Where The Memories Never Change (2046 review)

2046
*****

As most of you who know me or have any idea of what kinds of films I enjoy the most, then it would be no surprise that I hate non-linear storytelling. I hate it for being a convention from the art movement, which of all films there is nothing more worthless than art films. They really should take the word “art” away from it, but enough about that topic. The fact is that I’m beginning to change my belief about non-linear storytelling. Funny thing is that I thought I would have to wait for The Tree of Life, which I have mixed feelings for, yet high hopes. I didn’t have a clue about 2046, and perhaps that allowed me to watch it without hesitation. A TA from one of my film classes recommended us to look at Wong Kar Wai’s pictures, if anything to study the mice-en-scene in his films. Before popping in the DVD on my Playstation 3, I only knew to expect a visual treat of color.

As the film progressed, almost from the very beginning I was more than blown away. Wong Kar Wai understands color and works it together with light to create a visual feast that easily transfixes the viewer on a world that’s his, yet completely strange. 2046 is not only a complex story told in jumps, and parallel situations. It has one consistent character, Chow Mo-wan (Tony Leung Chiu Wai), a journalist. Then it has three women that play the a similar role in his life. The film is told in different times, always skipping a year to the same date, December 24. There is also 2046, which is not just a number in the hotel room or a motif, but a train where memories never change. Further from this, the film is extremely hard to explain, and partly because I myself with just one-time-view do not fully understand it.

In the past if I didn’t understand a film, I discarded it immediately as one of the worst movies ever seen. In a medium where the most important factor is the audience, ambiguity should not play a role. Still, 2046, left such a lasting impression, not only with it’s clever use of light and color where one looses oneself in what feels like a beautiful-one-time-dream, but also thanks to the believable, gripping, yet comic performances of the actors. I loved the characters created by the Hong Kong based director. Specially that of one of the lovers, a prostitute by the name of Bai Ling (Ziyi Zhang). This character is charming beyond belief, and has a fragile nature to her. Perfect, casting Ziyi Zhang with that girly face, yet beautiful figure that exudes sexuality.

One thing is for certain, this film is not a one-timer. I have no intention of merely seeing it and forgetting about it. This film is one I need to watch more and more to keep understanding. This film is the exception in my book. Scenes in the film with the beautiful framing, and interesting mice-en-scene are pure eye candy for movie lovers who understand more than just a good story, but the art that film is. I highly recommend 2046. It’s not a film to completely understand, but one to appreciate for it’s unmatched beauty, and effectiveness on the human soul. A good film is one that can make one feel something not otherwise felt. Something one would not feel unless placed in the place of the characters. Wong Kar Wai’s 2046 does that and more.

Portrait of an Alcoholic (The Lost Weekend review)

The Lost Weekend
*****

Next to Casablanca (1943), The Lost Weekend is the second oldest movie I have ever seen. At least as far as I can remember. Seeing Casablanca several months ago if anything was an experience opposite of what it was meant to be. I found it to be, even  with it’s status as one of the best, to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Acting in my opinion is the best thing to look for in a movie. If the film has bad acting in it, than surely it’s not a good movie overall. Casablanca has plenty of acting that anyone could do because it’s not acting at all, but a mere delivery of bad lines. That experience alone made me never want to look back past 1980 in film history. I was very reluctant this summer to compose a list of older movies, and even more skeptical to start the list with a movie from 1945. Could all classical movies be swarmed with the Casablanca ill-acting? I was about to find out.

I picked The Lost Weekend at random from the book The Academy Awards: The Complete Unofficial History by Jim Piazza and Gail Kinn, a book I consider to be my bible. I simply opened a page at random and by luck it was on the year 1945 where The  Lost Weekend, a winner of four Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Director,  grabbed my attention. The film won Billy Wilder an Oscar for Best Director, and Ray Milland for Best Performance By An Actor In A Leading Role. With all fours Oscars rightfully deserved, the film is a character study of a man in grip of alcohol.

The film spans a weekend on the life of Don Birnam (Ray Milland), an alcoholic. It is wonderful to see such great character development so far back in movie time. Don Birnam is a weak man, always going back for another drink.

The film opens with Wick (Phillip Terry), Don’s brother, and Don (Ray Milland) packing and readying themselves to go out of town for the weekend. As soon as Wick leaves sight of Don, we see Don grab a bottle of rye whisky hanging from the window by a string. As comical as it may seem, this simple act proves the characters eagerness and anxiety to have a drink. Don wants a drink and nothing else, so desperate he finds ingenious ways to hide alcohol.

Don is also in love with Helen St. James (Jane Wyman), but this is all under whelmed by his constant drinking.  She is madly in love with him and shows undying determination to help Don. She puts up with him and his constant absence. She, I guess could be said is somewhat blindly in love with him. Of anyone she is the only one who sees talent and ambition in Don, something barely there, clouded by the fog of alcohol on which Don’s life revolves around.

We see Don through the course of four days. He drinks almost all day everyday, and we see him visit Nat’s Bar daily. Owned by Nat (Howard Da Silva) a man who might be his only friend outside his own brother Wick and love Helen. Some would argue; what kind of friend hands shot after shot to an alcoholic at the brink of perdition? I still felt that Nat in his own way did more for Don than anyone. A drunk wants to be listened to and Nat did that more than anyone else. At one point, even if momentarily, Nat encourages Don to finally write a novel he’s been meaning to write about his own life and love with Helen. A novel that is nothing more than an autobiography and appropriately titled “The Bottle”.

Don starts out eager to get a hold of a drink after drink, but soon it becomes the other way around, the drinking clearly is the one taking a hold of him. Don becomes so lost in the rye whisky that at one instance he hides a bottle of it, and later can’t remember for the life of him where he placed it. At a restaurant/bar he goes to such extreme as to steal from a young woman just to afford another drink. In his worst Don imagines a bat eating a rat coming out of a whole in the wall that was never there. We see a man loose almost everyone, the few who genuinely cared about him, and himself.

The Lost Weekend is a beautiful portrait of a man lost in addiction. The film is equally well acted by the entire cast. It is too brilliantly directed by Billy Wilder, and is edited in the classical continuity style, a staple of cinema I intent to incorporate in ninety percent of my films. The cinematography contains such exquisite details like the circles of water left by the perspiration of a shot glass on the wooden bar. A detail that cleverly allows us to get the magnitude of how much alcohol Don has consumed. This film as old as it may be, and with it’s lack in rawness such as profanity, sex, and even violence manages to capture an extremely accurate portrait of what it’s like to be an alcoholic. The Lost Weekend is a film that will surely grace the high end of my list of Best Films I Have Ever Seen, and remain there without a doubt.

Big Actors, Big Guns, and The One That Tripped (RED review)

RED
***

I knew before going in to see this film that RED was going to be a film of zero depth. It was, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. One reason is all the legendary actors that managed to be involved in this. I mean in my opinion, Helen Mirren would have been enough reason to see this film. Directed by little known director (to me) Robert Schwentke, the film falls a bit short, but it’s not a deal breaker.

RED is about a group of retired black-ops who suddenly become a target, and they must get back the old team to fight the attack. It’s an entertaining film, specially because all the actors play the parts well. They are all legends in their own right, and to see them in something far from their comfort zone, at least for most, was a blast. Such cast includes Morgan Freeman, Helen Mirren, Bruce Willis, John Malkovich, and Mary-Louise Parker.

There are not many things that stand out completely about the film, but it is at times like a sightseeing tour. For example, I don’t think it gets anymore badass than to see Helen Mirren with a machine gun, seriously she is perfect for anything. Also I loved John Malkovich as the crazy man, who is not entirely nuts either. In one particular scene he grabs a woman coming out of a store, puts a gun to her head, and simply justifies it by saying “she smells like government”. Such a funny scene in the film. John Malkovich can certainly play the wacky old man. Another wonderful thing that just about made this film worth seeing was that the second half of the film would not have happened if one of the characters hadn’t tripped. Have you ever seen that in an action sequence, a character trip and then get caught? Well it happens here and it drives the second half of the narrative. It’s great, that made me laugh so much.

RED is not a serious film, so don’t be fooled by the pedigree in the cast. This is a fun, funny, and unique action movie. I would recommend you to rent it, if anything to see Academy Award winning actors embody action roles that are unlikely of them to do so. Who says old people can’t have fun? They certainly did in this picture. 

"What Does It Mean To Be A Jew?" (Munich review)

Munich

* * * *

After reading an article on Steven Spielberg, shortly afterwards I arrived at the conclusion that the man is a genius. While I have seen most of his films (who hasn‘t?), the article mentioned two of his exceptions from his traditional narrative structure. The first was Empire of The Sun, and the second one was the much more modern Munich. I was aware of Munich’s Oscar nomination for Best Picture of 2006, but I had never tried to watch the film. On spring break at a friend’s house I was asked if I would be willing to watch Munich, sometime down the week, and I gladly seized the opportunity to watch one of Spielberg’s exception.

I knew nothing about the film aside from the several Oscar nominations it had received. I didn’t even know the name of the actors starring in it, because for some strange reason I thought Tom Cruise would be in it. He wasn’t, instead Eric Bana plays the leading character, and does so very well.

The film starts with the Black September murders at the 1972 Munich Olympics, an event I was unaware about, but which my friends who are much older than me, remembered clearly. As true Spielberg fashion he opens the film very effectively, I really don’t know any other director in the business who can hook you into the world of the film as strongly as Spielberg does. Perhaps that is one of the paramount keys to the huge success of his films.

The film moves from those events and onto a group of five strangers who are being hired by prime minister Golda Meir to participate in a black box operation to track down and kill those responsible. Together, Avner (Eric Bana), Steve (Daniel Craig), Carl (Ciaran Hinds), Robert (Mathieu Kassovitz), and Hans (Hanns Zischler) must design master plans to kill the target without leaving any tracks that might incriminate them. They move from target to target, but as they make their way down the list, not only do the names keep increasing, but also the things that go wrong.

I don’t want to give much away of the film, that is not what reviews should be about, but merely would like to say that Munich at times is a very intense film. A particular scene in which a bomb explodes next to the room of the protagonist, and a couple’s room blew me away. The graphic images of the aftermath of a bomb put me in a state of disbelief and shock. It seemed to real to bear.

Not only does the film have masterful editing, but it’s production value is through the roof, which of course is still typical of a Steven Spielberg movie. I wouldn’t necessarily classify this film as an action film, because it is too realistic to be. A spy thriller is, too, inaccurate for that falls under the genre of action as well. This is a historical portrait, for it lets one in on something that really did happen. Of the actors in the film are too good looking to be real, but the rest of the film seems very little dramatized, the situations depicted couldn’t have been rendered any other way then their true form.

I recommend this film to anyone, even as graphic as it may be, it’s an important film about something that happened in our recent history. I see why it’s an exception in Spielberg’s repertoire, but still is a great movie. Now some of you might wonder why this review lacks the perfect fifth star, and that’s simply because the movie is too long, and as wonderful as it is, I did wonder off to what time it was. If only it was condensed a half our from it’s three hours. Still, find the time to watch this movie, and see for yourself this masterpiece by Steven Spielberg.

"What Does It Mean To Be A Jew?" (Munich review)

Munich

* * * *

 
I don’t want to give much away of the film, that is not what reviews should be about, but merely would like to say that Munich at times is a very intense film. A particular scene in which a bomb explodes next to the room of the protagonist, and a couple’s room blew me away. The graphic images of the aftermath of a bomb put me in a state of disbelief and shock. It seemed to real to bear. Ciarán Hinds), Robert (Mathieu Kassovitz), and Hans (Hanns Zischler) must design master plans to kill the target without leaving any tracks that might incriminate them. They move from target to target, but as they make their way down the list, not only do the names keep increasing, but also the things that go wrong. After reading an article on Steven Spielberg, shortly afterwards I arrived at the conclusion that the man is a genius. While I have seen most of his films (who hasn‘t?), the article mentioned two of his exceptions from his traditional narrative structure. The first was Empire of The Sun, and the second one was the much more modern Munich. I was aware of Munich’s Oscar nomination for Best Picture of 2006, but I had never tried to watch the film. On spring break at a friend’s house I was asked if I would be willing to watch Munich, sometime down the week, and I gladly seized the opportunity to watch one of Spielberg’s exception.

Damn Mist I Can't See How Fake The Monsters Look (The Mist review)

The Mist

Though substantial time has passed since I watched The Mist, I feel it is for the better. Up to this point my reviews have been posted almost immediately after watching the movie, but I feel that it’s probably best to wait a couple of weeks. The point being that in waiting some time, if the movie has still stayed with me, then it must be a good movie, and therefore worthy of a star more or less.

The Mist is the story of David Drayton (Thomas Jane), and the supernatural events that occur in a small town, and possibly the whole world. After a brutal storm, David heads to the supermarket with his son Billy, and his unfriendly neighbor Brent, whose car has been smashed by the storm. While at the supermarket a mist rolls in, and a hysterical civilian runs into the supermarket screaming “something in the mist, there is something in the mist”. Oh, boy what could it be, perhaps a parade? No, there are monsters in the mist, huge one’s with massive tentacles.

As the people in the supermarket fear to venture out into the supermarket, they become trapped and the fear starts setting in. Maybe if there was no mist? Hmmm. Well there is and they can’t see shit out there so they soon learn that they are screwed if they walk out of the supermarket. As paranoia sets in among those trapped, Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden) is determined to save as many as she can for she is convinced that a lot of mist means judgment day. Don’t you love religious people? Well she is not just religious but soon enough is also crazy, same thing as religious I suppose, and at one point even suggest that they sacrifice the kid, Billy.

The film has a lot of promise, and could have been more frightening if only the special effects were better or if they hadn’t show the damn monsters. As soon as the first tentacle appears, one realizes that this is nothing more than just a silly movie trying to scare us with cheap special effects. They are terrible, and almost contradict the whole purpose of the mist. I mean if there is a damn mist, and the movie is called “The Mist”, than shouldn’t that be the centerpiece of fear in the movie? Doesn’t it make sense that the point of a mist being scary is that one can’t see anything? That would have made the movie a lot better and I would have given it another star.

The performances are not spectacular and the one that cold have been falls short. Harden as Mrs. Carmody, just wasn’t quite right. First of all the character was very one-dimensional. No one in their right mind or not would have reacting like that almost immediately. Not even the craziest person would have acted so calm and cool about what was happening outside the glass walls of that supermarket. Harden is a great actress, but even her amazing acting skills couldn’t save this movie.

I think the reason why I didn’t give this movie two stars instead of three is the ending. All I can say is that I didn’t expect it at all, well at some point almost none at all, I kind of thought about it, but still refused to believe it would end in such a bleak way. The ending is what did it for me in this movie. I loved the ending. Once you see it you’ll know why, for I love bleak ending like that. Still this movie is lots of fun, and there is a decent amount of gore for you blood lovers out there. Still don’t expect it to be the greatest horror movie you have ever seen, or the best Stephen King adaptation either.

Directed by Frank Darabont (The Shawshank Redemption)

* * *