to the movies to be entertained, for the most part. A film where a woman is running for 70 minutes is just boring from my point of view. Not to mention the fact that only the smallest things changed each time. It is not like in the movie Memento, which i believe is similar in style, in which a little bit more is revealed each time; in this movie it is the same plot for every single scene.
I also had absolutely no attachment to any of these characters. When Lola got shot in the first scene i remember thinking: "that doesn't even look real, her blood looks like paint." When i should be thinking "Oh my God, is she gonna be ok!?"
Then comes the inexplicable nature of this character: Lola. She seems like a super hero with these mutant powers: she can run for incredibly long distances without getting tired, and she can scream to affect probability. Now i am a huge comic book fan, i love X-men and all of that, but at least some of that is explained a little bit. This is just some girl who runs places and screams a lot. That is honestly my feeling about the character of Lola.
By the way, if this guy Manni is doing all these drug deals anyway and he is wiling to shoot up a grocery store, then maybe he deserves to die.
I may be too critical. If you like movies like this (for 70 minutes):
Then be my guest.
Look Closer
I had always liked this movie for its captivating performances by the phenomenal cast of Kevin Spacey, Annette Benning, Chris Cooper, Thora Birch, Wes Bently, and Mena Suvari. Each one representing, what i feel, are opposite ends of personality spectrums: Carolyn Bernham, (Benning) is anal retentive; Frank Fitts (Cooper), is a military man; Angela Hayes (Suvai), is shallow; Jane Bernhan (Birch), is misguided; Ricky Fitts (Bently), is incredibly profound and smart; and then there is Lester Bernham (Spacey) who is going through what those around him would call a mid-life crisis, but what he would call a great awakening. The quality of these breath-taking performances will never fade, but as i begin to look at this film with a more inquisitive eye I find a great artist hidden behind the screen: the director, Sam Mendes.
The extraordinary fact that this was Mendes's directorial debut only adds to the amazement that one experiences while watching this masterpiece. Gently woven into the fabric of the film are symbols of each characters mental state: Carolyn has the precise nature of her dining room table, Jane is constantly upset with her body, and Ricky is surrounded by his attempts to capture natural beauty through a lens. The symbolic nature in this movie is so vivid, and yet so subtle at the same time.
Then there are the roses. Practically the calling card of this movie, roses and rose petals are a ubiquitous presence throughout the film. However, they are most important to Kevin Spacey's character of Lester Bernham. Half-way through his life, Lester never learned to stop and smell the roses - now he is engulfed by them. Every time he thinks about Angela roses appear. They are the symbol of the Beauty that was missing in his life.
What is beauty? That is the focal point of the story, one could argue. It is my belief that this movie tries to break any sort of confinement that beauty might have and say that beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder. For Ricky it was Jane, even though she would be by most standards plain, for Carolyn it was her furniture, even though Lester only viewed it as stuff, and for Lester it was Angela, even though some might see her as shallow and fake - he saw her beauty.
The lesson of this movie is indeed its trademark line which is: "Look Closer."
The extraordinary fact that this was Mendes's directorial debut only adds to the amazement that one experiences while watching this masterpiece. Gently woven into the fabric of the film are symbols of each characters mental state: Carolyn has the precise nature of her dining room table, Jane is constantly upset with her body, and Ricky is surrounded by his attempts to capture natural beauty through a lens. The symbolic nature in this movie is so vivid, and yet so subtle at the same time.
Then there are the roses. Practically the calling card of this movie, roses and rose petals are a ubiquitous presence throughout the film. However, they are most important to Kevin Spacey's character of Lester Bernham. Half-way through his life, Lester never learned to stop and smell the roses - now he is engulfed by them. Every time he thinks about Angela roses appear. They are the symbol of the Beauty that was missing in his life.
What is beauty? That is the focal point of the story, one could argue. It is my belief that this movie tries to break any sort of confinement that beauty might have and say that beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder. For Ricky it was Jane, even though she would be by most standards plain, for Carolyn it was her furniture, even though Lester only viewed it as stuff, and for Lester it was Angela, even though some might see her as shallow and fake - he saw her beauty.
The lesson of this movie is indeed its trademark line which is: "Look Closer."
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Pleasantly Surprised
Rushmore review
Jordan Rochelson
Let me preface by saying that Wes Anderson is not a director that all viewers will, “fall in love with.” Director Wes Anderson’s unique style of blunt realism is one that is lost on many people, and admired by others. The former group dismisses Mr. Anderson as pompous, while the latter heralds him as a genius and innovator. I find myself leaning towards the first group. In the films in which his style is shoved in the face of the viewer, such as Darjeeling Limited (2007), the viewer feels lost and a tad insulted – as if we must be stupid if we didn’t understand the humor. However, there are occasions in which Anderson manages to curb his directness slightly, and it is in these occasions that Mr. Anderson flirts with greatness. Rushmore is a prime example.
The charming film tells the tale of Max Fischer, played by Jason Schwartzman: a prep school student on academic probation who falls in love with a first grade teacher at the school – Rosemary Cross (Olivia Williams). Fischer finds himself completely enticed by Ms. Cross – as he adoringly refers to her – and he spends most of his time trying to impress her and make her fall in love with him. Despite Fischer’s intelligence, he fails to see the obvious complication: he is a fifteen-year-old boy, and she is a teacher of thirty years (roughly). Both Schwartzman and Williams offer charismatic performances, as conflicted people without complete comprehension of their situation. A hilarious Bill Murray flanks the two, as the depressed millionaire Herman Blume who ends up falling in love with both Cross and Fischer it seems: Cross, because of her intelligence and beauty, and Fischer because he sees in him what he wants his hooligan sons to be. It is a hilarious story line, with very dramatic undertones.
It is true, Wes Anderson has a tendency to act sardonically in his scripts, mocking everyday life by trying to find comedy in places where no jokes are made. Anderson thrives on the kind of awkward situations that one would encounter on a daily basis. I would be hard pressed to find an occasion, in any of Anderson’s movies, in which a character makes a blatant joke. He tries to find the comedy in every day occasions. His issue is that he looks to far for them: in Darjeeling Limited he needed to take his characters on a wacky adventure in India, in Life Aquatic he takes his characters to the high seas in matching outfits on an exhibition to find…..god-knows-what. When Anderson tries to hard, he ties himself up in trying to explain what is going on. When he finds comedy out of basic stories – like a basic love story (Rushmore) – he manages to find that comedy that he is searching so ardently for. That is what is truly great about Rushmore, it is somewhat realistic and believable, that is why we can laugh, and feel for the characters at the same time.
If you are looking for the kind of film that makes you laugh and feel intelligent, then this movie is for you; if you want a movie that will show tell you jokes – then Rushmore will disappoint. I leave this movie with a feeling of intelligence and a recession in my hatred for Wes Anderson Films……for now.
Jordan Rochelson
Let me preface by saying that Wes Anderson is not a director that all viewers will, “fall in love with.” Director Wes Anderson’s unique style of blunt realism is one that is lost on many people, and admired by others. The former group dismisses Mr. Anderson as pompous, while the latter heralds him as a genius and innovator. I find myself leaning towards the first group. In the films in which his style is shoved in the face of the viewer, such as Darjeeling Limited (2007), the viewer feels lost and a tad insulted – as if we must be stupid if we didn’t understand the humor. However, there are occasions in which Anderson manages to curb his directness slightly, and it is in these occasions that Mr. Anderson flirts with greatness. Rushmore is a prime example.
The charming film tells the tale of Max Fischer, played by Jason Schwartzman: a prep school student on academic probation who falls in love with a first grade teacher at the school – Rosemary Cross (Olivia Williams). Fischer finds himself completely enticed by Ms. Cross – as he adoringly refers to her – and he spends most of his time trying to impress her and make her fall in love with him. Despite Fischer’s intelligence, he fails to see the obvious complication: he is a fifteen-year-old boy, and she is a teacher of thirty years (roughly). Both Schwartzman and Williams offer charismatic performances, as conflicted people without complete comprehension of their situation. A hilarious Bill Murray flanks the two, as the depressed millionaire Herman Blume who ends up falling in love with both Cross and Fischer it seems: Cross, because of her intelligence and beauty, and Fischer because he sees in him what he wants his hooligan sons to be. It is a hilarious story line, with very dramatic undertones.
It is true, Wes Anderson has a tendency to act sardonically in his scripts, mocking everyday life by trying to find comedy in places where no jokes are made. Anderson thrives on the kind of awkward situations that one would encounter on a daily basis. I would be hard pressed to find an occasion, in any of Anderson’s movies, in which a character makes a blatant joke. He tries to find the comedy in every day occasions. His issue is that he looks to far for them: in Darjeeling Limited he needed to take his characters on a wacky adventure in India, in Life Aquatic he takes his characters to the high seas in matching outfits on an exhibition to find…..god-knows-what. When Anderson tries to hard, he ties himself up in trying to explain what is going on. When he finds comedy out of basic stories – like a basic love story (Rushmore) – he manages to find that comedy that he is searching so ardently for. That is what is truly great about Rushmore, it is somewhat realistic and believable, that is why we can laugh, and feel for the characters at the same time.
If you are looking for the kind of film that makes you laugh and feel intelligent, then this movie is for you; if you want a movie that will show tell you jokes – then Rushmore will disappoint. I leave this movie with a feeling of intelligence and a recession in my hatred for Wes Anderson Films……for now.
Chunking Express
This movie is...........interesting?
Despite Quentin Tarantino's rave review of this movie by Kar Wai Wong, i was not entertained.
The movie tells the tale of two cops and their love lives.......................that is really all i could say for the plot. This is because the movie tends to ramble on and on without truly explaining to the audience its purpose. It is possible that i did not enjoy it because i am american, and americans liked cookie-cutter beginnings, middles, and ends.
Express one redeeming feature, i felt, was its focus on time. The expiration dates, the shifts of the cops, Faye visiting a cops apartment the same time every day. Every moment felt as though it could all fall apart, or drastically change, with the ticking of a clock. I don't know if that was the primary purpose of Wong's movie, to emphasize the importance of time, but that is what i found the most intriguing about the film.
Other than that, i felt that both the plots and the characters were horribly underdeveloped with no motives or purposes.
i try to be open-minded, but this film closed me off.
Despite Quentin Tarantino's rave review of this movie by Kar Wai Wong, i was not entertained.
The movie tells the tale of two cops and their love lives.......................that is really all i could say for the plot. This is because the movie tends to ramble on and on without truly explaining to the audience its purpose. It is possible that i did not enjoy it because i am american, and americans liked cookie-cutter beginnings, middles, and ends.
Express one redeeming feature, i felt, was its focus on time. The expiration dates, the shifts of the cops, Faye visiting a cops apartment the same time every day. Every moment felt as though it could all fall apart, or drastically change, with the ticking of a clock. I don't know if that was the primary purpose of Wong's movie, to emphasize the importance of time, but that is what i found the most intriguing about the film.
Other than that, i felt that both the plots and the characters were horribly underdeveloped with no motives or purposes.
i try to be open-minded, but this film closed me off.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Before the Devil Knows You're dead
This movie is a masterpiece!
Sydney Lumet really went above and beyond in directing this intellectual thriller about familiar crime. With an allstar cast including Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Albert Finney, and Marisa Tomei, it is hard to go wrong.
What i found most interesting about Lumet's direction was his ability to highlight the inner-passions and thoughts of each particular character. Lumet does this using a technique of flashbacks and flashforwards all of which revolving around one occurence entitled: "the crime. " Each scene revolves around what one specific character was doing at one point, be it four days before, 2 weeks after, etc. We find through these sporadic scenes that Hoffman is not as cool and collected as he puts on, Hawke is constantly neurotic and his troubles are piling up from every angle, Finney is wracked with pain and anger over what happened in "the crime," and Tomei is tired of being a sex object (fun fact: she is naked in almost half her scen
I believe that what makes a good film is that indefineable characteristic that makes you leave the theatre still thinking about what you just witnessed. This feeling came within seconds of seeing the title opening sequence which quotes something that is seemingly biblical: "Let you be in heaven for half an hour, before the devil knows you're dead." This is an incredibly appropriate title in the confines of the movie - which is dedicated to revealing the title of "perfect crime," from all peoples' dictionaries. "May you think you're in the clear for two seconds, before your past catches up with you" That's how i interpreted this movie.
Phenomenal directing and acting work together to produce this great piece of art. I highly reccomend it.
Sydney Lumet really went above and beyond in directing this intellectual thriller about familiar crime. With an allstar cast including Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Albert Finney, and Marisa Tomei, it is hard to go wrong.
What i found most interesting about Lumet's direction was his ability to highlight the inner-passions and thoughts of each particular character. Lumet does this using a technique of flashbacks and flashforwards all of which revolving around one occurence entitled: "the crime. " Each scene revolves around what one specific character was doing at one point, be it four days before, 2 weeks after, etc. We find through these sporadic scenes that Hoffman is not as cool and collected as he puts on, Hawke is constantly neurotic and his troubles are piling up from every angle, Finney is wracked with pain and anger over what happened in "the crime," and Tomei is tired of being a sex object (fun fact: she is naked in almost half her scen
I believe that what makes a good film is that indefineable characteristic that makes you leave the theatre still thinking about what you just witnessed. This feeling came within seconds of seeing the title opening sequence which quotes something that is seemingly biblical: "Let you be in heaven for half an hour, before the devil knows you're dead." This is an incredibly appropriate title in the confines of the movie - which is dedicated to revealing the title of "perfect crime," from all peoples' dictionaries. "May you think you're in the clear for two seconds, before your past catches up with you" That's how i interpreted this movie.
Phenomenal directing and acting work together to produce this great piece of art. I highly reccomend it.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
HE LOVES GOLD!!!!!!!!!
I love this movie.
Although a blunt statement, it is the truth. And, i believe the reason i love it is the same for why every other man in the country loves it. It is a complete Fantasy.
James Bond is the epitome of what every guy wants in his life: beautiful women, fast cars at no expense, unlimited money of an unknown source, and the ability to be bullet-proof. I find it hard to believe that undercover spies actually live this kind of life but is nice to dream.
What i found interesting about this movie is that the script was not especially strong, it was filled with cliches and clunky dialogue, but the actors have a way of making it seem completely natural. Or how at the end when James and Pussy Galore are under the parachute and James says: "This is no time to be rescued." In any other circumstance, a person who just jumped out of a crashing plane after almost being shot would consider this a good time to go to a hospital - not stay in the jungle. But these platitudes in the script and unbelievable moments are really what are the foundations for the quintissential bond movie.
I'll admit, I overlooked the dramatic/cinematic elements of this movie while watching to the extent of remembering every detail. But in a way, that's what makes it a great Bond Movie: Goldfinger completely envelops the viewer into this alternate reality of secret spy missions, fast cars, and beautiful cars. The entire watching the movie, i wasn't thinking:"I Love This Movie;" I was thinking, "I Love James Bond."
Although a blunt statement, it is the truth. And, i believe the reason i love it is the same for why every other man in the country loves it. It is a complete Fantasy.
James Bond is the epitome of what every guy wants in his life: beautiful women, fast cars at no expense, unlimited money of an unknown source, and the ability to be bullet-proof. I find it hard to believe that undercover spies actually live this kind of life but is nice to dream.
What i found interesting about this movie is that the script was not especially strong, it was filled with cliches and clunky dialogue, but the actors have a way of making it seem completely natural. Or how at the end when James and Pussy Galore are under the parachute and James says: "This is no time to be rescued." In any other circumstance, a person who just jumped out of a crashing plane after almost being shot would consider this a good time to go to a hospital - not stay in the jungle. But these platitudes in the script and unbelievable moments are really what are the foundations for the quintissential bond movie.
I'll admit, I overlooked the dramatic/cinematic elements of this movie while watching to the extent of remembering every detail. But in a way, that's what makes it a great Bond Movie: Goldfinger completely envelops the viewer into this alternate reality of secret spy missions, fast cars, and beautiful cars. The entire watching the movie, i wasn't thinking:"I Love This Movie;" I was thinking, "I Love James Bond."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)