Update… but not back, yet.

Since my last post, April 8th 2008, I have watch a pathetic number of movies and while some of them were really good, I haven’t felt like posting.  I’ve been working at my new job and getting into the Union, so my time to post would have been on the weekends, or evenings and I guess I’m not that committed.  However, the Stallion will never die, only rest periodically to catch his breath (seeing as how he is overweight and lacks the typical New York City active lifestyle).

Sadly this is going to be a lame post where I list the movies I’ve seen and their ranks.  I am sure I will forget something because my system for remembering what I’ve seen failed me.  (that system is Netflix and there seems to be a large gap in my ratings there)

12:08 East of Bucharest 3

Blue State 2

The Contender 3

The Dark Knight 5

Day watch 3

Deep Water 4

Demon Seed 2

DIG! 4

Eagle vs. Shark 3

The Happening 2

In Bruges 3

The Last Mistress 3

Lovely & Amazing 4

Married Life 3

My Blueberry Nights 3

My Kid Could Paint That 3

Night watch 3

Out of Sight 4

Reprise 4

Savage Grace 4

Semi Pro 2

Snow Angels 4

Step Brothers 2

The Edge of Heaven 4

The Leopard 4

The Namesake 3

The Ten 3

Variety 3

Walking and Talking 3

Wild Tigers I Have Known 3

There are so many good films in that bunch.

Of the group, The Dark Knight stands out as an acheivment in it’s genre.  It is without a doubt the best Superhero-movie ever and one of the best action movies I’ve ever seen.  Christopher Nolan is a great director and proves that just because you make a movie with the studio doesn’t mean it has to be watered down and terrible.

With any luck I will revisit this site with more posts in the near future.  Thanks for reading.

Adam Greene

Movie Review: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

If you make a film and you inject it with as much poetry as possible, use a narrator, long takes, and shoot fields of tall grass, then you are going to be compared to Terrance Malick. Is that a problem? For some people it may be, as the implication is that the film will be both slow and long. For this viewer it can work out well, as it did in the case of The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, written and directed by Andrew Dominik.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, takes place during the last years of Jesse James’ life, when he met Robert Ford (Casey Affleck). Jesse is a paranoid, confused, and suicidal figure at this point and Robert Ford is a sycophant of the highest order, having obsessed over Jesse James (Brad Pitt) his entire life. The film tracks the men’s relationship with one another and with other members of the gang and leads to the aftermath of the infamous man’s death.

What I liked: The poetry of the image was the surface, the initial layer of the film with it’s long lenses and shallow focus combined with vast landscapes and rugged interiors. Everything in the film is sparse, stripped-down, in an effort not to distract from the story. I loved how the film was shot. Roger Deakins is the man and he flexes his cinematographer’s muscles in this film. Dominik has the sense to work to Deakin’s strengths in the film, shooting some of the most beautiful landscapes I’ve seen in awhile. I should have seen this in the theater.

The next layer, the most important one, is the subtlety of the performances. Affleck, Pitt, Sam Rockwell, and Paul Schneider all deserve special mention and Affleck probably should have gotten an Oscar for this performance. While the character is detestable I couldn’t help but care for him. He is a tragic figure, mirroring Jesse James careening towards his demise. I thought this was the real powerhouse performance by Affleck of the year, not Gone Baby Gone. Pitt should also be noted for playing the icon himself and playing him as a man.

The shoot-out that occurs towards the end of the film was a favorite scene of mine. Played realistically with poor shooting and some real character moments, the scene stood out as a powerful example of how modern westerns can remain fresh by depicting the genre conventions as unromantic as possible.

What I didn’t like: The film dragged a bit in the middle, focusing too much on characters that, while interesting, detracted from the thrust of the narrative. I wanted to get back to Robert Ford and Jesse James.

4 stars

2 Movie Reviews: The Other Boleyn Girl and I Think I Love My Wife

I have been ignoring the list of films that I wanted to see this year and instead I’ve watched some random movies on cable and the theater. Here are a couple of them.

The Other Boleyn Girl, directed by Justin Chadwick, is the story of Anne Boleyn and her sister Mary Boleyn and their affairs with Henry VIII. Some of this ground has been covered in Anne of the Thousand Days, which I’ve seen, but I don’t remember Mary being involved in that movie.

What I liked: The costuming was beautiful, if a little silly on the men. I’m sure it’s period specific and, if the painting of Anne Boleyn is any indication, accurate to what they know of the time. The three leads are all beautiful people, Scarlett Johansson, Natalie Portman and Eric Bana, and they glamor-it-up in this one. It’s very “old Hollywood” that way, which has it’s appeal.

What I didn’t like: I didn’t care about anyone in this film and found their stories to be laden with melodrama. The three leads are all good actors but they die in these roles, and it’s not for lack of effort. The story is probably an interesting one but it feels like it was written by a committee, and that is the death of film if you ask me. The more I think about it the less I like it.

1 star

I Think I Love My Wife, directed by and starring Chris Rock, is the story of a married man who harmlessly fantasizes about other women. When a former friend’s ex-girlfriend shows up all that harmless fantasizing turns bad and his marriage in in trouble.

What I liked: The movie has some good laughs, which is important for a comedy.

What I didn’t like: The biggest problem for this film is that Chris Rock has trouble carrying a movie. He’s funny, hilarious in his stand-up, but I don’t believe him as a romantic lead. Combine that with a mannered performance by Kerry Washington and a directing sensibility that leans too heavily on tricks to cover performance, and you have a failure. I really wanted to like this.

2 stars

Doc Day

Here are some encapsulated reviews. I watched the following Documentaries awhile ago and I find it difficult to write about them. I like documentaries, and I read a lot of non-fiction, however I’ve yet to be able to penetrate the surface of the films for a review any deeper than “I learned a lot”. In the future I will make a stronger effort (or avoid them entirely). Without delay, on to the show…

638 Ways to Kill Castro, directed by Dollan Cannell, is the story of the United States’ relationship with the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, focusing on the many times that Castro’s assassination has been attempted. It is an interesting film about a figure that, for Americans, is shrouded in mystery and embarrassment. The CIA has tried to kill Castro through many intermediaries, some of whom are terrorists. This is the type of information typically covered up and saying it in a public place would get one branded as a “conspiracy theorist”. These things happened however, and this film illustrates them in a way that detracts from the information. Set as an examination of suspects, complete with found footage of an actual police lineup, the film veers too far into trying to entertain and misses an opportunity to delve deeper into the subject matter.

3 stars

Manufacturing Dissent, directed by Debbie Melnyk, is a story about a Canadian journalist’s attempts to interview Michael Moore, while simultaneously picking apart the man’s films and attempting to expose him as a fraud. An interesting attack on a filmmaker. The film is most interesting when exposing the mistakes of Michael Moore’s films, but fails to back up many of the claims. The weakest elements of the movie are the filmmaker’s attempt to smear Moore as a “bad person”, like that has anything to do with the man’s films. This reeks of a right-wing-hatchet-job but also contains some interesting facts about Moore’s films.

2 stars

Brother’s Keeper, directed by Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky, a brilliant documentary about the Wards, a family of reclusive, ill-educated, brothers who are launched into the national spotlight when one of them dies. The death happens overnight in the bed that the brother shares with his younger brother, Delbert. Delbert is then arrested and charged with his brother’s murder. He signs a confession, which he cannot even read. The documentary penetrates the bizarre lives of these illiterate farmers and the small town they live in.

My initial reaction to the movie relates to what I felt last year during a murder trial in which I was a juror. During the trial there were many police who testified, some of them detectives and the impression I got was that even the highest ranking police officer wasn’t that smart. I’m not saying that they aren’t capable of protecting and serving, I’m saying that one would like to believe that detectives are intelligent (not Sherlock Holmes but close) but after seeing the testimony of a few my suspicions have been confirmed. They aren’t that bright*. The police involved in Brother’s Keeper, did what anyone would do, they looked for the easiest answer. This answer just happened to be one that ignited a community.

I won’t spoil it but the film is emotional and kept me involved throughout.

4 stars

* My cousin is a police officer and, while he’s a great guy and I love him, he isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Movie Review: Ballast

Every year the magazines and websites I read produce a rundown of the film festivals. I can’t go to (m)any of these so this is my only way of getting news about the small films. Anyone reading this blog knows that I like the small film, the “Independent” films, and I seek them out. How does one learn about these films if they don’t read about the great films playing at the festivals? I don’t know how you people do it but I read Film Comment or Cinemascope and make mental notes.
                       

Sundance ‘08 was written as a return to form and Film Comment mentioned that a few films stood out. One of those films was Ballast, written and directed by Lance Hammer. Upon reading the synopsis, I immediately searched for information on the Hammer and found a number of interviews, all short. See, Ballast won the “Directing Award: Dramatic” for his work on this film and in reading one of his interviews he mentions the Dardenne Brothers as an influence. This is the cinematic version of a blue-light-special to me. It screams “Go there, Adam. You must see it.”

See it I did, at the New Directors/New Films Festival sponsored by the Film Society of Lincoln Center and The Museum of Modern Art. Ballast was the first film I looked for in the program because not only did I want to see the film but I love Walter Reade. It’s my favorite theater in the city. So, off Kelly and I went.

Ballast is about three people and how their lives are affected by the suicide of one of their family members. The film takes place in the Mississippi delta region and features non-actors.

What I liked: The story was haunting and beautiful. It’s the type of story that I like, one about people dealing with a crisis and trying to live the best they know how. Lawrence Batiste (Michael J. Smith Sr.) is found sitting, nearly catatonic, in his living room while the body of his twin brother Darius lies in the bedroom. After Lawrence’s suicide attempt we get a glimpse at his nephew James (JimMyron Ross) and James’ mother, Marlee (Tarra Riggs) as they get the news. I love the realist style with the character living below or near the poverty line. So many people live this way and they are rarely represented on screen. When I see a sensitive portrait of people like that, played without sensationalism, it inspires me more than the most of my favorite films.

The performances, by people with no acting experience, were thoughtful and natural. I was amazed at how effective they were. The film was organized through improvisation with the actors and their performances were better than similar work done in Bubble. Hammer has a future with actors, if nothing else.

The film won the “Excellency in Cinematography Award: Dramatic” at Sundance ‘08, and it’s obvious why. The film is beautiful, shot with a constant gray sky, often in rain, the film’s use of long lenses is exactly to my taste. The decaying landscape and the diffused light create a layer of poetry that lifts the material above it’s realist intentions. The camerawork goes from stylized and self-conscious to invisible in the first few shots, as I became wrapped up in the drama. That is powerful filmmaking. I can’t wait for Hammer’s next effort.

See this film.

What I didn’t like: I found little fault with this film. It lost some momentum towards the end, due to the heightened drama in one particular scene. My biggest issue was the opening shot. It’s hand-held and extremely so, following James as he runs into a field of geese. It’s a beautiful shot and deserves a smooth rendering. The shot was blissfully short and followed by a static shot of James watching the geese, but I was worried I was in for one of “those” movies. Lucky for me I couldn’t have been more wrong.

5 stars

If you like this post… share it!

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Movie Review: The Holy Mountain

 

The Holy Mountain, written and directed by Alejandro Jodorowsky, is replete with allegory, sacrilegious imagery, psychedelic imagery, cultural and social critique.  Currently a staple of the midnight movie rotation at IFC Center the film betrays it’s roots when you google a synopsis.  Being a fan of El Topo, The Holy Mountain was next in line for experiencing Jodorowsky’s potent images.

I have read a few of Jodorowsky’s comics and The Eyes of a Cat, with art by Moebius, is an excellent indicator of what you are getting with this storyteller.  Seek out the comic if you can.

The Holy Mountain is about a Thief (Horatio Salinius), looking Christlike, who  meets The Alchemist (Alejandro Jodorowsky) and joins a group of wealthy, powerful, mystic beings who go in search of The Holy Mountain in an attempt to become immortal.  Along the way the group are indoctrinated in the ways of the Alchemist through a series of sacrilegious tasks.

What I liked:  The imagery that Jodorowsky commits to film is a work of art unto itself.  From the opening image (see above) of the Alchemist in his black hat shaving the heads of two women, we are presented with a director’s  world view that is unlike anything else in the world.  The story is a bizarre mythological tale that resembles video games more than it does anything else I’ve seen.  This is in part due to my lack of knowledge of Jodorowsky’s inspiration (a lack that will be remedied when I watch the commentary).

Without giving anything away, the ending makes the film.  Part of me has outgrown (poor choice of words) this esoteric subject matter but the final scene in this film was a master stroke.  I loved it and found it to be totally unexpected.  I would give a recommendation on the ending alone.

What I didn’t like:  My general distaste for anything purposefully weird and “quirky” pushes me away from movies like this but The Holy Mountain isn’t so easily put into that box.  While the music was weird and the film includes a terrible fight scene, it was the film’s use of bad actors that turned me off.  The performances are intentional in their theatricality but it isn’t working and it distracts me from the plot.  I also didn’t care about anyone.  The Thief should have been my entry point but the movie features more about The Alchemist than it does the Thief and the Salinus’ attempt to make this character real fell short.

I think that my rating doesn’t reflect how I would recommend this film.  Sure it’s weird but many of the artists I know would love the pictures that Jodorowsky has made with this film.

3 stars

Movie Review: Paranoid Park

Good Will Hunting, Drugstore Cowboy, Finding Forester, To Die For… these are the Gus Van Sant films that I have seen.  I have not seen any of the Alan-Clarke-inspired films he has been directing recently.  Gerry, Elephant (which I have DVR’d at the moment),  and Last Days are of an experimental sort, often following characters as they do nothing… or so I’m told.  I haven’t seen them.  I have seen Paranoid Park, directed by Gus Van Sant, and you are reading a post about it.

Paranoid Park is about Alex (Gabe Nevins), a sixteen-year-old skater who is trying to work through the mental anguish of his part in the accidental death of a security guard.

What I liked:  Using non-actors works better here than I’ve seen in awhile.  The depiction of teenage life and how Alex deals with weight of the security guard’s death is powerful and feels accurate.  The film is also beautifully shot using long lenses and slow motion to hypnotic effect.  The scenes between Alex and his girlfriend Jennifer (Taylor Momsen) were some of the most accurate scenes of teenage relationships I’ve seen since Kids.

What I didn’t like:  Laura McKinney’s performance was distracting and selfconscious but not enough to detract from the film.  Van Sant keeps going back to the same shots of kids skating and while it does serve as a poetic base for the film I found it less interesting than the scenes where things are actually happening.

4 stars

Movie Review: Frownland

Frownland, written and directed by Ronald Bronstein, is a no-budget labor of love that chronicles the life of a young man who is unable to communicate. He speaks in stops and starts, often beginning a conversation with the dial at 10 and relaying a complex metaphor that only he is aware of. In a bit of irony the helps set the stage this young man works as a door-to-door salesman of coupon booklets, forcing his interaction with dozens of strangers a day.

The film played for a single week at IFC Center and I caught the first show on the first day. I had been looking forward to Bronstein’s debut since reading about him in a variety of publications, normally in conjunction with the mumblecore movement, with Film Comment singing his praises I thought that I should give it a shot. I’ll not be comparing Frownland with any other mumblecore films because I haven’t seen any of them, but perhaps I will find time to watch a bunch of movies about twenty-year-olds in relationships.

What I liked: While evoking the name Cassavettes is not something I do with abandon, and the description doesn’t have a glove-tight fit, the film did leave me with a similar feeling to that of Cassavettes’ films (Opening Night in particular). I couldn’t stop thinking about the film for days, it’s character’s and their tics, their behaviors. The film is more character study than anything and eschews any sense of narrative for it’s main character Keith, played with creative reckless abandon by Dore Mann, who stammers and contorts his way through a series of social situations with people who seem to hate him. The narrative push comes from the tension we feel as Keith attempts to navigate the streets of New York and it’s denizens. Those secondary characters also have their moments in the spotlight, which serves to illuminate why the world is that much more difficult for Keith. I liked this element, the feeling of exploring all the tributaries on your way down the river, it completes your view of the river as a whole.

The grainy use of 16mm in lowlight situations and the cramped quarters of the apartments added to the tone of the film. This is not an easy film to watch and would be difficult, near impossible, for me to recommend it to someone who didn’t frequent art-house films. The film was like being washed over by a wave of frustration and fear and it was a great experience.

This is what I love about independent (some would describe this as underground film) film, the ability to see a section of people, and how they live, that isn’t represented by Hollywood or television. I think that the future of cinema involves local stories about people like this, people who struggle to carve out an existence in a society that would rather ignore them. I hope to make movies like this.

What I didn’t like: This is another case of being unable to articulate what keeps the film from reaching the 5 star threshold. The best I can do is to say that it failed to deliver anything more than the admiration that I indicated in the earlier paragraphs. A film that reaches 5 stars should push past the film’s trappings and touch me emotionally or intellectually and Frownland fell just short of that, though Bronstien should be applauded for his efforts and someone should give him a fist-full of money to make another film.

4 stars

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Movie Review: The Death of Mr. Lazarescu

Upon seeing and loving 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days I immediately moved a couple of Romanian films to top positions in my Netflix queue. I did not watch the movie that this post is about through Netflix, as it was on Sundance the other night, but I like Netflix a lot. I remember when I was in grad. school and Netflix was in the toddler stage. I got a membership and when I first received my three movies I watched them on the same day. I was so excited to see some of these movies, on DVD and at the correct aspect ratio, that I couldn’t wait to watch them. I would routinely watch the movies on the same day of arrival, thus maximizing my dollar-to-movie ratio. That was then.

Now I will sit on a movie for months and months before I watch it. As a result I have reduced my membership to the bare minimum and would cancel it except I have over 3000 movies rated and that feels like a lot of work (a.k.a. time wasted) to just flush down the toilet of discontinued membership.

What is this phenomenon? Why, in a year when I watch over 104 movies do I watch so few Netflix? What does this have to do with the movie in this post? Very little but growing up in the home video age, and making an effort to turn myself into a filmmaker in the Netflix/DVD age should register better results than it has thus far from a 30 year old Production Assistant. Hmmm. More to ponder. Now on to the review.

The Death of Mr. Lazarescu, directed by Cristi Puiu, is one of the early examples of the new Romanian cinema that heretofore existed as a cinema, invisible to American audiences. Breaking ground as the winner of Un Certain Regard at Cannes in 2005, and collecting a slew of other awards, doesn’t mean that the film is good but it’s a strong indication that there is something worth seeing. Isn’t that what winning a festival is about? It’s a large neon finger pointing to the film and saying “look at me, I may be worth a damn” (but maybe in other languages).

The Death of Mr. Lazarescu concerns the title character, a working class, possible alcoholic who is sick and alone. He seeks the aid of first, his neighbors and then the state as he spirals further and further towards his death. He is bounced by doctors, for various reasons, from hospital to hospital before he is finally admitted, with only the EMT to care for him. It’s a bold statement about the bureaucracy’s failure to help people.

What I liked: In reading a little about the film the word kafkaesque has often popped up and I find it to be an apt description. The character of Lazarescu (Ion Fiscuteanu) struggling against the machine and deteriorating until death is dark subject matter but compelling as well. I couldn’t stop watching as this man, who I knew little about but cared for, was shuttled around the city and suburbs of Bucharest hoping to have his life saved. The performances and the style were in perfect harmony and gave me a picture of a people that are very similar to what I see when I look our the window. I feel like the realism was heightened by Puiu’s unobtrusive, observational camera. Though much of the film, or the entire film, was hand-held it was more in the style of the Dardenne Brothers and less from the “shakey-cam” school, where I’m nauseated and attention is brought to the fact that the camera is on someone’s shoulder. Again, it’s a tool and should be approached like that instead of some filmmakers making their manifesto. Digression aside, after the opening five minutes I couldn’t tell you much about the camera or its movements because it became invisible, melding with the story and characters. I look forward to seeing more of Puiu’s work.

What I didn’t like: It’s difficult to describe why I shave a star off my rating of this film. Sometimes a film is good but it isn’t as good as similar films I liked. I feel like the film’s one failing was that it didn’t involve me enough with Lazarescu, or any of the characters, that the ending was moving. The film had a distance, a remove that prevented me from feeling the loss that Lazarescu’s death should have registered. I believe that this distance was intentional, that Puiu is skilled enough to get me closer to Lazarescu and to make the film a tear inducing affair but he creates distance to, perhaps, make us intellectualize the proceeding and see it as a social problem. I see this as a careful artistic choice but I think the film could have been stronger if it took an emotional stance. The fact that the film is described as a comedy is a product of this distance, I think. I haven’t read any interviews with Puiu, so I can’t comment on his intent other than to watch the film and discern it for myself by observing my reactions.

If this film is supposed to be a comedy, like the poster indicates, then it failed to illicit many laughs from me. I was more moved by the film than amused.

4 stars

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

I dunno… because it was on.

I like movies about moviemaking.  It’s a weakness.  I contemplated creating a website devoted to the genre many times.  Some of my favorite films are of this genre, Fellini’s 8 1/2 and Living in Oblivion, to name a couple.  This is what prompted my desire to watch Badasssss!, directed by Mario Van Peebles.  I have no love for Mario Van Peebles and I’ve seen none of his father’s films, or any blaxploitation films at all, so Badasssss! ending up on a list of films that I want to see was derived solely on the basis of what it shares with the aforementioned genre.

Badasssss! is about the making of Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song.  It concerns itself with Melvin Van Peebles‘, the director who put his finances and his life on the line to make a revolutionary film about black people, a film that hadn’t been made until that point.

What I liked:  The subject matter, Van Peebles‘ struggle to make Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song, was interesting.  Mario, being Melvin’s son, had a take on it that surpassed what a random outsider could have produced.  The book is based on Melvin’s book about the same, and Melvin was involved in the creation of the film.  That was beneficial and showed.

What I didn’t like: The film is weighed down with seemingly random injections of sentimentality and machismo.  I’m sure that Melvin Van Peebles was a tough customer and willed his film to the screen as much as any filmmaker but I didn’t find it interesting and it was mainly to do with the incorporation of the melodramatic elements with the mechanical bits about filmmaking.  Sifting through the bull is also part of it.  Melvin’s film is surrounded by a mythology that should create a more interesting film but I find some of it to be posturing.  Maybe I’m wrong but it ruined some of the most compelling aspects of the film, the filmmaking.

2 stars