Change Your Image
flat6
Reviews
Knjiga rekorda Sutke (2005)
this is beyond the Roma people, this is humanity encapsulated in 78 minutes
This one defies description. I can tell you it's a documentary on the Roma people, but think of it more as a series of sketches by real-life Borats. Yet, don't be misled into thinking it's some forced slapstick. It's utterly real, which makes it even more absurd and hilarious than Borat, while also giving it this intense humanity, a poignant warmth. It's one of the most disarming looks at human nature I've ever seen, exposing our frivolity and delusions without being mean, condescending or condemning.
For what it is - a partial look at the Roma community, focusing on their lovable quirks more than their faults - this movie succeeds brilliantly. Would recommend it unqualifiedly, without reservation.
Hiroshima mon amour (1959)
So inadequate it's offensive
This movie offended me. Not because I didn't enjoy it (and I didn't, by the way... I found its love story tedious and pretentious; but that's a separate, insignificant matter). No, I found it offensive because I can't stand it when movies use atrocities as their playbox, as impressive backdrops left unexplored. Splicing newsreels of Hiroshima's devastation into a love story is a disservice to those who were devastated by this tragedy, in my opinion. I gives me the same feeling as Hotel Rwanda did: the complete failure of trying to explain/comprehend a human tragedy of epochal proportions by focusing on the individual story of a couple/family. This kind of approach is so open to interpretation, so light and inadequate, that it just falls flat on its face, in my opinion.
Obviously, if you enjoyed it, good for you, but for my taste, whenever I see photos/newsreel footage of stuff like the Holocaust or Rwanda or Hiroshima, I want the movie to focus only on that, with the seriousness and dryness of a documentary. Cutting to a love story is to me a complete let-down, no matter how tragic or pensive that one love story may be. So in my opinion, Alain Resnais, the director of this movie, got it right four years earlier with his 1955 "Nuit et brouillard" (Night and Fog), which looks at concentration camps not through a love story, but through a strikingly direct and blunt documentary.
I understand and appreciate that people get other things from "Hiroshima mon amour": contemplations on love, forgiveness, forgetfulness, etc. But please, use some other setting as a backdrop for these contemplations. Because whether the filmmakers intended this or not, the viewer's mind inevitably compares the tragedy of the lovers' affairs with the tragedy of Hiroshima. And that's just such a lopsided comparison that even the slightest insinuation of it is completely distasteful.
The Departed (2006)
a competent remake
This is more of a original-vs.-remake review, so you may not get much out of my words if you haven't seen the original. Anyway, having already watched "Infernal Affairs", I was pleased to realize Hollywood didn't completely muck it up with "The Daparted" remake. Here's a brief comparison, bluntly delineated for brevity's sake.
Parts where "Infernal Affairs" is better:
- Shorter. Although "The Departed" doesn't noticeably lag, the difference in pacing and intensity between a 100 minute and a 150 minute movie is huge.
- The two lead actors are better than DiCaprio and Damon. That's a big claim, since the two American actors put in excellent performances, but the original's portrayals are that much more powerful. DiCaprio's Hong Kong equivalent in particular (Tony Leung) does a far more nuanced fall into the hopelessness and depression of an endangered undercover agent.
- Much more realistic about undercover communication. There's this wonderful Morse-code scene that's far more clever and believable than I'm-behind-a-corner-typing-text- messages.
- Jack Nicholson is over-the-top-Jack, and while that's entertaining, it's noticeably inferior to the original's evil crime boss.
Parts where "The Departed" is excellent:
- Marky Mark's cursing role that's so lovably a**holish.
- Alec Baldwin's lightning-quick streaks of witty profanity. The script's dialogue really does have some brilliantly funny and clever lines, so you walk away from the movie feeling you've just seen an intelligent brand of violence.
- The fact that people get beat when they need to; any time I thought 'that guy's acting like he deserves a beating', he promptly got a pummeling the movie really flows.
- The great choice of music, played at the appropriate times. Rolling Stones, and 50's pop played to sardonic effect how can you go wrong?
- The move to Boston adds a social commentary perspective that the original doesn't have. Granted, the original didn't suffer from its focus, but the remake's adding of a more complex setting adds an enjoyable layer.
- The complex storyline isn't dumbed down, and that really impressed me, as I was left thinking 'the filmmakers must have some real confidence in the American public'. Sadly, having read some of the more negative reviews around here, it's apparent some people had some real problems following the movie's plot. Rest assured it's your own failure, not the movie's.
Parts where "The Departed" plainly sucked:
- What's with the useless FBI side-plot? It contributes absolutely nothing.
- The ending's final death. Cleaning up after itself like American movies tend to, it leaves none of the bitter complexity of the original. Having a guilty man walk around with his guilt, while a good man lays unavenged, is a more multifaceted than the tacky "bad guy dies" of the American remake.
Overall, "The Departed" is still a wonderful movie, and different enough from "Infernal Affairs" to be its own movie worth watching.
Who Killed the Electric Car? (2006)
No conspiracy theories! They made it rational!
After you see enough of these kinds of documentaries, you become aware that every time you walk into the theater to watch one, you're potentially exposing yourself to 2 hours of muddled conspiracy-laced rantings. After all, look at all the potential battle cries: Big oil! Evil corporations! Government! When dealing with a complex situation like the failure of electric vehicles, it's all too easy for the filmmakers to become absorbed with one particular facet of the problem. Or throw them all at the audience haphazardly, letting someone else put together the pieces. I've (embarrassedly) watched it happen to other films, over and over; it's lead to the downfall of many a documentary.
I'm happy to say this movie doesn't do that. Don't be put off by the sentimental start (funeral procession for the 'dead' electric cars), because "Who Killed the Electric Car?" soon hits its stride. With labeled chapter-like segments, it's wonderfully well-organized; potential 'suspects' everyone from big oil to inefficient batteries to morose consumers are clearly identified, their blame weighed, and then judged for their role in the failure of the electric car. Really, that's all I wanted my review to clearly get across: this is a logical, competent documentary that avoids all the conspiracy-theory pitfalls.
It loses one star, down to 9/10, for what I felt were overly emotional segments at the very beginning and end of the movie. That is, while I appreciate that these owners really loved their electric cars, less footage is needed to convey that; it needed less interviews with the owners, and more interviews with the scientists, the policy-makers and the car company managers. But that's a minor quibble. Overall, it's an excellent documentary, showing the interlinked intricacies that prevent us from solving our oil-dependency. The picture it paints is neither optimistic nor easily-digestible, but it's honest. And in the end, that's all I want out of a documentary.
Why We Fight (2005)
Splintered
"Why We Fight" is about America's involvement in recent wars. While the scope of this documentary aims for a broad view of all of the (many) conflicts of past 50 or so years, the focus does fall upon the most recent Iraq war.
The reader will want to know what this 6/10 review is doing amidst all these gushing 10/10's. Am I delusional? Do I really believe the US has selflessly acted in all these wars, bringing happiness and freedom to {insert indigenous population here}? No, I'm certainly not that naive. The most recent Iraq conflict was a botched, misguided effort; as, arguably, most of America's post-WWII involvements have also been. Thus, the obvious question becomes: why does America keep getting involved in these things? This is what "Why We Fight" tries to answer.
The problem with this documentary is that there is no compelling, cohesive answer that is given. We hear from a vast collection of people, all with varied theories on why we're involved. The viewpoints presented are on everything from God-given-mandate-to-spread-freedom, to imperialist-ambitions-to-single-handedly-rule-the-world, to capitalist-corporate-greed-lobbying, to unaccountable-think-tank-policies, to we-need-the-oil, to defense-industry-creates-jobs, to manipulation-of-media-and-public, etc., etc.. Feel lost yet? Well, that's what this documentary is like: disappointingly lost. It raises many individual points - each of which could, if further explored, arguably be valid and interesting - but quickly leaves a point to go on a completely separate tangent.
After its 100 minutes are up, the film leaves you with these little disconnected ideas, each presented through teasing but none-too-conclusive sound bites. You'll walk away with a vague suspicion that something is indeed amiss in America's reasoning for waging war. But of course, any thinking citizen probably had that suspicion to begin with; the job of this documentary was to clarify, present a clear logical explanation to answer our suspicions. It fails to do this. That's unfortunate, since the question of "Why We Fight" is very valid, and very important; someone should make a solid documentary answering it. While this movie does a better, more responsible job than Fahrenheit 9/11 at exploring the issues, it still comes up way, way short.
Hotel Rwanda (2004)
Too grave a topic to deal with in such a manner
This is a 'negative review', and I'm having a hard time explaining why I'm dissatisfied with this movie. I'll do my best. First off, it is a noble effort the fact that this movie covers this topic of the Rwandan genocide, attempting to bring it a wide audience, is something to be commended. In the contemporary clutter of brainless, feel-good movies, anything that tries to be somewhat responsible and serious is to be commended for effort alone. But dealing with a topic of this magnitude is a double edged sword: the movie has a responsibility to making the viewer feel 1 million dead.
Unfortunately, it doesn't manage to escape the formulaic Hollywood feel-good story of the hero who wins out in the end. This typical treatment may be fine for other topics, but Rwanda was a real genocide, and this tragedy should not be treated as the playground of 'based on a true story' movies.
When there are 1 million people being butchered, I don't want to see the main character hugging his wife, telling the audience how much his family means to him. I don't want to see the obviously sanitized gruesomeness that won't revolt the typical movie-goer. And please, I don't want to see the many, many cheap and improbable just-in-time rescues. Not here. That's too easy.
I can see that in every other popcorn flick concerning concocted disasters befalling some typical hero. (This type of treatment has been cheapened by its predecessors, and it no longer genuinely reaches the audience - or at least this member of the audience.) Something truly original was needed here, a delicate mix between the irrationality and inhumanity of the conflict. Instead, it let just a little bit of Hollywood formula creep in, and for Rwanda, that is unacceptable. Despite its excellent attempt, the movie fails.
Perhaps not surprisingly. This movie sets a huge expectation for itself by dealing with such a gruesome, REAL event. How do you condense into 2 hours something that no one can even begin to grasp, understand, explain? But the difficulty of its task still doesn't rescue this movie, because effort marks can only go so far. Even the slightest bit of over dramatization and the show cheapens the lovely tale of the hotel manager falls apart, and the figure of 1 million dead reappears. It turns Hotel Rwanda from an attempt to make one understand and appreciate this bit of history
into a gimmicky, easy-to-swallow portrayal of the genocide of 1 million people. Hotel Rwanda isn't gimmicky, nor easy-to-swallow, by any USUAL set of standards, but just dealing with the Rwandan genocide raises the standard to an impossible level. Not surprisingly, the movie can't reach those impossible standards; I don't know that anything this side of an excellent documentary can.
Primer (2004)
Beautifully Flawed
Here's the gist of it: as another review has said, 'the script is riddled with problems, about 60% of the movie is out of focus, the audio is muffled and garbled, and continuity problems abound'. All these things are true. Yet despite all appearances, this does not amount to a bad movie. It just makes Primer a exquisitely different movie, and furthermore, a movie that works.
The reason to love it is that it's utterly defiant of the expectations of the traditional movie experience. It can't resort to a beautiful cast, shiny special effects, gorgeous scenery. Indeed, the cast is wooden in its acting, which turns out to work because that's how normal scientists and engineers (and people in general) are, flawed communicators. The settings are drab, out of focus, rushed and cheap, which turns out to work because that's what being efficient with your resources means for an inventor. It doesn't matter if the makers of Primer were forced into this style by their budget (as opposed to consciously 'pulling off' this look and feel). All that matters is that in the end, it turns out to work beautifully with the plot and the story.
What this means is that it has nothing to go on except its wits. And wits it does have. This is not to say that it's coherent
you will be confused by the fact that the plot doesn't nicely clean up after itself. There is no nice take-home message, no all-knowing schemework. But it is an intellectually respectable, honest attempt at dealing with the paradoxes of time travel. I've never seen any major flick that throws up its hands in the complexity of it all and just admits there's only so far you can look into things most movies you'll see gloss over the issues with some bad science, or worse, simply don't ask the questions.
It's entertainment that's intellectually honest and respectable, and that's a tremendously rare thing.
9/10