Change Your Image
theordinaryreview
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
In film nist (2011)
A purely individual look at what it is to be a forbidden film maker.
Jafar Panahi: "If we could tell a film, then why make a film?"
My interest in Iranian cinema started with Dayereh (2000) by Jafar Panahi and since then I've watched a few other Iranian films of which most are directed by him. I remember after the first film I saw, I read about him on Wikipedia and read about his sentence and ban from film making. It is quite shocking and this gives more sense to this documentary which would have never been seen if it hadn't been smuggled out of Iran on a USB stick.
In film nist starts with Jafar Panahi having breakfast over the course of breakfast he calls a friend, Iranian documentary director Mojtaba Mirtahmasb asking him to come over. The only link we have with the outside world is through his phone. Before his friend comes Jafar has a phone call with his lawyer who confirms that he will definitely have to go to prison and that she may try to reduce the ban duration on appeal but it's probably all she can do. She tells him that it is not a judiciary sentence but a political one. When his friend arrives, Jafar Panahi explains the last films he wanted to do and how they were both denied approval and had to let them go. He has the script of one and decides that he can explain it, using his living room, the carpet representing the room in which a girl is- also- imprisoned and a chair for the window.
This is not a film is exactly what the title says it is. It is a day, a documentary at most. Most of Jafar Panahi movies give a lot of freedom to (amateur) actors who creates the whole atmosphere. It seems clear that this was not planned either, this has no script or no particular goal except to have a camera there, to document whatever could be documented before it's too late.
The setting is also particular as the whole town goes crazy over the celebrations of "Fireworks Wednesday" and the two friends stay inside, wondering what to do and how to do it. It gets particularly strange when Jafar Panahi starts recording with his mobile phone, filming the act of being filmed. I think the highest point of this film being not a film, is when Jafar Panahi explains the story of this film he was going to make and in the middle of replaying it... He suddenly becomes silent and his face tells us that he has strong doubts and this is where the quote I picked is said, he doubts the whole concept of a film, of telling a story and if it is a story worth telling. It might be reduced to the film he was discussing in particular, however, I would think that it goes beyond that, that it touches every film he's done including this one.
A lot of the issues are not entirely discussed, maybe as a way to retain dignity in the face of a sentence or simply because they are not thought out to be relevant. These very blunt, almost political and philosophical moments contrast with the comical aspect of his iguana pet slowly climbing a bookshelf or the neighbor who tries to leave her dog with him before he simply starts barking. It is also strongly incidental as when a young arts student walk in to come and pick the trash, a job he does to help out his sister and brother-in-law, suddenly the story focuses on him and as he goes on to pick up the trash, we follow him. In a way, isn't that what movies always tried to do, follow the strange happenings of life?
I liked: It doesn't get much more explicitly banned film, well this is not a film.
I disliked: Very random in a bumpy unscripted way.
70/100 If you are looking for a deep political look in the situation of Iran's cinema industry and its struggle then you won't find it. This is a purely individual look at what it is to be a forbidden film maker.
Read more reviews at: www.theordinaryreview.blogspot.com
Ayneh (1997)
The movie is a simple but moving journey.
Little girl: "I don't want to be in the film anymore. They tell me to cry all the time. If my friends see this film, they'll think I'm a nagger!"
The film follows a young girl, in first grade. The school finished for the day, all the girls leave. But she remains waiting though her mother is not coming to pick her up. The girl doesn't feel handicapped by her arm in a plaster and she accepts a ride on a scooter by a relative of a teacher to drop her off at the bus stop. Things don't go as easy as planned when she thinks that she recognized the bus she takes and jumps in it. Braving through the traffic she once again gets off the bus in a hurry after she thinks she sees her mother. Her journey takes a surprising turn when the young girl simply stops acting and decides to go home, she is not in character anymore but her troubles are still the same as she has to reach home.
The beginning of the movie really doesn't surprise people who have seen The White Balloon (1995), a young girl has issues with what seem to be the simplest task to any adult but to a child it can become as complex as a jigsaw puzzle. The shots are mostly genuine and we are really immersed in the dangers of the traffic, as it seems to be quite a dangerous task to simply cross roads in Tehran at this time of day. Even the actress will look familiar as she is the younger sister of the one in The White Balloon.
Where the movie shocks and differs from what we are used to is when the fourth wall shatters unexpectedly half way through the film. The young girl stops speaking for a short moment and we hear the director's voice giving her the instruction to not look at the camera. This is very uncommon and at first we think this just might be a blooper, but this is what the "film" becomes then.
It really puzzled me at first but I think it is such a powerful method. Whether this was really a caprice of the young actress or actually scripted, I wouldn't know, but if it was scripted it was a genius idea. If it wasn't it is not only great circumstances but great salvage of the movie. I don't really think it matters whether it was scripted or not and that's not what I would judge the movie on. Whether it's Mina or the Little Girl, her path to find home is a trip in itself, the movie exploring once again the generosity of strangers while some other by- passers do not feel like helping her at all.
The downfall of the movie-became-reality is the fact that the shots are not that clear anymore. Keep in mind that we are in a bus following a little girl running or taking rides through a town at rush hour. Therefore we often lose track of her, we only see car paint for minutes at times, fortunately keeping in touch with Mina through her microphone, which also encounters issues.
The movie has no great quotes, no great twists or a beautiful touching ending. It is simply a journey where the reality mirrored the fiction. I would actually think it to be better if we never knew whether it was all intended from the start as I like the mystery. I like the fourth wall going down in this unexpected manner.
I liked: The sweet, yet petulant little girl. Blurs the lines of fiction. Endearing.
I disliked: Suffers from it's reality-like filming. Most dialogues heard through eavesdropping with no internal link.
71/100 I was greatly surprised by its twist, the immersion was total.
Talaye sorkh (2003)
The film is primarily a social critique, offering no judgement but depicting events as they are.
The Man in the Tea House: "If you want to arrest a thief, you'll have to arrest the world."
The movie starts in a jewelry store where a man with a helmet is pointing a gun at an older man asking him where the jewels are. After somewhat of a fight, the older man manages to shut the grid on the burglar who shoots him in retaliation while bystanders look from the outside. We are then introduced to Hussein, a tall man of few words, and his colleague, Ali. Ali has just robbed a purse and discovers that there is a receipt for a jewel in the purse. Ali and Hussein work together as pizza delivery persons. The movie will follow the events that lead up to the burglary, encounters that Hussein make, his plans of marriage with Ali's sister and the constant affirmation of his social status.
Crimson Gold is a very dark movie, both in substance as in colors. Most of the scenes happen at night when Hussein rides his scooter through town and only a few scenes take place during the day. If I had to describe what the film is in the fewest words possible I would have to say that it is a social critique. We see Hussein poor and we are constantly reminded of it. We see his colleagues who aim for material desires while living on their low payrolls. We also encounter rich customers that Hussein meets but they are depressed or repressed by the police. There is a saying that one can't buy happiness and this might be the lesson we, and everyone in the film, learns through this journey.
Hussein is a very complex character with often very erratic behaviors and never many words of explanations. I wouldn't have guessed and I don't know if it is meant to be understood that the character is a paranoid schizophrenic, but the trivia on IMDb state the actor actually is. He seems indifferent to pretty much every situation except in few occasions when he might get really upset because a man reminds him of his social status of "poor", but he can also prove to have a heart of gold when, stuck and stranded in a street because of a police operation, he offers pizzas to everyone present. These scenes shone the most, as unfortunately, I think a lot of the other scenes were unfulfilling simply because of his lack of attention to his surroundings or to his interlocutors. He offers no judgement, denotes no pleasure or displeasure in anything.
As common with Jafar Panahi's movies, the surroundings are very bare and there is hardly any music. Most of the scenes are genuinely filmed in the streets and most of the beauty or ugliness relies on the mere city, a landscape or a simple interaction.
I found the overall message of the movie to be somewhat misleading like the horizons of Hussein suddenly turned black because he saw rich people are not necessarily more happy than he is. I liked dark movies and there is never a single reason to commit a crime, but given the tools the movie offered us, we are left wondering what is going on in Hussein's head and why does he do such things.
I liked: A clash of sorts. Characters struggles.
I disliked: Uncanny. One way. Everyone in their own bubble.
62/100 A slow unfolding of what we know will happen. A very dark and mysterious tale.
Read more reviews at: www.theordinaryreview.blogspot.com
Only God Forgives (2013)
In all, the film is a major let down, where the good actors simply don't act, the story is cliché and the dialogues are entirely dull or rendered inaudible.
Billy: "Time to meet the devil."
The movie starts with Julian hanging out at a boxing club. After a fight, Julian meets with two others and we learn that one of them, Billy is his brother. We learn that they run a drug trade in Bangkok. Shortly after, Billy goes on a spree and starts engaging in erratic and violent behavior at different sex clubs. Later that night, the police arrive in one hotel and find Billy next to a prostitute that he raped and killed. The police however don't arrest Billy, and the head of the police decides to bring the father of the young underage, now dead, prostitute and leave the murderer and the father of the victim alone in the room. What is quite predictable happens and now Julian has to redeem his brother's death.
The film begins well, with some clever use of shadows and lighting. We are quickly put in the mold for the heavily violent atmosphere of brothels and drug smuggling. However this will remain the best component of the movie and nothing else delivers. The slow introduction to this rude and crude world never picks up on the pace and we are left watching everything in slow motion. If there is a fight or a kill that will happen, you've seen it unfold ten times in your head before it actually starts. And the dramatic music can't sustain such a build up for so long.
Of the main characters, Julian and his mother are both despicable and the audience can not possibly root for either one. Their acting consists mostly of blank stares and the rare lines that they speak are totally vain or trash talks from the mother who apparently flirts shamelessly with Julian, even though she vastly preferred Billy. The cop could have been an interesting character but that story line doesn't go anywhere either. Nevertheless, we do find out he is quite knowledgeable in the art of killing and torturing people.
The gore is not too bad but in a slow film like this it actually doesn't do much. The pace just doesn't fit the gore. The symbolism is pretty loaded but it is never certain whether something is imagined, dreamed or lived. This ends up making the film look like a collection of psychological clichés of a wide range, from the oedipal mother-son relationship to the recurring symbol of guilt--incessant hand washing-- and other violent behaviors.
While I had initially liked the setting in Thailand, sadly, it is only further dwells into more clichés. I don't think I've ever seen a Western movie set in Thailand without dealing with prostitution (of minors). It is as though they feel Thailand has nothing other than that to offer to movies.
In all, the film is a major let down, where the good actors simply don't act, the story is cliché and the dialogues are entirely dull or rendered inaudible. The good aspects of a nice photography and shots are ruined by the extensive use of slow motion and build ups. It didn't manage to grasp my attention long enough to prevent me from wondering whether I really liked Drive or whether the good music and Ryan Gosling's presence had compensated for everything else.
I liked: Looks good if you fast forward. Thailand.
I disliked: Useless dialogues ("want to fight?"). Abusing two cool effects (red shadows and slow motion) doesn't make a good movie. Symbolic for shock value.
23/100 I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone. Maybe if you want to laugh gather a few friends and watch this in shuffle.
Read more reviews at: www.theordinaryreview.blogspot.com
From Beyond (1986)
The similarities with Re-Animator are legion.
Dr. Edward Pretorius : "The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another mind."
I was browsing IMDb and I went to the page about Body Horror, a genre of horror that deals with deformation of the human body, famously exploited by David Cronenberg in most of his 80's movies. It also featured the renowned director of body horror, Stuart Gordon. I saw his film Re- Animator (1985) and since it was pretty fun so I decided to watch From Beyond.
The movie starts with Crawford Tillinghast running a computer program to run a machine that we later discover is meant to stimulate the pineal gland in order to allow the human to go beyond the five senses. The machine turns on at one fourth of its power and Crawford sees fish-like pink monsters floating in the air but he soon gets bitten by one. He runs to his professor, the doctor Edward Pretorius, but Pretorius doesn't want to experience only a portion of the machine's capabilities and runs it to its full power. Things go wrong and Edward Pretorius ends up dead and Crawford being the only one on the scene is put in a mental hospital as he keeps repeating the phrase "it devoured his head". Dr. Katherine McMichaels, a young psychiatrist who doesn't believe in locking up schizophrenics believes Crawford and with the help of police officer Bubba Brownlee, the three of them go to the house to try to run the experiment again.
The similarities with Re-Animator are legion. Not only was From Beyond was made quickly after Re-Animator, but they both share the same director, both are based on stories by H.P. Lovecraft and they both feature the two same main actors. We find Jeffrey Combs in the role of a crazy scientist once again and his overacting suits, the cold-blooded, scientific ambition driven character perfectly. However, I think Re- Animator was superior, not only in its story but in its dialogues as well. I remember many quotes from it as being cult--From Beyond somewhat lacked those.
I was also not that convinced with the saturated pink tones which were left unexplained. The graphic gore is top notch, though it is almost too much and borders onto the absurd at times (this is where I think most viewers would think it is absurd a lot of the time, I still think this is a good example of 80's horror pushed to a limit).
I think the main flaw lies in the scientifically legitimate aspect. Where the goal was simple in Re-Animator, ----create a living body out of body parts-- here we are lost in a maze of rationale about the pineal gland, the senses, death and schizophrenia. The after taste is confusing.
I liked: Crazy scientist. From beyond gore. Crawford's deadly kiss.
I disliked: Weak characters development. Pinkish neon colors. Suffers the comparison with Re-Animator.
60/100 I would only recommend it to the fans of old school horror or H.P. Lovecraft and those who loved Re-Animator
Read more reviews at: www.theordinaryreview.blogspot.com
Shirin (2008)
Shirin is not your typical movie and you are most likely going to be quite surprised by it.
The background story is an ancient Persian tragic romance that involves the Queen to be of Armenia, Shirin and the King of (neo)-Persia Khosrow. However, this is not the story we see. The movie is filmed in a theater and we see the faces of women watching the romance unfold on screen.
A very interesting outlook on cinema, narratives and emotions altogether, if one thing for sure it is that Shirin is not your typical movie and you are most likely going to be quite surprised by it. Although all of the audience are part of the Iranian cinema industry (with the exception of the renowned French actress Juliette Binoche), there is no particular focus on anyone and the film seems to jump from face to face in accordance to the emotions depicted.
It is quite interesting to see the differences, for example when someone cries during a scene, others might bite their finger or play with their hair. It reflects back at the spectator who might at the time do the exact same and a certain bond can or can not be formed. There are all sorts of reactions, the shock, the fear are both displayed and experienced differently. Some will, for example in a scene which most likely involves a battle, close their eyes, put their hand on their forehead or become very still. In addition to the biting fingers, some women also readjust their hijab and leaving us wondering if and why watching those scenes disturbs them so.
There were men in the audience and one could wonder why no shots focused on them. I wondered about this myself and it puzzled me, though perhaps it may be that the story being told is a warning to women about love. Also, the title is Shirin, not Shirin and Khosrow, which I guess would imply that the focus is on the part of the woman in the tragedy.
I have to admit that I would probably have enjoyed seeing the film that was being shown more than the expressions of the audience. Of course, it was quite an experience and an exposure to a vast palette of emotions, but I feel emotions are such a personal thing that they might be better enjoyed at the first degree, when they are still raw. I can easily assume that this would be very different from a viewer to another and one can relate more to faces describing an emotion than a situation.
I liked: A different outlook on movies. Womanly, in a way, as I wouldn't quite call it a feminist film. Background historical tale.
I disliked : Feels a little like watching a recycled movie at times, digested by others. Really puzzling at times it is quite impossible to understand what goes on on the screen, maybe it is intended that way, but it did bother me.
64/100 A very particular film, it felt like going to a theatrical performance of an old Greek tragedy and standing on the scene watching others watch it unfold. It feels really artsy.
Badkonake sefid (1995)
The film narrates a simple stories in a sweet way, heartwarming way.
Snake charmer: "You never take back what you've given! Your money is gone."
After seeing Offside (2006), I decided to see more of Jafar Panahi and out of the three films I decided to see, The White Balloon is the first one.
The White Balloon takes place on New Year's eve. Seven year old Razieh is sad because she saw beautiful gold fishes in a pet shop but her mother won't let her have any because they have a pond with gold fish already. It is a tradition to have a gold fish for New Year's and after discussing it with her brother, Ali - who is a few years older than Razieh - she manages to convince their mother to give them the money to buy a goldfish in exchange for a balloon that she received. Happy and with a 500 torans note in her fish bowl, Razieh heads out to the pet shop. However, many obstacles and just as many characters will find themselves on her road to the sought out gold fish.
This film narrates one of the simplest stories in a sweet way. On many occasions it reminded me of Children of Heaven (1997) - the simple story, the struggles of children and the pervasive themes of money, poverty, the crowded streets of Tehran and of course, all of this centering around a fantastic child actress, Aida Mohammadkhani.
It was really heartwarming to see this little child try and convince adults that this money is life and death for her. The way she has to impose herself because adults won't listen to a child is truly moving. Her issues are varied: the multiple attempts she makes to procure the money but also the genuine help she receives from strangers, a notion that is discussed when a soldier argues with her about the notion of what being a "stranger" really is.
There are a lot of things that we the viewers are never told, but this didn't concern us, we were too focused on the journey with the 500 torans to care anyway. The movie walks a fine line between the absurd and realism while exploring the edges and angles of social interactions. In no overt way political (unlike the other movies from Panahi can be) it is a very straight forward tale. We are pleasantly reminded that it doesn't take a billion dollar budget to film a good movie.
On the other hand, the movie arouses our fears at the outset, without actually fulfilling them. We, as adult viewers, are afraid that Razieh will get hurt or robbed at any moment and when we realize our fears were unfounded it makes us wonder about this misanthropic fear we have of other human beings who we class as "strangers". Maybe we've been fooled too many times and we are wary of the innocence children can have.
The movie could have explored more avenues - explore their family, for example, or had music and perhaps more landscape shots - nevertheless, those would all have been decorative. The movie remains at heart as the story it tells, short and poignantly bare.
I liked: No unnecessary frills. Razieh is a lovely character. Endearing. Innocence of childhood.
I disliked: Maybe some characters were purposely threatening just to provoke a sense of fear in the viewer.
78/100 If you've enjoyed Children of Heaven (1997) I would recommend this to you. If you like stories involving child actors this is a must see.
Read more reviews at: www.theordinaryreview.blogspot.com
Lord of the Flies (1963)
A good adaptation sadly stained by irritating quirks.
Simon: "Maybe there is a beast. What I mean is : maybe it's only us."
Since I just finished reading the book last night, it felt natural for me to check out the movie. I decided with the older version as it is the one whose snapshots came up while I was searching for the cover of my book to feature in my book review.
The movie starts with a series of black and white pictures over sound. We deduce from them that it is set in England, that a war, probably a nuclear war, has started and that kids are being evacuated by plane. We hear a crash. The next scene, we see two kids on a beach and they wonder if there are any adults left. They start by getting everyone's name. They find a shell in the sea, that the young boy who is only referred to as Piggy, informs them is a conch. In order to have everyone gather, Ralph blows the conch and they decide who should be the leader. While Ralph is soon elected leader, another boy, Jack, who lives only to hunt the wild pigs on the island, soon threatens the power of both the conch and Ralph.
The film is a quite good adaptation. It is very faithful to the text and apart from two scenes, I couldn't really see many differences.
I was annoyed by a few things however. First of all, I felt the music and sounds weren't fitting the atmosphere. I also think the scenes that lead up to a sort of communal frenzy among the boys were so frantic they lost all sense of realism. It simply didn't seem to fit. Last but not least, I think the acting was fairly poor. I understand that an ensemble cast of young boys is not the easiest thing to manage but a lot of overacting ensued which took away from the film's credibility.
The movie, which was extensively cut, was a good telling of the book and I felt they did pick out the key scenes from it in order to form a compact, yet linear and understandable tale. When seeing a movie from a book you have read, it tends to be a great disappointment when some of your favorite scenes go missing or when you feel the movie isn't understandable as a whole because of some involvements cleared out in the book, but that didn't happen here.
In many ways it reminded me of the French film La guerre des boutons (1962) but if had to recommend only one, I'd go with the French one. I think, even though Lord of the Flies' addresses far more serious cultural criticism than the, mostly, comedic relief of its French counterpart, the acting of the ensemble cast is far better in La guerre des boutons.
I liked: Faithful to the book. The island. The Lord of the Flies scene.
I disliked: The music and sounds. The acting.
62/100 A good adaptation sadly stained by irritating (to me) quirks.
Read more at: www.theordinaryreview.blogspot.com
Afsaid (2006)
A persuasive comedy, with a diverse and sympathetic cast.
Girl: "Stop staring or they'll spot me. It's hard enough as it is. You'll mess up my plan."
I recently heard about In film nist (2011), a documentary I haven't watched yet, but that is centered around Iranian director Jafar Panahi whose films are banned in Iran and who has spent time in jail for his work. While going through his filmography, of which I had only previously seen Dayereh (2000), I came across Offside and I decided I had to see it.
Offside starts with a crowd of men going to the stadium to see the football (soccer) match between Iran and Bahrain. Iran must not lose if they want to secure their spot and go to the World Cup. Amongst the crowd, a young girl is trying to remain incognito. Women are not allowed to enter the stadium and the female fans must prove their ingenuity in order to disguise themselves. The young girl we follow is quickly spotted and arrested by soldiers who provide the security. She is then led to a little spot behind the stadium where they improvised an open air jail cell. There she meets other girls who have been caught. Through the course of the match and the discussions with the soldiers we will learn to know and understand their struggles.
I felt a sense of familiarity as soon as the film started: the hand-held camera, the crowds, the everyday life, the journey of women were all very reminiscent of Dayereh. Offside is however a really persuasive comedy. I wasn't expecting such a take in the movie, but I liked it. The ensemble cast of the girls, whom we never know the names of, are diverse and sympathetic.
The portrayal of the soldiers is varied, representing many regions of Iran and different interests, and the interactions with their prisoners develop into something believable. The crowd atmosphere is palpable as the film was in fact filmed at a real qualifying match. Enjoying soccer is actually not at all required, something I grew afraid of when the film started as I don't really like it myself, but it is more than enough to witness the effect of the sport on the people involved. The title also plays an interesting part as the girls parked right outside the stadium are literally cast offside.
I liked: Rebellious and funny. Portrayal of different women. The awkward situations that rise up naturally.
I disliked: It feels messy at times, mostly because of the hand-held camera in a real live crowd. Less psychologically complex compared to Dayereh, but funnier.
77/100 I think I'm increasingly interested in films like this, that break away from convention despite depicting everyday situations.
Read more reviews at: www.theordinaryreview.blogspot.com
Errors of the Human Body (2012)
The film depicts a bare, rough and industrial vision of Germany which seemed to be in perfect harmony with the isolation of the main character.
It was after watching The Call (2013) that I decided to browse through Michael Eklund's filmography hoping to find other portrayals of deranged characters. Errors of the Human Body is a title that immediately hooked me and I wanted to know more. The poster looked marvelous and it seemed to have won some awards and nominations so I decided to see it. Doctor Geoff Burton was once renowned and a beacon of hope to the medical field, but a rare genetic condition that led to his son's death ruined him.On the verge of being fired he accepts a job offer in Germany. The transfer was supported by a young female doctor who was once Burton's intern and with whom he had a liaison. Once he arrives, he discovers what Rebekka is working on: a way to have cells regenerated extremely fast. However, the processes which work in amphibians seems bound to failure when tested in mammal embryos. This is until Jarek, Rebekka's previous partner on the project, tries it illegally on a mouse. Geoff, who was following the scene, steals the mouse in either desperate scientific interest or a desire to protect Rebekka's project. From there on, Geoff's mental health begins to deteriorate as he enters a conflict with Jarek and is plagued by his past. I was quite pleased with what strikes first in the movie: the constant ambient low tune of disturbing music and the quality of the medical environment which was not portrayed in the typical scientific way, but was filmed in a way that made it beautiful. The story is quite simple overall but the flashback of the past along with the deterioration of everything around Geoff makes the movie really smooth. Geoff Burton's character reminded me in many ways of the protagonist in The Machinist (2004). Eklund really shines in this deranged guilt-ridden persona, although he might now be typecast as the new crazy actor (that'll give Michael Shannon a break). The scene at the party with loud electronic music, bright neon colors and costumes is really a pleasure to see. In the background, a great deal of moral issues are dealt with, but the first plane is always about Geoff. The film depicts a bare, rough and industrial vision of Germany which seemed to be in perfect harmony with the isolation of the main character. I couldn't help but wish there was more that was done with the tools we were shown. In the end it felt like a really lonely and caustic movie. At least it managed what Splice (2009) didn't; to make research in medicine look good. I wish there was more and maybe this is where the movie feels a little short in its unfolding. I think I felt really similar after watching Antiviral (2012) where I loved the world I was thrown in and it was visually astounding, but the story left me wanting for more. I liked: Constant background noises and music. Geoff and Eklund's acting. Exploration and depiction of guilt. I disliked: There was more to do, more to say. Some scenes seemed unrealistic--for example, a chase scene with a mouse is far stretched-- the protagonist was after all a top notch scientist. 72/100 I'm really going to look forward to future movies by Eron Sheean. I like his directorial work. I would recommend this to those who enjoyed Antiviral (2012) and also maybe Upstream Color (2013).
José e Pilar (2010)
A beautiful and moving documentary about the life of a writer and the woman he loved.
I didn't know anything about this documentary before seeing it. For me this is strange because I often read many reviews or at least take a glance at reviews, see the casting, make sure that the film is something I want to see. I have never even read but one of Jose Saramago's work -- a short story titled The Tale of the Unknown Island. But what a beautiful tale it was! It was only because I loved that story and that I read this was a documentary detailing the last few years of his life, that I decided to see it. I didn't know that it was really him on screen, and that it was really his wife.
It's a beautiful documentary. There is no plot, of course. There are moments though which happen naturally and which pile together, and the truth of those moments makes this a pleasure to see. Moments like Saramago waiting for his laptop to open up, and that sound of Windows welcome screen. Moments where he climbs a mountain. Sick moments when he is frail and feels he is closest to death. All throughout, the small gestures he shares with his wife, cupping the back of her head, ruffling her hair as they walk. This documentary is said to be a love story and I can see why. There are no long and passionate kisses, no sex, no convoluted chase as he tries to "win" her over -- instead, this is a story of two people in love twenty years after their being together. The small ways in which they know each other through and through. The nightmares he has when he thinks he will die -- they are not about death, or fear of death/retribution -- Saramago is famously and outspokenly an atheist -- but rather calling out for Pilar, and being unable to reach to her.
For a Nobel prize winner, it can be expected how busy Saramago and his wife's schedules are. Yet what bothered me at first seeing this documentary was the kind of distaste he had for his fans. One of the scenes in the beginning were of Pilar sorting through his mail and tearing up most of the fan mail which they get in bulk nearly every week while making sarcastic comments about them. He hates being photographed or autographing yet goes again and again to events which he knows will require that of him. To me it felt somehow ungrateful, as these readers were responsible for his work being known, published, loved and if he was unable to participate in the publicity he could simply decline coming to those events.
Of course I can understand as well the need for his personal life, his private life. Nevertheless, the fact that this sort of elitist sentiment was so overt in the documentary balanced out the image of him. He isn't heralded as saint -- he's just a man.
The documentary also chronicles the process of him writing The Elephant's Journey one of the last books he wrote before his death in 2010, and the metaphor of the elephant whose journey would have passed by, anonymously, if he hadn't written about it felt to me a metaphor for his own life, for his own passing which would have gone by without event if it wouldn't have been for his work. Yet he is humble too, and reached international acclaim when he was in his sixties.
I liked: Some beautiful quotes. Saramago often spoke of himself as a confirmed "pessimist" so his dry wit and sense of humor really made this pleasurable to see. Natural acting. It felt intimate, and special.
I disliked: For some moments it seemed to drag on a little too long.
83/100 A beautiful and moving documentary about the life of a writer and the woman he loved. I think anyone could enjoy this. It's just a simple, well told and profound story.
Read more reviews at: www.theordinaryreview.blogspot.com
Passion (2012)
A happy confusion of musical ecstasy, pills, sex games and dreams.
I was excited to see Passion as I had heard about it before and more than just the lesbian undertones, the plot seemed interesting and I think Rachel McAdams, just like wine, gets better with age.
Christine and Isabelle work in the same advertising agency but it seems they have more than a simple work relationship as Christine blatantly hits on Isabelle. When Isabelle scores a good deal, Christine takes all the credit, saying that it'll make them both look good and after all it's simply business. This declares war between the two. Never too far from each other emotionally, the blows they share quickly escalate. It certainly doesn't help that they are both sleeping with the same man on the side, Dirk, an accountant who has been stealing money from the company and who Christine won't cover for anymore. While all this unfolds, Dani, Isabelle's sexy young assistant, has her eyes set on Isabelle and is increasingly annoyed by Christine's attitude. In a happy confusion of musical ecstasy, pills, sex games and dreams- a murder is committed.
What first strikes the viewer is the utter class and distinguished sense of fashion that everyone seems to share. Art meets models and workplace meets chic couture in this very clean atmosphere where the dirty deeds of jealousy are out in the open. No one is unattainable, emotionally, physically and sexually. There are no boundaries of gender and emotional issues are dealt with sex or unleashed rage.
I think a strong aspect of the movie resided in this dichotomy between two worlds that live side by side, inter-lapping most of the time: the elite and the gutter. This is true particularly in the first half of the movie,and in the second part is where your senses are put to their most extensive usage as the music tackles you and the directorial tricks have you wondering about the significance of what you see.
What is real? This might be the true question asked by Passion. A common cinematic trick, the dream, has always led to uneasiness and disbelief in the viewer's mind. Here it is not only that, but the dreams are intertwined with sleeping pills and unraveled identities.
In addition to the wardrobe and directorial tricks, the most important aspect of the movie is carried by the three main actresses. One would argue that it is mostly about the two, Isabelle and Christine (respectively Naomi Rapace and Rachel McAdams) but I think the role of Dani (Karoline Herfurth) was just as pivotal. I was in awe in front of these ladies: their characters were pure evil, yet their fragile emotions made me care for their mind games, as disgusting as they got.
What pleased me most was the uneasiness at figuring everyone out. It is possible to interpret everyone's actions in multiple ways. It certainly doesn't make it an easy film to grasp, but I tend to enjoy unraveling the mystery beyond the mystery.
There are things, however, that I didn't enjoy. The use of phone camera is a little far stretched, the fashion can be judged as an effort to camouflage style under substance, and the police is often times a caricature of what it should be. Finally, the one masculine role seemed to be a puppet that could be toyed with.
I liked: Music. Played with my mind and senses. Visually impressive. Joyous artful bisexuality of everybody involved. Cryptic color symbolism. Mysterious.
I disliked: Falls into some predictable clichés at time. A very sadistic society. Cameras everywhere.
71/100 I quite liked that I didn't get all of it and that even after discussing it, there are still different ways to interpret it. In a way, it reminded me of Chloe (2009) maybe because they are both adaptations of French movies.
Read more reviews at: www.theordinaryreview.blogspot.com
Bom yeoreum gaeul gyeoul geurigo bom (2003)
One of the most beautiful movies I have seen...of rare splendor.
I think I met Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring by accident while browsing IMDb. It was possibly a movie similar to something I saw, but it might just be random. Or maybe I was seeing through the top#250 and realized I never saw this one.
An old monk lives in isolation in a house in the middle of a lake. With him lives a young boy who is training to be a monk. One day, the young boy attaches a rock with a string around a fish and laughs at the fish that is painfully trying to swim away. Oblivious to the fact the old monk is watching him, he applies the same treatment to a frog and then a snake. The old monk attaches a string and a rock while the boy sleeps. When the boy wakes up, he complains that he cannot walk because he is attached to a rock. The young monk then realizes it was wrong to do so to the animals and the old monk tells him to go free the animals. If any of them died, then the young monk will have a heart of stone for all his life.
Years passes and the boy grows into a young adult when a young woman comes visit them to cure her bad health, the monk quickly falls for her. The woman first ignores him but they soon fall in love and sex comes naturally after. The old monk who ends up seeing them does not blame the young monk, but as the woman's health is much better, tells them that it was the right cure. Once the woman is healed, she prepares to leave-- a painful departure for the young monk, who one morning, abandons the lake and flees... But he is bound to return some day.
First of all, I have to say that this was one of the most beautiful movies I have seen. Not only the scenery, but the house in the middle of a lake and in the middle of a valley is absolutely stunning, and the passing of the seasons--which are not only metaphorical of the life of a person and the emotional states of their mind--are also filmed in their respective corresponding season. This all adds up to create scenes of rare splendor.
There is a real clever economy of dialogue. There aren't many to begin with, but the ones present are carefully picked and always speak volumes. The relationship between the old and the young monk (who is played by a different actor in each and every season) is complex but a pleasure to watch. I admittedly haven't deciphered all the symbolism, for example, I don't know if there is an explanation as to why each season finds them having a different pet with them, but I am certain there are explanations.
I was most stunned with the winter scenery when the water turns to ice. The movie has a lot to say about the cycle of life, the cycles through life and the repetitive wheel of fate. It seems to have quite a fatalistic take on life as the mistakes of our childhood can carry through a whole life, or maybe this is simply a symbol.
In a way, I wish that the two young people didn't have sex, it seemed too simple to have them go for it simply because they are the only two in a deserted place. I wanted the young monk to show remorse or guilt in regard of his faith but very little of it was used. This is only a detail and I think that quite realistically what happened in the movie is what would happen in most cases.
The movie is a tour de force. The filming must have been a patient task over different seasons but also for the actors, especially the one playing the adult monk (who is in fact the director) and how he had to walk on a lake of ice, fall, etc. There are such beautiful scenes around the pond, whether it's the ice sculpture or the young boy who is smaller than the head of the Buddha. And the wooden doors with paintings that open for every season on a new scenery. The doors could be another theme as the doors in their house were quite interesting.
I liked: The scenery. The economy of dialogues. The evolution of a person. Asceticism and faith. It's a film that can't leave you indifferent.
I disliked: Is it pessimistic? Fatalistic? It is hard to decide. I found the segments of Spring and Winter superior to the rest.
93/100 I would recommend this to anyone who enjoys Movies with a capital m, the ones that hold a message, a meaning.
Read more reviews at: www.theordinaryreview.blogspot.com
Of Human Bondage (1934)
Not your typical romance
Of Human Bondage is one of these old movies that fell into the public domain by lack of copyright renewal, therefore it is widely available and when I saw that it had both Bette Davis - who I enjoyed in All About Eve (1950) and What Ever Happened to Baby Jane (1962) with her characteristic gaze; and Leslie Howard who was in Gone with the Wind (1939) but also in the lesser known The Petrified Forest (1936), a friend and supporter of Humphrey Bogart he helped him rise to fame.
In the film, Philip Carey is a young English man living in Paris hoping to become a painter. One night a man who he asked for advice tells Philip that he is talentless and needs to find another meaning to his life. Philip decides to become a doctor, however, a club foot severely impends on his self-esteem and confidence . When Philip goes to a café and sees the young flirtatious Mildred with another patron, he falls in love immediately. Mildred turns out to be really cold towards Philip and only uses him to go to the theater when it pleases her, while still seeing the man of the restaurant. Nonetheless, Philip decides to ask her to marry him but Mildred prevents it by saying she is already getting married. A few months later, Philip finds himself in a similar situation where a woman, Norah, loves him but he doesn't love her back. When Mildred reappears, broke, pregnant and alone, Philip can't help it and helps her, leaving Norah pondering about what happened to him. Philip and Mildred are unable to live together yet their paths will cross many times and again.
The best thing in the movie has to be Bette Davis' performance of the cold and cynical Mildred. She is despicably perfect in her vanity. The main issue I had with the film is probably a very personal one, but it's the fact that a man falls desperately in love with a woman. I don't believe in such a thing. Now, I do believe a woman can take advantage of a man in this very same way, but Philip felt too at loss with his own feelings that I found it hard to believe--especially because of the fact that while Mildred is absent from Philip's life, he gladly partake in another woman's life, with or without shared feelings that remains to be seen.
The dialogues are very clever, particularly the discourse which inspired the movie title about human bondage. I wish there were more to be analyzed from the line of work of Philip who goes from painting nude women to medical student to business man without particular choices, as if on railtracks. What pleased me the most was the character of Mildred, it was powerful and weak at the same time. A thin line that makes characters real.
I liked: Strong female lead. Cyclic. Pride and vanity - a downfall.
I disliked: Filming letters is annoying for the plot, I sometimes couldn't decipher them. The role of the child. Last scene with blocked out sound.
73/100 Not your typical romance, fortunately carried out by two grand actors of the 30's.
Read more reviews at: www.theordinaryreview.blogspot.com
Vozvrashchenie (2003)
At times the viewer is as lost as the boys who don't know where they are, why they are there and with who.
The Return was recommended to me by IMDb after I watched Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (2003) last week. The premise of the movie was really interesting to me; I love movies in the wilderness and this in particular seemed to hold a complex mystery. I was also eager to watch a Russian movie as I haven't seen many of them.
The Return is the tale of two brothers: Andrei who is about 16 years old and his brother Ivan who is about 12 years old. They have quite distinct personalities and fight often but they get along well. One day, they fight in front of their friends and come back home running. When they arrive their mother tells them to be quiet because their father is asleep. They are both astounded: their father?
Their father is back, indeed, after twelve years without any news. There is no warm welcome back, and after a sober dinner, the father announces that he will take them on a trip for a few days. The trip begins and the tension starts to rise as the father has a very commanding and distant tone, barely ever talking about himself or his plans, only speaking to give out orders or ask whether the boys are hungry. Andrei takes the discipline quite well but Ivan has a hard time and his rebellious and emotional personality pushes him to defy his father often. The father puts the young boys through the test time and time again, while making mysterious phone calls and extending their journey because of some business trip, he tells them to get on the bus and go back home. Only to pick them back shortly after, the boys want to go fishing but when they catch some, their father doesn't want any fish. The father has a plan and he brings them to a deserted island with no explanation. There their triangular relationships will be put to the test.
What struck me at first was the bare, yet beautiful Russian land and lakes that we are taken through. We visit industrial towns next to green patch of land and mysterious inhabited lakes. The story holds a great deal of mystery as the character of the father remains silent about his intentions and his threatening demeanor prevents the boys from asking too many questions. When Ivan, in one of his rages bluntly asks what they are doing here, the father does not answer.
The three main characters are both brilliant and flawed in a very human way. Although taken for granted, the question of the real father's identity is always at the back of the viewer's mind. Is he the boys father? The mother said so, yet the mother seems just as mysterious. What is the father searching for on the island? We will never know and it probably doesn't matter because the film feels complete without knowing everything.
In its entirety the film is psychological and the fact that it is set in the wilderness simply adds to it. At times we feel really lost, as lost as the boys who don't know where they are, why they are there and with whom.
In terms of education and parenting, this movie is really puzzling. The rough treatment that the father uses seems to work on Andrei but only makes Ivan more rebellious and makes it harder for him to confide in Andrei. The brothers are at time very close in their psychological as well as physical pain, yet they clearly take it differently. Ivan, who is less of a daredevil than his brother when it comes to jumping from heights or fighting, turns out to defy his father straight-on, clueless about the consequences it can have. I think there is a great deal to be analyzed about those formative years in the life of a young man.
I liked: The acting. Complex, mysterious and psychological. Beautiful lakes.
I disliked: Cryptic. Tense atmosphere. No aftermath.
77/100 I can't think of another film that had that kind of brothers relationship while also exploring a trip with an estranged father. Truly original.
Read more reviews at: www.theordinaryreview.blogspot.com
Evil Dead (2013)
A relentless demonic assault and a bloody good remake.
I was absolutely excited to see this movie! Evil Dead (1981) and Evil Dead (1987) are some of the absolute best horror movies and of course some of my favorites. I tend to be really cautious about remakes because, honestly, most of them are just trying to make money on old cult classics. Somehow, this one seemed to stir up very good criticism and every though I shy away from spoilers, I read a few reviews and got excited. Another reason I was excited was because it features Lou Taylor Pucci who was amazing in pretty much everything I saw with him, like the adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis' The Informers (2008).
In this film, five friends decide to spend the holidays at a cabin that belongs to the siblings Mia and David. Mia went through a difficult period and her friends are trying to have her quit her drug usage. David has been distant from her through her drug issues will try his best to make up for it. As Mia's cold turkey's regime starts, she smells dead meat but her friends dismiss it as withdrawal symptoms. Soon enough however, they discover a trap under the cabin. The exploration of it will prove gruesome as they find a burnt place with tons of dead cats strung in barbwire hanging from the ceiling. They also retrieve a well sealed book, which curiosity will have Eric open. He reads it out loud and releases the demon out of the book of the dead, the Necronomicon.
Bloody fantastic! That was my reaction when the film was over. Groovy! Could have been an alternative. As I said, I am always wary of remakes but this is easily the best modern horror remake I've seen. It started off very well with some clear references to the old movies: the cabin looks exactly the same, Mia sits on the same car that they had in the first movie, the trees are menacing, the chainsaw, the trap... Those references always give bonus points to a remake in my book.
The Necronomicon is really well made. The demons are pure evil and their trash talking is joy: I missed the "I'll swallow your soul, I'll swallow your soul, I'll swallow your soul.... - Swallow this" quote but the clear references made it all good.
Sadly, none of the actors or actresses have the charisma of Ash (Bruce Campbell). I was also annoyed at the way they used withdrawal symptoms to discredit the first signs of demonic possession as well as the nurse who thinks she's got everything under control. This was however a lesser evil, literally, as the movie unfolded in a scream fest of blood and mutilated members. You know you'll get what's coming when you see them use a nail gun or an electric meat cutter.
The graphics and gore were pretty good and the relatively low use of CGI was very welcomed. As is common in horror movies, the sounds and music played a great part in building up the scare effect and Roque Baños (of The Machinist (2004) fame) does a fantastic job again.
However, I think this is the kind of movie that you shouldn't show to minors but that's a good thing for us and them. Despite suffering from a few flaws common to the modern horror genre, it pleased me to the utmost.
I liked: Evil. Bloody. Gore. Knows what was good in the film it's based upon.
I disliked: The know-it-all nurse, the hopeless junkie and the blonde. The female characters and acting suffered the comparison to their male counterparts.
90/100 It's evil but it won't stay dead. A relentless demonic assault and a bloody good remake.
Read more reviews at: www.theordinaryreview.blogspot.com
Just Like a Woman (2012)
I was pleasantly surprised with this movie.
I was interested in seeing this movie because I really enjoy road trip movies. Somehow you tend to meet interesting people and it comes out well in movies especially when coupled with great outdoors. I was also interested because it features Golshifteh Farahani who I really enjoyed in About Elly (2009).
Just Like a Woman is the story of two wives. Egyptian born Mona lives with her husband and his mother. Mona's husband owns a shop which Marilyn visits. The mother-in-law treats Mona awfully because they can't have children and she blames it on her. Marilyn has a low paying job but doesn't complain. Then one day, she is fired with no notice, and saddened, she goes home to find her husband cheating on her. Around the same time, Mona accidentally mixes up her mother-in-law's medication which causes her mother-in-law's death. Afraid and lost, Mona runs away on the first bus she finds. Marilyn takes the car and leaves everything behind to pursue an audition to become a belly dancer. The two women then meet on a highway stop and continue their journey together.
I was pleasantly surprised with this movie. The two actresses do a really good job. One has to wonder why they cast an Iranian actress in an Egyptian character, is there a shortage of Arabic actresses? Sure, it's geographically closer than having Freida Pinto play a Palestinian but still. The movie starts with some really down on their luck women, but I appreciated the vision of running away as getting a second chance. It seems to hold the message that it's not the goal but the pursuit of it that really matters. Being not personally a fan of dance scenes in any movie, I was a little scared but the scenes are not too many and the ones that are there are actually beautiful.
The movie might hold a very feminist view and some will say that all men are portrayed as evil, however, I think the sweetest and most gentle character was the tribal security guard who helped them out. It is also to be noted that women are not all portrayed as angels as characterized with the scene of the woman watching from the mobile home's window or the mother-in-law. Some scenes might have been included for shock or emotional virtue alone but it brought out good acting. The Indian Reserve had really beautiful spots.
All in all, the movie might try a little too hard to have weakened characters in order to make them shine stronger when they succeed. In a way it's annoying but it is also more rewarding to see them overcome their struggles.
I liked: Road trip. A follow your dreams attitude.
I disliked: Feels a little forced sometimes. Were the racist remarks really needed or just added for shock value?
68/100 As a feminist I liked it, these women got stronger together and extracted themselves from their husbands' influence. For a breath of fresh air and a second chance.
Read more reviews at: www.theordinaryreview.blogspot.com
How to Survive a Plague (2012)
If my rating was based solely on the people in this documentary, I'd give them all a 10 for their courage and perseverance
Seeing this title I was expecting something of an apocalyptic, end-of- the-world zombie type film. In fact, this documentary was far truer, exploring a disease which has cost many lives. One might say I have an interest in LGBT causes and maybe this is why I decided to see this documentary, but AIDS is not exclusive to any community.
This documentary starts in the early 80's in New York where young men and women are dying of AIDS. There is no treatment and they are even refused in the hospitals. Each with their individual pain couldn't do much so they organized and created "ACT UP" whose main focus was to be an activist group, which through civil disobedience would bring attention, awareness, and most importantly a cure to AIDS. The documentary retraces some of their fights and quarrels mostly through archives but also with some more recent interviews. It covers some of the darkest hours before the discovery of the lucky combination that would prolong the lives of many, but would come too late to save those of many more.
I think the topic is one of the most important there is. It feels so distant but I can actually remember hearing about a treatment to AIDS back then. It meant very little to me at the time. I can't say that I really loved the way the documentary was going about things but I liked the substance very much. It is very scary to think back and imagine those people taking whatever medication that was on trial simply because at that point it couldn't have done more harm.
While I think activism is double-edged blade and can sometimes backfire, it seems that this very activism has saved many lives and the alerted politicians who at first refused to talk about how many lives AIDS had taken. There are some very emotional personal stories here, and if my rating was based solely on the people in this documentary, I'd give them all a 10 for their courage and perseverance through this tremendous pain.
I liked: The topic. Historically important.
I disliked: The shaky archive footage, the constant shouting and confrontations. It had only one sequence to explain the actual biological/chemical aspects, which I felt were important and deserved more screen time.
74/100 A little over 20 years ago, there were presidents who would go on television and say that AIDS has behavioral causes that should be looked at. This documentary could definitely teach them a thing or two.
Wadjda (2012)
A colorful dose of rebellion and the sweetness of a child's dream.
I was eager to see Wadjda, often publicized as the first Saudi Arabian film, which is not exactly the case but it is the first that got such recognition and is the first by a female director. I thought it would be an interesting experience to witness. The fact that it was a female director made me even more curious as women rights in Saudi Arabia are known to be a controversial issue and is mostly what the outside world is exposed to about Saudi Arabia.
Wadjda is a young girl who doesn't like school that much and is often reprimanded by the teachers for her rebellious behavior. Things aren't much better at home as her mom struggles with driver issues and her father is seeking a second wife. Wadjda doesn't seem to have many friends at school, but she has a friend who lives in the neighborhood, young boy named Abdullah. He has a bicycle which becomes Wadjda's obsession and decides to get one for herself, despite this not being tolerated in the Kingdom. Nevertheless, Wadjda starts saving up her money to buy one. The nearest shop owner has one and after some discussion she manages to have him keep it for her until she gathers the money. In the meantime, she allows Abdullah to put up lamps from their house, for his uncle's political party's gathering. In exchange, he lets her ride his bicycle. When her school launches a Quran reciting contest, Wadjda works hard to win the prize money which would allow her to finally buy the bicycle.
I really enjoyed Wadjda. It was fresh, with a colorful dose of rebellion and the sweetness of a child's dream. In many aspects, it reminded me of the Iranian film Children of Heaven (1997). It seems to portray a good look at life in Saudi Arabia. The acting was really good and it made me enjoy the film more because I ended up rooting for Wadjda. Some moments will feel tender, some will be really cringe-worthy and some will feel real. It is probably the strength of the movie that the viewer will go through such a range of emotions. It also shows things that will feel strange to foreign eyes without ever seeming judgmental or preachy.
The film is not flawless by any means, and I found it to have some down times and some scenes that did not quite fit in as fluidly in the movie as others. But it didn't prevent me from enjoying it as a whole. I found it clever, thoughtful and most of all, it made me think and feel. On top of that, it always feels good to see what could be a pioneering movie.
I liked: Playful, clever. A story line that pulls you in. Good children actors.
I disliked: Some scenes do not fit in as well, I felt they were put to highlight the local colors.
79/100 I'd recommend it to anyone into foreign film. Hopefully, Wadjda is only the first of many.
Read more reviews at: www.theordinaryreview.blogspot.com
It's a Disaster (2012)
A fun little indie comedy which has the merit of originality.
I came across this movie and thought it looked interesting as I love end-of-the-world stuff. It tends to make life seem more meaningful and brings out a different side to people. Then I realized this film seems to be an indie comedy, and since I hadn't seen any in quite a while, I decided to watch this.
The movie starts off with a couple in a car who are invited for "couples brunch". Tracy is bringing her most recent date, Glenn. The hosts are Emma and Pete who actually decided to get a divorce but are waiting to tell their friends once the brunch is over. Then there's Shane and Hedy. Shane is a total geek and Hedy is a chemistry teacher who have been engaged for 6 years but aren't decided on when to get married. The last couple is Buck and Lexi, two wild party-goers living within their very open relationship and playing in a band. As Shane needs to check eBay for a comic book auction and the men wants to see the score of the game, they realize the TV and internet aren't working. After much debate and pondering, a neighbor knocks at the door, in a full hazmat suit, telling them that there have been chemical bombs released nearby.
It's a Disaster made me laugh a lot. It's not so much the irony of the situation, but in those hypothetical last moments, four couples stuck together can really do damage, or try to repair it. I found the dialogues very cleverly written and it kept me both interested and amused the whole time. The characters are all quite stereotypical but it didn't cause such a problem as I felt they were all believable characters. The absurdity of the chemical event combined with the different personalities made the witty remarks and random happenings really shine through. It is definitely not the typical disaster movie-- in fact, there is very little we know about the actual disaster, which puts us in the same situation as the characters as they are mostly in the dark about their fate.
The movie doesn't hold any spectacular feature or fanciness, but it is well thought and well written through and through, with funny characters, which is exactly what a comedy needs to feel fresh. As much as I tend to be picky about comedies, this one worked for me.
I liked: Mysterious disaster. Good characters development. Funny.
I disliked: Relationships and stereotypes driven sense of humor, which is okay, but goes in a single direction.
72/100 A fun little indie comedy which has the merit of originality.
Read more reviews at: www.theordinaryreview.blogspot.com
Chasing Ice (2012)
One of the most striking documentary I've ever seen.
When I came across Chasing Ice, I was very enthusiastic. I always loved the Great North and documentaries, but even more these two combined. I, for example, loved Werner Herzog's Encounters at the End of the World (2007) although it was, this time, the South Pole.
Chasing Ice follows the ambitious project of National Geographic photographer James Balog who, after first doing a short project on glacier, saw the impact it had and decided he had to do more than that. That's when he decided to put in place a massive scale Glacier Watch Unit by implementing cameras to take many many pictures so that afterwards, in time lapse, the glacier could be seen moving. The project surveyed glaciers in Greenland, Alaska, Canada and Iceland for a few years. This documentary is the story behind it.
The documentary starts with a mix of random news cast about global warming and natural disasters. I always considered myself a skeptic about global warming, not because I don't believe that the ice is melting, but because I know the planet has gone through a lot and is still kicking. I was quite surprised and forgot about the global warming for a while as the work and photos of James Balog were being shown. It is simply breathtaking.
Once their project started, the implementation of cameras, reminded me a lot of The Cove (2009) in that they also faced technical difficulties (one has to realize that the cameras were and had to function in the worst possible condition). I felt a very human connection as the documentary also underlines the risks, the annoyances (for example when a fox has eaten away at the cable or when an electronic chip has been malfunctioning and they just traveled across the world to realize there were no shots taken) but also the family of James Balog who we briefly see and the health issues he faces with his knee. It all helps to make the actual work they accomplished all so much tastier and the evidence about the glaciers are hard to dismiss.
I found it to be one of the most spectacular display of nature images. The ending is, without surprise, a warning for the public to take into account the danger of our behaviors. I think that this might throw people off, but I'd say it's a necessary evil. I don't have that much faith in humanity myself, but if there is anything that can inspire something to be done, it will be through these images, because texts and statistics never changed behaviors.
It moved me.
I liked: Breathtakingly beautiful. Human aspects. Harsh conditions. Team work. Stunning glaciers.
I disliked: Yes, it holds a political agenda, but where does mankind and politics differ when it comes to the apocalypse?
88/100 One of the most striking documentary I've seen, if not for the scientific dimension but simply for the beauty of the ice. And to paraphrase James Balog, as a photograph it is so beautiful, but as a human being it's very sad.
More reviews at: www.theordinaryreview.blogspot.com