Moviebuff

Rosetta (1999, Jean-Pierre & Luc Dardenne)

2007-01-08T23:42:00.000+01:00

Superior Cannes winner from 1999. Rosetta came from Belgium from Dardenne brothers. Rosetta is young girl who tries to escape from her miserable life, but not from miserable people around her. Her mother is an alcoholic who sells her body to camp owner in order to pay the rent. Although Rosetta almost hates her, she tries everything to improve their lives, but it looks that everything is against her. Film starts with her fire from work (literally, she is taken out from factory) and the rest of film deals with her fight for work. It looks that she's not desperate - she's agressive, angry but she's not strong, but in her struggle she lost her dignity and humanity. She betrayed the only person in her life who showed sympathy and probably love to her, young guy Riquet - in order to substitute him on the bakery benchboard.
What a misery... To loose a friend because of low-payed job. But, from her point of view, it's not ammoral, it's just like what it is. The world is hard place to live and you must do everything you can to deserve good and respect life.
Mostly shot from handheld camera, Rosetta succesfully shows intense and almost hysteric life of title character. There is no aestetic here, no beatiful images, no some original camera work, just her life in all his reality.
Emilie Dequenne as Rosetta was great choice and key of the film's success. In her debut she gave all her energy in this role(according to some reports, she spent some time in similar environment to prepare to the role) and deserved the Best Actress Prize in Cannes. Rosetta refers greatly to the Italian Neorealism and British hyper-realistic movies from 60's (like Ken Loach and Tony Richardson films) in theme about homeless and poor people from bottom of society. But, besides all these qualities, this film is not so great as all prizes will suggest. If you see list of nominated movies in Cannes 1999 you'll see that, IMHO, that competition was not so "rough" as usual. There were Lynch with Straight Story, Greenaway with 8 1/2 Women, Almodovar with Todo Sobre Mi Madre but others. It wasn't unforgettable year in Cannes...

Max, mon amour (1986, Nagisa Oshima)

2007-01-04T01:02:00.000+01:00

Strange, strange film... I mean, what do you think about movie about love affair between middle-aged woman and real monkey? Real love affair, not Platonic love, or pet love but love, sexual love and passion? What is your opinion about that? Perhaps – "What a silly idea!" or "This is one of the stupidest things I ever heard about". You have right to think that and perceive that this is some trash movie or some –xploatation movie, but this is not that kind (for me). In fact, this is very European (in style and cast) movie from famous (and somewhere arrant) director Nagisa Oshima. You probably heard about his semi-pornographic art movie from 1976 - Ai no Corrida (english title is In the realm of senses) which contains some antological scenes like cutting the penis, explicit felatio and many, many more. So you see, this movie is not the biggest excess in his career. What was the most interesting and thought-provoking thing here was the feel of this movie. After first shock when you (and her husband) discover that she has a lover, but not of mankind, you'll (surprisingly) accept it as a fact and continue to watch this movie without any feeling of disgust or something wrong. This is because the accent was on love, not on physical attraction (although Oshima didnt's forget to stress it) between woman and hairy chimpanzee. And surprisingly, this film didn't descend into goofiness, although behaviour of husband of woman who fell in love into monkey is very questionable and doubtful because he didn't hate his rival and after time he accept that situation. Some critics understood this movie as some allegory on alienation and crisis of institution of marriage in upper European Burgeoisie, but I'm not sure that this was the real intention of Oshima. He and screenwriter Jean-Claude Carriere made fun and interesting movie about so unusual theme. I think that they just wanted to make subversive movie whose intention was not to shock audience with some "I don't believe it" images and scenes but to surprise viewers with their reactions, feelings and their accepting of romantic view at zoophilia.
This is one of the movies which is hard to rate: you can't say this is a masterpiece or something near to that but this is also not an average movie. I would rate it 7/10 although it looks too high and too low rating at same time.

The Jerk (1979, Carl Reiner)

2007-01-03T00:20:00.000+01:00

Steve Martin is a really good comedian, one of the best ever. He proved it many, many times, not only in the movies, but also in many series and stand-up shows. And his time is not gone yet, although in recent days he involved himself in some doubtful projects. This is the movie which made him famous... There he was an actor and co-screenwriter, and it worked well. But... I can't tell why, but I'm not fully satisfied with this film. The humour here is not-so political correct and based mainly on irony on stereotypes (at this point, influence of this movie at jerk-comedies in 90's is incredible – for example, Farelly brothers movies). You can see here white trash lifestyles, rednecks, simple-minded rural black family, greedy Jews but there is no offense at anyone. The acting was good – although Martin was superb in main "title" role, Bernadette Peters as his girl and saviour was surprise for me. I don't remember did I watch her in some important role, but she was brilliant here as naive, quiet and good-hearted girl who fell in love in circus weight-teller (does this job exists?) Martin. Supporting cast also made a good job. So all elements for good comedy are here, but what is missing, what's wrong? Maybe predictable plot... Or exactly, not enough original plot development. It was predictable that he, the ultimate jerk, the jerk of jerks will reach the top and become famous, succesfull or rich, but after that he will fall down to the bottom. It's some kind of cliche in portreting the idiots, jerks or mentally retarded individuals in comedies. Remember Forrest Gump and especially legendary Chauncey Gardiner in cult Being There (his fellow from 1979!). But after all, plot is not the most important thing in comedies. Jokes ARE. And there is plenty of them here. Go, check them!

Midnight Express (1978, Alan Parker)

2006-12-28T10:03:00.000+01:00

This story based on his "true story" (after 20 years of release real Billy Hayes admitted that was very oversized and fictional version of his agony) about naive young American (Brad Davis) caught on the airport in Turkey with drugs and imprisoned as an example for 30 years is really well done. This was the 5th film by British/American director Alan Parker, who also directed Pink Floyd The Wall (1982), Angel Heart (1987), Mississipi Burning (1988) and his latest success The Life Of David Gale (2003) and first Oliver Stone's screenplay. This film was milestone in their careers, but also showed talent of actor Brad Davis, talent that he, in my opinion, didn't make the most of. One of the reasons for that is the fact that he was one of first persons in movie industry with AIDS contraction (diagnosed in 1979), but he kept this illness as secret because of fear of exclusion and anti-AIDS hysteria in the 80's. Although he presented himself as heterosexual (he supposed that he was infected by AIDS either through shooting cocaine or heterosexual contact), it is "suspicious" that he played gay men so much time in his career. I watched Querelle (1982, R. W. Fassbinder) in which mad him some kind of a gay icon, and I found that he played similar roles in some theatrical roles. So there is doubts that he was really "the first heterosexual actor to die of AIDS"; moreover, his closest friends (except his widow) claimed that he was bisexual.
This movie won 2 Oscars: for screenplay (totally deserved) and for original music by Giorgio Moroder. For me, music score is the worst thing in this movie. This totally synthesized music sounds very dated and for me, it is unappropriate in this movie. That over-dramatic melodies and over-emphasized sounds are silly and because of that I would decrease my rating to 8 out of 10.

Closer (2004, Mike Nichols)

2006-12-28T01:22:00.000+01:00

I usually don't write essays about things I don't like or hate, but this time I'll make an exception. Mike Nichols put himself in all movie history books with classics such as debut Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf (1966), The Graduate (1967) with unforgettable Dustin Hoffman and yet more unforgettable Mr. Robinson – Anne Bancroft, Catch-22 (1970), Silkwood (1983), Working Girl (1988) etc. What a great filmography!
He is really somebody in movie business. So I watched Closer before several days... and I was totally angry! I can't remember right now movie which made me same effect. I wasn't bored while I was watching , I was totally pissed off! The dialogues there are so artificial, characters are totally irritating, even the acting of main 4 (and only) roles can be called "over-acting", although I think that Jude Law, Clive Owen, Julia Roberts and Natalie Portman are good actors. It was embarassing to see Jude Law's pathetics, Clive Owen's artificial agression, Julia Roberts's badly acted dealing with emotional doubts and Natalie Portman's transformations from strange sweet American girl to stripper and finally man-eater. As I see it, one of the most important roles of director is to lead actors to play their roles with persuasion and give the best they can. Besides I think that Nichols completely missed with adaptation of very popular theatrical play from Patrick Marber and directed this movie without any passion and energy, I put thumbs down especially for actors. This obviously very ambitious movie about complex human relations between lovers and would be-lovers sucks, but if you want to watch something good about similar theme, see Sideways or Lost in Translation, for example.

An American Werewolf In London (1981, John Landis)

2006-12-26T00:48:00.000+01:00

What to expect of movies of title like this? Trash, poor acting, some sex or nudity as one of horror standards, silly script etc.(Un) fortunately, there's nothing like that there even in the 80's standards – except sex – exactly "innocent" scenes of porn movie. I'm not sure if it was on that time low- or big- budget movie, but production is at high level, especially if you look at incredible special effects, which even forced The Academy to establish new category – Academy Award for Best Makeup (and, of course, the very first winner in this newborn Oscar).

The plot is very simple: two cheerful young Americans came in England on vacation and found themselves in some English remote village with very inhospitable local people (the way they covered that British peasants reminded me at way that Sam Peckinpah depicted them in Straw Dogs, but not that negatively). After their unpleasant time in local bar, they continued with their trip to London... and very soon finished that. I had great expectations of this movie because on some sites I found it in category like "if you like this, you'll probably like:" in company with one of my top 10 horror movies- The Howling from Joe Dante, not only because common werewolf theme and same period of release. After first half of the movie I must say that I was a little disappointed, even bored at times. There was nothing what I have never seen before and plot was predictable, but after moment of leading actor's transformation to werewolf this movie started to have some maniac atmosphere. Some scenes are now legendary: for example, attack in metro, conversation with "undeads" in porno cinema (what was very interesting idea) and his escape from there in London crowd. Although John Landis in many interviews said that this wasn't only horror escapade, but much more, I can't see what he actually meant. Is this some alegory of human agression, some American-British differences, some alienation stuff? I'm not agree that there is something more, something intertextual or subversive, but I'm agree that this is worth-seeing, even a must-see... But The Howling is better!

To Kill A Mockingbird (1962, Robert Mulligan)

2006-12-21T11:18:00.000+01:00

What a wonderful movie! I don't believe that there are people who don't like this brilliant movie. It is so... touching. There are so many articles about this film, about acting (Gregory Peck, all three children and Robert Duvall on his film debut as "Boo Radley", strange silent guy and village eccentric, personification of child fears and curiosity are excellent, , great script (based on the first and, unfortunately, last book of Harper Lee - adaptation by Horton Foote) and Oscar-nominated black and white photography by Russell Harlan, but for me, actress Collin Wilcox who played Mayella Ewell, primitive white trash girl girl who accused poor black man for raping stealed the show). I've never seen before and later that somebody so conceiveably played role of histeric person and didn't fall into over-acting in any single moment- it is more impressive that this was her film debut. And the end scenes of meeting of Atticus's daughter and Boo Radley...
And what makes this film a real classic is the fact that this movie is still fresh and not-dated in any element, especially in the way of treating racial relations and bias. The impact of "Mockingbird" was not only in film world, but also in music - one British rock group named themselves Boo Radleys, strong, righteous and unshakeable lawyer Atticus Finch became a greatest hero of the last 100 years of American Film Institute etc.
So, if you've not seen this movie in your entire life yet, go find him somewhere! He will definitely enhance your life!

Three... Extremes (2004)

2006-12-17T01:01:00.000+01:00

Today I watched famous horror-trilogy of 3 prominent directors from three Asian countries – Three... Extremes from 2004. I heard many things about this movies. Most of them were recommendations, but everybody said that it isn't a movie for females, and especially for ones who are familiar with motherhood, (my wife is really one of them – two sons in last two years) but I didn't want to hear a reason why. So I waited appropriate situation – it was some kind of robbing plan - let her go to sleep and calculate when the new born baby will get hungry again and fit that time for watching this movie. It was worth all this waiting!
First story Box directed Japanese representative Takeshi Miike, one of the most productive directors today. He is known for films like «Audition», «Bird People Of China», «Ichi The Killer» (my favourite), «Visitor Q» and many others – when I say many, I really meant that – many! (according to www.imdb.com he directed 70 movies from 1991-2006, or 4,66 movies every year!). Shortly about this story – young girl (cca 10 years old) accidentaly burned her sister in a very bizarre accident – because of jealousy she took her in a small box and after fight with her boss (who had an affair with her sister – both of her were his assistents in magic show) and after many years she saw her boss again. And made a deal... Although this story has its moments and Miike's skilled and mighty hands are visible here, I must say that I was a little... disappointment. Especially when I saw other two stories later. From possible one of the weirdest and bizarre directors ever we have only average story, neither scary nor thought-provoking. I was expected much more of him - he definitely failed this time, at all criterias.
But, the second story Dumplings is everything that first isn't! I still can't believe what I saw! I don't want to make spoilers but I'll just say that it something about one of the ingredients of dumpings who make natural face-lift and skin recovery of middle-aged women. Forget about dogs, cats or something like that. And this is a reason why I'm agree that you carefully decide in which company you'll watch this movie (remember, not with women). And yes, the name of director is Fruit Chan from China (accurately Hong Kong). Interesting name, but with no connection with dumplings key ingredient at all... Some of the viewers will attract the fact that director of photography is Christopher Doyle, American who works mostly in Hong Kong and is famous with his collaboration with Kar Wai Wong (in my humble opinion, his movies are highly overrated)
The final story, in my opinion, is the greatest. Cut from Park Chan-Wook (modern masterpiece «Oldboy», "Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance"), probably most famous Korean director today (I'm maybe wrong, but it looks that Korean started to direct movies before 20 years), is a story about kidnapping of successful young director and his good-looking wife. Assassin is one looser who was even acting in some of director's movies, but he is so sad and boring person that nobody, including this kind and «good person» director, recognize and respects him. And he took revenge (which is obviously Park Chan-Wook main theme) with director as personification of all injustices in the world. It is so maniacly directed that you'll think that you're actually watching someone's nightmare or somebody's bad trip, but it is also so good directed that everything stands in his place. Thumbs up for direction, editing, scenography and acting!
What is similar in all of the parts of omnibus? Every story has only 3-4 characters and omnibus has some kind of crescendo-like structure in a way of atmosphere. I don't see some connections between them, but it obviously wasn't a intention for this forming of «United directors of Asia». One objection: if you want some gore-flick, lots of blood etc.,you'll not find it here. Try somewhere else! But if you want something that scares you slowly but more effectively, here's a movie for you!

Kiss Me Deadly (1955, Robert Aldrich)

2006-12-14T14:21:00.000+01:00

One of the most brutal movies (especially because of some very violent scenes - and ideas - of tortures) from 50's is still provoking these days. In fact, it is based on book of Mickey Spillane who was very productive writer of that era. Many critics regard it as "ultimate film noir" but there's some elements of that genre that are not in this movie. There's no narration, femme fatale died in the beginning etc. but the main hero is so problematic and ammoral person that you have no sympathy for him, and it's maybe something that mostly defines this genre - there is no good guys against bad guys and nobody is sympathetic. But when you realize how much morality has his opponents, you will forgive him some "excesses" like torturing maybe innocent guy, his masculine view and mortifying females.
In this movie you'll see some very familiar faces, but I must admit that I wasn't sure are they really in this movie. First, Cloris Leachman, very good actress who appeared in many Mel Brooks movies, is girl who hitchhiked dressed only in raincoat and in that way involved Ralph Meeker, anti-social private eye Mike Hammer (sounds familiar, isn't it?) who wants to investigate this case not because of feeling of justice but for curiosity and his pride. Even he realized that there's so dangerous situation, he still wanted to fight against that gang who has "something very dangerous". Second, it was surprise for me when I saw very young Jack Elam, star of many classical westerns (although he was supported actor in all of them)
One of my favourite scenes is when boss of that gang (it is maybe better to say "organization" talking with young lady in metaphors because he is so "intelligent" that he cannot talk in common manner. It's very ironic and in some way soffisticated scene.
So, buy it or rent it, I really recommend it!!!

Incident at Loch Ness (2004, Zak Penn)

2006-12-13T16:02:00.000+01:00

Nessie exists!
This is documentary about one adventure in Loch Ness, Scotland. Director of this movie is Zak Penn, famous screenwritter of very succesful movies like "Last Action Hero", "X-Men 2" etc. but this is something very "strange" in Hollywood-way of thinking. In fact, this is mockumentary, but not in a way like some of the most famous films of that type - "Mondo Cane". This is fictional story of making a film about mystery of Nessie and in fact, there is film incorporated in another film, but the line between them is not strong. Everything in this film is fake, except that movie is truly shooted in original location. I must say that fact that in this movie "stars" one of my most loved directors Werner Herzog was main reason why I wanted to watch that movie and he surprised me. Besides his role is to talk directly in camera and tells us what is going to be next, he is brilliant! There is also some strange characters like wacko-cryptozoologist, big-breasted sonar expert, some local staff from Inverness, Scotland etc.
I recommend it for everybody who wants something a little bit strange. I rated it 6 out of 10.