Rock, Paper Moon, Scissors

by Jonathan Burrello

A jaunty jalopy ride down a dusty Kansas road to a former lover’s funeral was all it took to rope conman, Moses Pray (Ryan O’Neal), into meeting one of the most special ladies his puny life might ever know. Shot in glorious black and white and boasting a sharp wit set rakishly against bleak Depression-era Midwestern textures and scenery, director Peter Bogdanovich (“The Last Picture Show,” “What’s Up, Doc?”) weaves up a homespun adventure with “Paper Moon” (1973). “Paper Moon” is a very welcome departure off the beaten path…and onto an even more beaten path with two guides that scarcely know where they’re headed in life let alone the road.

Moses Pray travels the American Midwest and cons recent widows into believing that their dearly departed husbands have purchased Bibles for them. Genuinely touched that their loved ones would have been so piously generous in their final days, they gladly pay the difference (minus the original fictitious down-payment Pray alleges their husbands have already spent). It’s an easy gig with easy money, made easier by Pray’s seeming lack of conscience, but it gets a lot more complicated after a visit to the funeral of a woman he once loved (she was a prostitute). Orphaned Addie Loggins (played by 8-year-old Tatum O’Neal) is the spittin’ image of ol’ Moses (no coincidence, they were father and daughter in real life) and the old biddies at the funeral shame the con-artist into taking little Addie with him to her aunt’s house. Reluctantly he obliges.

Moses feverishly denies the remote possibility that he is the girl’s father, but the stone-faced, quick-witted tomboy, Addie, soon finds her way into the conman’s life (he takes Addie’s money and she knows it and essentially she demands he pay her back or else she’ll tell the police). The two form an uneasy alliance and turn out to make a pretty good con team. Addie’s added innocence to Moses’ scam pays off well for the shifty duo (despite Addie’s stubborn moral compass that she employs on certain occasions) and they set their sights higher and con their way across the state. In the eyes of the viewer, these two unlikely and extremely stubborn characters were made for each other.

The movie follows Moses and Addie through squabbles and squalls—as when buxom stripper, Miss Trixie Delight (played by the always enjoyable Madeline Kahn) makes her move to use and abuse an all-too willing Moses and it’s up to Addie to break it up. Between Moses’ fast-talking and trouble-making, it’s all little Addie can do to keep the plan going and still have time for a smoke. Even if Moses may never admit he is her father, they become a very formidable family unit. At the end of the day they have nowhere else to turn but to each other.

I applaud any movie that makes us fall in love with lowly shysters and “Paper Moon” is no exception. Moses Pray is plain diabolical (if a bit slipshod), and Addie Loggins proves her precocious mettle against many an odd. Tatum O’Neal is the real star of this picture and her deadpan performance as Addie notably garnered her the Academy Award for best supporting actor (against co-star Kahn and other child actor, Linda Blair for “The Exorcist”). This film may be accused of wearing its heart on its sleeves, but Bogdanovich makes it really work. This film earns its sweetness. “Paper Moon” is fun and sweet and humorous and insanely likable. The script, performances, and the sumptuous cinematography all combine wonderfully well to transport us back to the Dust Bowl era in Middle America, when religion was in and wallets wore thin. I encourage you to seek out this smarmy but sweet little treasure out. “Paper Moon” is a charmer that can warm the most cynical of hearts…because that’s what it does to the cynical characters that inhabit the film.

AFI Film Fest 2009 Review: “Kanikôsen”

by Andrew Bowcock

Before entering the theater to see Kanikôsen I had absolutely no idea what to expect.  It was one of those rare film experiences where I got free tickets to see something I was completely unfamiliar with in order to get a completely fresh and unbiased taste in my mouth (like eating a new mysterious food or visiting an uncharted location).  All that I knew was that the title was Japanese for crab boat, or something of the sort – not knowing whether the terminology was meant to be ironic, arbitrary, or literal (turns out it was the latter).  The lady who introduced the film, artistic director of AFI Fest 2009, Rose Kuo, made it known that the film is based on a manga from the 1950’s (which apparently was adapted from a novel from the the 1920’s by Takiji Kobayashi) and spoke of its great acclaim at other festivals, using the term “crazy” to describe it, which made me believe I was in for an exciting ride.

The opening sequence had me hooked.  We start with an extreme close-up of a man’s eyes peeking up through a hatch, surveying the area of what we deduce is a boat.  Soon the hatch is pushed up all the way and we see a slew of crabs fall from the sky in slow motion – an intense, unnerving, but captivating image.  This sets the stage for the rest of the story, which revolves around the slave crew of this crab boat during wartime – it’s not specified what war, but it’s made apparent that the enemies are the Russians.  The crew of this boat has been toiling for long hours catching crab and using machines to can them to sell in Japan while being subjected to constant abuse by the men who run the ship (essentially a sweatshop on a fishing boat).  We are introduced to many characters at once, and are shown the way the men neurotically and superstitiously deal with their lives on the boat by means of escapism.  More specifically, the men speak of dying being a better route than staying on the boat, and at one ironically comedic point the men try to commit mass suicide by hanging themselves, but the way the boat rocked the boxes back and forth from under their feet made the feat impossible.

There is some interesting dialogue between some members of the crew about how they expect to be reincarnated as members of richer families upon their death, and how some hope to be siblings with each other (the men are convinced that whatever they imagine in their last moments, they will be reincarnated as).  By way of some conversations we are treated to some over-exposed dreamlike sequences of the men in bright clothes on a sunny day playing ball with one another, representing where they hope to be in the next life.  In addition to these dream sequences we also see a few sequences near the beginning of the poor living conditions of some of the sailors, and why they feel the need to be on this boat and suffer for the good of their families.  As the journey continues at sea and the men grow weary, they reach a point where the only way to deal with their oppression is to violently rise up against their oppressors and make threats and demands for fair treatment.  The escapade eventually results in a bloody backlash, and many are brought to their untimely death.

Without even being familiar with the source material, I can already tell that this movie is communicating the source’s message accurately.  It’s very obviously associated with an anti-capitalistic revolutionary perspective by which the oppressed must teach “the system” a lesson and rise to greatness and independence from governmental oppression.  Unfortunately this film doesn’t seem to offer anything new or very refreshing.

Although it’s not a poorly made film and is delivered with possible conviction, there seems to be little inspiration.  Despite the handful of flashback or “dream” sequences, we don’t get to know any of the characters very well, and are thus subjected to an agenda film that delivers only the punches that one would expect from your average war drama.  Visually, the look of the majority of the film is desaturated and drab (and rightly so for the mood), but it is done in such an uninteresting manner (save for the opening sequence) that it’s hard to get enthusiastic about the cinematography.  In the end, the major downfall of the film is the expansive amount of characters given almost equal screen time, and still not enough to get to know them any better than “that one sailor who…” I was silently begging to learn something interesting about the characters set before me, but to no avail.

I was a bit wishy-washy with my overall feelings when I felt when I left the theater.  Yes, the film had a message and got it across…but that’s all it did.  Retrospectively (save for the beginning and a couple other sequences) this film didn’t touch, compel, interest, or even at the very least challenge me.  As Mr. Groves and I discussed the film further after leaving, I realized that the reason for this was that Kanikôsen was borrowing from better films and then constructing a fairly generic model; I thought back to movies like Battleship Potemkin, Das Boot, and Spartacus, which this film emulated aspects of, but didn’t deliver half as well as any of those other films did (I’m not sure if another Odessa steps homage would have helped it or hurt it).

In the end this film is passable, but only if the subject matter interests you and you’ve seen the other (better) aforementioned films.

___________________________________________________________________________

photo sources:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_E9YcWkAQSfQ/So5Z3Q55EnI/AAAAAAAAJJo/JgcY2eSQD18/s400/kanikosen.jpg
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/
https://auteursnotebook.s3.amazonaws.com/daily/nyffkanikosen718.jpg

other resources:

http://www.imdb.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/

AFI Film Fest 2009 review: Bellamy

by Nate Bell

Claude Chabrol, the most workmanlike member of the celebrated French New Wave, has directed somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 films. A career as long as that seems destined to swing both high and low, yet his is surprisingly consistent. (Critics can perhaps cite a masterpiece or two, but how many bombs?) Bellamy would seem to fall somewhere in the medium-high range. It’s chatty and languidly paced, but clearly the work of an old pro and full of the insights that can only come with old age (Chabrol is no spring chicken at 79). It’s a detective story insofar as there is a detective present, but the mystery takes a backseat to the well-rounded characterizations. It seems fitting that the film begins and ends with shots of a cemetery. What better backdrop to ponder life’s enigmas?

The titular protagonist (Gerard Depardieu), a celebrated French detective, is first seen lazing on the sofa trying to complete a crossword. Even on vacation, this man cannot avoid puzzles. His wife of many years (Marie Bunel) wanted to go on an Egyptian cruise, but settled instead for a few weeks in her childhood home in Nimes. A strange man (Jacques Gamblin), lately seen skulking around the property, draws Bellamy into a plot involving a neglected wife, a young mistress, and a charred corpse (the last of which is fleetingly glimpsed at the tail end of the opening credits).

Bellamy’s leisurely investigation is interrupted by the arrival of his good-for-nothing younger brother Jacques (Clovis Cornillac), a boozing, gambling idler. At this point, the film takes an unforeseen turn and begins to coagulate into a family drama. The harsh censure of bourgeois values—a favorite maneuver of Chabrol’s—is largely absent. Instead, the film reveals itself as an inquiry into the notions of chance, fate, and destiny—that is to say of life itself. Jacques (loveless, destitute, forever drifting) and Bellamy (secure, well-to-do, happily married) are juxtaposed in such a way as to draw attention to the social and spiritual chasm that separates them. The recollection of a particularly painful family episode and a tragic ending only serve to deepen the overarching mystery.

Bellamy marks the first collaboration between Chabrol and Depardieu, who at 60 holds his ground as one of France’s greatest movie stars. Bearish yet elegant, he excels at suggesting the insecurities of this outwardly secure man. His life seems controlled, almost idyllic, but the end of the day, it is still a puzzle to him.

Picture Source:

http://www.impawards.com/intl/france/2009/posters/bellamy.jpg

AFI Film Fest 2009 review: Mother

by Nate Bell

Mother is bolstered by a powerful performance by Kim Hye-ja, whose credits prior to this one were so sparse (this is only her third film in three decades) that it took a little digging to discover that she is actually a respected Korean star of television and stage. It’s unlikely that she will ever be forgotten after Mother is released. This is the kind of role that actresses long for their entire careers, and Kim does wonders with it, filling every close-up with intense fascination.

Bong Joon-ho’s latest film tells the story of an overly nurturing mom (Kim) who lives in a quiet suburb with her 28-year-old son Do-joon (Bin Won). Their relationship is close-bordering-on-creepy—she eyes him watchfully through the window of the herb shop where she works, observes him as he relieves himself in an alley, and, in a scene that easily trips the Oedipal alert, shares a bed with him (though nothing more is implied). Do-joon is a good-looking kid but not very bright, and prone to blackouts brought on by inexperienced boozing. When a local girl is murdered, her body found conspicuously slumped over a ledge in the center of town, Do-joon becomes the prime suspect. Despite all evidence pointing his way, Mother decides to investigate the crime and free her son from blame.

The story, on which Bong shares credit with Park Eun-kyo, bears a faint resemblance to the superb 1949 Max Ophuls thriller The Reckless Moment, later remade as The Deep End with Tilda Swinton. It differs crucially in this way: The mother in The Reckless Moment acts under the assumption that her son is guilty; the mother in Mother is convinced her son is innocent. (“He wouldn’t hurt a water bug!”) Both, however, are motivated by single-minded devotion to family. Later we are given clues as to why she is so committed to her son, and they are not particularly pretty.

Bong, one of the bright lights of Korean cinema, made a small splash on this side of the pond with The Host in 2007, although his real breakthrough was the 2005 serial killer procedural Memories of Murder. Mother suggests the work of a minor master—steady, controlled, carefully calibrated, and with that distinctively Eastern sensibility that pauses to look at things like wood being sinisterly sliced, a pool of water creeping over kitchen tile, an expanding pool of blood. The film is about 20 minutes too long, but it reveals its disturbing secrets at exactly the right moments, and there is a sly sense of humor that works to temper the suspense without lessening its impact.

Mother is extremely well made but it’s a difficult film to get behind because its vision is so bleak. It’s about self-delusion, and no film that ever dealt with that subject left anyone dancing for joy. There are certain scenes that are meant to be half-funny, half disturbing (as when a character’s front tooth is knocked out during an interrogation), but it’s the disturbing part that sticks in the craw.

A friend sitting next to me at the screening joked that he’d never seen a Korean film that ended happily (even the comedies are downers). He may have been onto something. Certainly Mother, with its pungent, disturbing performance by Kim and its guilty secrets, won’t break the mold.

Picture Source:

http://outnow.ch/Movies/2009/Mother/Bilder/movie.fs/02

AFI Fest 2009 review: Ajami

by Matthew Groves

Well it’s official, I had my first negative film experience at AFI Fest 2009.  To preface this though, I must say that there may be a little over-exaggeration here for a couple reasons.  One, I got out of one screening not too long before this film and I thought it was the best of the festival.  Two and lastly, for some reason, someone screwed up the order so they played the second chapter before the first.  The film is separated into multiple chapters, stating first chapter, second chapter, etc.  We noticed this because the film started with no title cards and jumped to the second chapter, it was literally separated into multiple chapters and then we got title cards and the prologue and the first chapter.  Despite these two problems, I still support my original position that I saw a film that as it progressed became more and more of a train wreck.  These first two chapters I thought were actually very good and effective, and that wasn’t my issue with that film, but the later chapters, where things became frustrating.  Oddly, as I have researched this film, it has won multiple awards including one at the famed and respected Cannes Film Festival and it is Israel’s foreign language Oscar entry, Ajami.

To be honest, I can’t really summarize the plot because the film got to the point where it juggled so many characters and storylines and then started to get so nonlinear I really couldn’t follow the events for that long in the later chapters.  There are a handful of central characters that are Palestinian youths, including Nasri (Fouad Habash) who is a partial narrator and brother of Omar (Shahir Kabaha) and then Omar is accompanied by fellow workers at a restaurant and friends, Malek (Ibrahim Frege) and Binji (co-writer/director Scandar Copti).  To be honest though, for the most part, that’s all I can tell plot wise from the film.  The film starts out pretty simple, but as it progresses from chapter to chapter it starts to juggle more and more minor characters and this film is nonlinear, multi-threaded film in the mold of something like Crash.  Much like the failure that is Crash, it tries to study important issues of race, class, religion, poverty, and crime in the Palestinian-Israeli experience, but honestly it draws so simply on all of those fronts that the film fails miserably by the end.  Also much like Crash, the film doesn’t focus and dig deep on it’s subject well enough to really say anything, hopefully, this film will not get nominated and become a foreign version of Crash.  We shall see.

One of the other frustrating things is this film illuminates a certain trend that has mostly died out, but this film proves it is not dead yet.  That trend is doing these broad multi-character, multi-thread nonlinear films dealing with social issues or situations.  Although, I don’t mean to demean all films that attempt this because there are ones that do similar things whether they are linear or nonlinear that really are great films.  Films such as City of God, Traffic, the works of Mexican director, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, and most recently the Italian gangster film, Gomorrah, which are precisely executed, rich, stunning and beautiful examples of where this kind of film can go right.  Some have praised Ajami comparing it to some of these films, but while these films are truly solid and almost perfectly executed and original films, Ajami plays like a bad mixture of all of them.  It plays like many of the films that were spawned from Crash including the all-too obvious titled, Crossing Over.  As the film progresses it really just gets more confusing, frustrating, muddled and overall convoluted.

To be perfectly honest, I tracked with and was liking this film for a while, but once the film tried to connect all the dots and get even more into flashbacks and what not the more the film suffered.  I would have given the film more credit for what it was trying if the structure and plotting wasn’t such a mess really though.   I gave Ajami that chance until it got wholly and dramatically absurd, including a stereotype, spoiler alert, killing off an innocent character in order to get a dramatic shock from the audience and while I would have praised a number of performances near the beginning of the film by the end, I was ready to walk out and became perturbed by the overall exercise.

So basically the film was poorly conceived exercise that confused and exacerbated this reviewer and made him honestly yearn for those other much better and brilliant films listed above.  If you are thinking of seeing of this film, please don’t and check out those other films and if you are looking for good cinema from both Israel and Palestine then check out films like The Bubble, although not an endorsement fully, because I haven’t seen it, Paradise Now, Ushpizin, and Waltz with Bashir.  Hopefully, the Academy will wise up and won’t acknowledge a film that is trying so much, but basically failing at most of what it is trying to accomplish.

Picture Source:

http://www.notes.co.il/giora/user/Ajami_poster.jpg

AFI Fest 2009 review: The Loved Ones

by Matthew Groves

Warning.  This review will be kind of unorthodox.  In every one of my film reviews I like to give a little bit of a plot summary, not too much, but just enough to allow the readers to know what the film is see if it is the kind of the film for them.  To be honest, though I can’t really do that in the conventional way this time, because I will give up major parts of the story.  Some may see that as a weakness, but for what this film does with it’s simple story overall is pretty masterful and puts most horror films made by big studios to shame.

We’ll just say this about The Loved Ones.  The story involves a prom night, an abduction, and a search as well as a survival of such abduction and it is Australian.  I think the best way to describe it is the film’s influences, which seem to be The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original, none of that other crap), The Evil Dead, Carrie, Dazed and Confused and a little bit of Deliverance mixed in.

I know what you’re thinking well, if those are its influences and you can’t talk about the plot, then is there really anything to it?  My answer is yes.  I think as a visceral horror viewing experience it really works.  Have we seen it before?  Yes, but I think even the much publicized remakes of all those above films doesn’t touch the feeling of seeing this one.  It is so damn effective at being a teen film/mixed with a quasi-slasher/quasi-torture film that honestly I have to tip my hat too it and give it credit.  And I think really was a effective at building tension and pushing the gore just before the point where it would be disgusting and unwatchable like films like Hostel.  Sure on the scale of harrowing films like Lars von Trier’s Antichrist, this film can’t even touch that film, but this one made me squirm and audibly speak to the screen and characters, which isn’t an everyday occurrence in horror films for me.  The film also has a great sense of being darkly comedic.

The visuals on shot on the RED HD camera are amazing.  The tension and mood work, the acting is stellar, and the writing and direction is pretty good for a debut and writer-director Sean Byrne doesn’t overshoot too badly.  Sure some of the teen prom night comedic stuff didn’t work as well next to the horror elements, but it was still a fun ride.  I also think while the film is over the top; I do think the villains are really menacing, even if a bit unrealistic.  I think though the entire film is a heightened reality and things work together a little too well, but as a debut horror film it is good, I think above average.  Even with it being a little derivative and having some problems, while not one of the best recent horror films I’ve seen, it is much better than the vast majority of horror films coming out of the American studio system, so I say when it comes out, check it out and I think you’ll really enjoy it for what it is.  I saw the film at a midnight showing it was kind a perfect film for that.  So know going on it that it will be intense, bloody, darkly comedic, but for my money a solid horror flick that is more for hanging out with friends for a late night movie, than a deep discussion and deconstruction.  I know this may sound contradictory in light of my review of Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench, but I think that if you aim high like that film did you deserve more scrutiny than a film that aims low like this and mostly hits the bar.

Picture Source:

http://www.dreadcentral.com/img/news/aug09/lovedones1.jpg

AFI Fest 2009 Review: “Best Worst Movie”

by Andrew Bowcock

“Bad food is bad, and bad books are bad, but bad movies are not always bad.”

-Scott Weinberg of Cinematical.

Troll 2 is one of the most prime examples of massive cinematic incompetence brought to the extreme that probably resulted in the coining of the phrase “so bad it’s good.”  Depending on who you are (and who you’re with), watching this film can be a torturous experience or a transcendent one.  If you are a B movie connoisseur (which I consider myself from time to time), Troll 2 will definitely rank up there at the top of the list for not just how poorly made it is, but also how bizarre, unintentionally hilarious, and oddly watchable it manages to be.

If you’re new to Troll 2, there are a few things to note.  First, it is not in any way related to the first Troll film.  Secondly, it’s not just a bad film, but also a film that fails so miserably at everything that it achieves a sense of ironic amazement.  Thirdly, the story is the most ludicrous thing you’re likely to ever hear of…it goes as follows:

A young boy goes on vacation with his family to a location where strange creatures are manifested from his worst nightmare.  These incredibly fake looking goblins (yes goblins…there are actually no real “trolls”) are controlled by a bizarre witch person (played by Deborah Reed) and it soon becomes apparent that the goblins want to eat people…but being that they are vegetarians, they must first convince people to eat a strange substance to turn them into plants.  Meanwhile, little Joshua is constantly being visited by the ghost of his dead grandfather to help him make it through.  Yes, you read all of that correctly.

Best Worst Movie is the premiere documentary by Michael Stephenson, who also played little Joshua in Troll 2 over 17 years ago. The film’s purpose is two-fold: partially a “where are they now?” bit with all of the principle actors, and also an exploration of the film’s late-blooming cult status.  It initially follows several strange events put on by super-fans who have created Troll 2 clubs, where they have public viewings of the film and invite people to Troll-related parties such as the “Trollympic games” and tag people who show up that have never watched the film with a V (for virgin).  Needless to say the fans of this bizarre cult film are no average fans: just like Trekkies or sports fans they have a near-unhealthy obsession with this celluloid beast.

The journey Michael Stephenson takes leads him to many places around the world (including several horror and science fiction conventions) but none so interesting as the home town of Dr. George Hardy, who played the father in the film.  If you ask anybody who knows Hardy (including his ex wife of all people) they will tell you that it’s practically impossible not to love this man.  Just from watching the successful smile-a-second dentist interact with his family and patients for even five minutes, it’s easy to get the same impression.  Hardy’s embarrassment over starring in the film was only a footnote to his life for many years, since it would only be brought up every once in a while by somebody who recognized him.  However, there came a point in his life where he decided to embrace how ludicrous the whole thing was and just have fun with it.  Hardy’s goal in life seems to be to spread joy and entertain whoever he’s around, so he becomes an increasingly important part of the story as he rallies alongside Michael, making it a point emphasize the appeal of Troll 2 as the “worst film ever made which I starred in” to the masses wherever he goes.

As Stephenson’s journey helps him try to uncover the rest of the film’s stars, he discovers eccentric and endearing people, some retired or making a living by other means while others continued a career in acting, erasing Troll 2 from their resume and hoping it doesn’t come back to haunt them.  Some of the stories are hilarious and heart-warming while others are representative of misguided dreams and unfortunate delusion (like Margo Prey, who played the mother).  However, nobody seems more delusional and blinder to the film’s shortcomings than the film’s Italian director, Claudio Fragasso, who legitimately believes he made a profound piece of art and has a hard time accepting the film as anything but.  The documentary takes a really interesting and tension-inducing turn when Claudio is flown out to face the infamous cult he unintentionally birthed.  During a public screening, Claudio misinterprets the enthusiasm of the masses, but not long before realizing that people are “laughing at parts that are meant to be serious.”  As it turns out, Fragasso still has a difficult time speaking English, and such an impediment begins to explain why the communication with and between actors (as some of the cast explains) seemed so vague during the shooting of the film.

In the end, everybody involved needs to come to a decision on whether they want to feed off the appeal of Troll 2 in order to advance a career in acting (as George Hardy seems to be genuinely tempted to do) or simply move on with their lives and let the phenomenon be as it is (the question is then begged, “will there be a Troll 3?”).

Admittedly I had more of a slight curiosity about seeing this documentary than a burning desire, but man I am glad I made the choice to check it out.  The more the film progressed and showed a diverse representation of who was involved in this film’s inglorious conception I felt like I was part of every situation, and thus invested myself in every laugh to be had, feeling the awkwardness and despair of fallen dreams as well as embarrassment and pity for the delusions of grandeur.  From a technical standpoint it can be argued that this film doesn’t do anything entirely new (and I’ve heard a critic describe it as “too episodic”), but when you have such an amazing story as this none of that really matters.  However, I must say that I was impressed in finding out from the cast/crew Q&A session after the screening that the editors (Katie Graham and Andrew Matthews) had never edited a film before, but were just massive Troll 2 fans that wanted to be involved somehow (talk about random ambition!)

Not only is this probably my favorite film of the year so far, but all in all this is now probably one of my favorite documentaries; definitely one of the best to come out in the past several years…up there with The King of Kong (which tonally it’s very similar to) and Dear Zachary.  If you get the chance…you NEED to see this film.  It is powerful and entertaining enough to make you want to watch “the worst movie ever made.”

___________________________________________________________________________

photo sources:

http://geektyrant.com/
http://www.slashfilm.com/
http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/
http://www.fearnet.com/
http://flixster.com/
http://www.cinematical.com/

other resources:

http://www.imdb.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/
http://blog.spout.com/2009/03/23/best-worst-movie-sxsw-2009-review/

AFI Fest 2009 review: Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench

by Matthew Groves

There are some films that attempt so much and while doing many things write can sometimes be only partially successful in their goals.  One such film is the indie musical, Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench.

With an engaging and masterful score, this film is about Guy (Jason Palmer) and a girl he’s in a relationship with Madeline (Desiree Garcia), a relationship that ends in the opening credits.  Guy then jumps quickly to another relationship with Elena (Sandha Khin).  The rest of the story through jazz, dance, and random bursts of singing tell the story of Guy and Madeline and where they go relationally in their lives.  Guy being looser, carefree, and less serious about relationships and more wrapped up in music, whereas Madeline is more focused on having a lasting connection with men.

Shot in black and white and in a number of close-ups with random bursts of music and song, this is special and interesting exercise in a non-traditional musical, but by no means, is this 100% original.  Particularly the cinematic ghosts of Jacques Demy, John Cassavetes, and Jean-Luc Godard are alive and well in the film.  At Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench’s best moments it seems to really be alive and drive by really fun spontaneous action.  Yet more often then not these ghosts also haunt this piece that is so indebted to those cinematic geniuses from before that it comes off merely as style more than something substantively new and interesting and it’s kind of stale.  When you see films like Cassavetes’ Faces or Godard’s A Woman Is A Woman, this seems wholly apparent and almost looks like a carbon copy with a more modern Boston rather than Los Angeles or Paris being the backdrop.

It’s shame because honestly for the moments the actors get, they really try to make something of this story, but whereas Faces or A Woman Is A Woman had a dramatic or emotional thread to lock onto, Guy and Madeleine is kind of just meanders never strikes the match and does something more than films that have come before. I hate to play the what-if game with this one, but it could have been a really interesting study of cross cultural relationships in the Millenial Age with a jazz cultural background for its backdrop, but it kind hopes to be that and never fully accomplishes it.  Despite it’s shortcomings though the film still is trying something interesting and worth a watch even if it doesn’t go too deep or as far as it could and built upon its influences.  If you love jazz and musicals it is a great watch, but it would have been nice if the filmmaker, Damien Chazzelle had decided to take it in a new direction whereas he kind of just hits the mark and nothing more.

Picture Source:

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1730317056/tt1337193

AFI Fest 2009 review: The Two Horses of Genghis Khan

by Matthew Groves

In my first film of the festival, I saw Byambasuren Davaa’s documentary, The Two Horses of Genghis Khan.  This film tells the story of a singer, Urna Chahar-Tugchi as she goes on a journey throughout region in her native land of Mongolia, known as Outer Mongolia.  This journey originates from a promise she made to her dying grandmother, that she would restore her grandmother’s violin and be able to sing and the violin would play the folk song, The Two Horses of Genghis Khan, which the violin only has a partial inscription of on the neck of the violin, only remaining original part left.  As she goes on this journey she meets a whole cast of real life characters, but it is a hard journey because the song over time has been obscured and because of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the song is almost, but entirely lost.  As the film unfolds it not only becomes a film about the power, beauty, and restoration of art and history, but also a deeply moving artistic document of one woman’s journey.

One of the most fascinating and genuinely brilliant marks of this film is Davaa’s approach to this documentary.  Much like the documentaries of German auteur, Werner Herzog, Davaa seems to be mixing and matching both conventional documentary and narrative structures in this film.  It is kind of ironic, because so many films are trying to make naturalistic narratives in the style of a documentary, but this film uncannily is doing the opposite and that makes the film all the more engaging.

What is also immensely fascinating is how Davaa veers off from her subject to find genuine moments in the lives of Mongolians both urban and rural and will just let a scene or two playing out as we follow their everyday process.  The visuals as more than most nonfiction films is absolutely stirring and mesmerizing, lulling us into a kind of dream-like beauty that left the viewer begging for more.  I say as well don’t be scared off by the subject, I know the idea of seeing a film about a Mongolian singer looking for the words to an old song, that might sound a bit taxing, but really it’s quite relaxing and highly enjoyable.  The film does take its time and the viewer will have to show some patience, but I think in the end it really pays off, so much so I personally would have love for another half hour and be in that world long term.  I think that if a film does that then it has accomplished its goal especially if it is a nonfiction film.  This film renews my love of the art of documentary film even more and to be honest, I’m surprised to say this first film in the festival for me now counts as one of my favorites of the year.  I hope that this film will get a wider audience when hopefully it will be nominated for a foreign language documentary Oscar, which there is a chance because she was nominated for her first documentary, The Story of the Weeping Camel.

It truly is a shame that most Americans won’t get to see this beautiful portrait of this journey throughout Outer Mongolia, but you can find other Byambasuren Davaa films via Netflix and her first two films, the aforementioned Oscar nominee and The Cave of the Yellow Dog are also are Netflix Watch Instantly.  I personally haven’t seen those films, but after seeing this wonderful film, I will most definitely be checking those out.  So in conclusion, I say write this one down and look for it at your local independent theater or on DVD.

Picture Source:

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3439629312/tt1309385

Coming This Week: AFI Fest 2009 Coverage

by Matthew Groves

The AFI Fest as of last night has officially started.  What is the AFI Fest exactly though?  The AFI Fest is a film festival that plays in Los Angeles every late October, early November and features a variety of films in independent, arthouse, documentary, and other world cinema.  I have glad been to the festival the last two years prior, although the first year, I was only financially able to see one film and the next only about six.  One of the great and exciting this about this year though is that the festival is doing something wholly different from most others.  Besides the patron passes which can get into a lot of the exclusive films, the entire festival has been presented by the American Film Institute for free.  Yes, FREE.  With this being the case, the pre-sale of tickets sold out within 24-48 hours of the window opening online, but if you are a brave and determined cinephile, you can try to rush line, get in a line an hour before the film, and there are bound to be people who don’t show up for particular screenings.

While I didn’t get all of the films I wanted to see, I am excited about the festival and the six films I did get tickets for.  I am overjoyed because mostly I have heard a few small things, like a film being a foreign language Oscar entry or it being popular and talked about at a particular festival, so for the most parts the films I chose are kind of on a whim.  My colleagues, Andrew Bowcock and a new contributor and talented critic, Nate Bell will be writing about films all this week.  Most of them will be small and obscure, but we are also hoping to get into some of the bigger ones like Werner Herzog’s Bad Lieutenant: Port of New Orleans, Marco Bellocchio’s Vincere, Michael Haneke’s The White Ribbon, and Andrea Arnold’s Fish Tank.  There is possibility we may not get into any of those films, but we are going to try and even if we don’t we’ll have plenty write about for you all to read about as well.  So I hope you enjoy our coverage and if the films sound interesting, write them down and check them out in theaters or if they don’t come to your area, look for them on Netflix, Blockbuster online, Redbox, etc.

For more information check out:

http://afi.com/afifest

Picture Source:

http://blog.afi.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/AFIFEST09_Webbanner_300×275.jpg