tjackson
Joined Mar 2000
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews39
tjackson's rating
After parking for $16.00 at the overpriced MFA lot in Boston where I saw Dogtooth for $10.00, my teeth were already on edge - including my Dogtooth. Did I get my money's worth? Let me say this about that. This story of three teenagers cloistered by their wealthy father on his isolated country estate where they're taught preposterous behavior including erroneous words for things (little yellow flowers are 'zombies' and pussy means 'big light') is violent, sexual, bloody, and ridiculous. That's the fun part.
It seems to be tragic, but without a real story and it's too open-ended to come off as a satire. Is the family of the future (as the director suggests) doomed? Is there a larger political critique? Is the film, as has also been suggested, a critique of Greek society and its acceptance in the European Union, or the corrupting influence of American popular culture.
It's fair to say that it is all these things if you want it to be. I was desperate to feel that it would open to larger possibilities. But it just veers and crawls from one funny/horrible situation to the next. It is a surrealistic and instinctive film, but without the intricacy and dexterity of David Lynch, the sly lyricism of Bunuel, or the political commitment of a Pasolini film. The film looks beautiful but in the end it doesn't go anywhere. Film loving audiences may be so hungry for open ended, interesting, provocative films that they are buying into Lanthimos ultimately repetitive and boring attempt at a lyrical nightmare. This is just too empty, too easy, too slow. I hesitate to say that it was all Greek to me, but perhaps that was part of the problem. I do look forward to his next film.
It seems to be tragic, but without a real story and it's too open-ended to come off as a satire. Is the family of the future (as the director suggests) doomed? Is there a larger political critique? Is the film, as has also been suggested, a critique of Greek society and its acceptance in the European Union, or the corrupting influence of American popular culture.
It's fair to say that it is all these things if you want it to be. I was desperate to feel that it would open to larger possibilities. But it just veers and crawls from one funny/horrible situation to the next. It is a surrealistic and instinctive film, but without the intricacy and dexterity of David Lynch, the sly lyricism of Bunuel, or the political commitment of a Pasolini film. The film looks beautiful but in the end it doesn't go anywhere. Film loving audiences may be so hungry for open ended, interesting, provocative films that they are buying into Lanthimos ultimately repetitive and boring attempt at a lyrical nightmare. This is just too empty, too easy, too slow. I hesitate to say that it was all Greek to me, but perhaps that was part of the problem. I do look forward to his next film.
Dumont explores the fine line between martyrdom, fanaticism, faith, and delusion in this meditative (some will call slow paced) look at a young Christian fanatic who befriends a group of 'terrorist' Muslims. Throughout there's a degree of sexual threat and violence so present in his films, as well as the very physical presence of nature, of weather, of the elements. It's an edgy mix, yet most of the time we're looking at the world through the vulnerable searching eyes and face of Julie Sokolowski as Céline/Hadewijch, the latter being a 13th century mystic who also sublimated courtship for a love to God, and who also took no vows as a nun. As Celine, the girl is sent from the convent for being too extreme in her devotion. She begins to naively explore the real world. Like the earlier poet and mystic Hadewijch – into whom she slowly seems to be transforming – Celine is also from a very wealthy family, a fact that sets up another set of questions and contrasts in this contemporary context. I love looking at the faces director Dumont offers up, and as always he sets up situations that call out for argument and conversation. The ending is sudden and unexpected, and you are left to question not only what might happen next, but to where exactly has the director led us.
timjacksonweb.com
timjacksonweb.com
At its heart this is another Apatow late coming off age movie. Everyman officially has moved from Tom Hanks to Jonah Hill – I shudder to think what that means. But he's really good and convincing in the most random and insane situations. Most of those come from Russell Brand's rock star character Aldous Snow (is that Aldous Huxley meets Aurora Snow?) – part rock savant, part purveyor of petty musical porn. But he is amazing in the role. And Sean Combs is brilliant. He's so good you realize he can be completely ironic about his own mythology and powerful enough to stick it to the music business. As does the movie. It's pointed, unlikely, slapstick, disgusting, hilarious and sweet. And you never know where it's going to head next.A real bonus is the wonderful Elizabeth Moss (sooo good in Mad Men) as the unlikely girlfriend to Hill. The threesome attempted between these three characters in the bedroom says a lot about the clash of decades and generations. Brilliant and unrelenting.