I had not looked up any background on this movie before watching, except that there were non-actors. When Swankie made her amazing, moving speech about the swallows, my immediate thought was, if she's an actress, she is way better than Frances McDormand. I could watch that speech over and over, it is so beautiful and mesmerizing how she does it. I don't understand the rave reviews about McDormand in this case. Whereas all the real nomads maintained this cheerfulness and positivity about them, and had such nuance in their expressions, the two actors, McDormand and Strathairn tried too hard to be wooden and expressionless, as though that is what "real" (or poor) people are like. I don't think McDormand really dug into a background for her character at all. It might be dulling to live in a remote mining town; but choosing to be a nomad also takes some spark of character and determination, which we see in the real nomads. The movie was so fascinating to watch in the first part when we met all of the nomads and see their way of life. Then it goes downhill after that when it mostly is the actors, who look like they're acting. I applaud McDormand for recruiting Zhao to do this movie. I wish she had tried to reflect the mindsets of the other nomads more. The real people and landscapes are wonderfully shot by Richards. Worth seeing. I hope Zhao does not get corrupted by Hollywood and will go back to her indie way of shooting.
Reviews
14 Reviews
Nomadland
(2020)
Chloe Zhao gets better performances from real people than from Hollywood actors
28 February 2021
Blade Runner 2049
(2017)
Nothing but gratuitous visuals, naked women, no story, and nothing new
9 October 2017
Did Ridley Scott really approve this film??
The 1982 film was visionary in creation of a futuristic world, how Earth cultures have mixed, how people live in a dystopian city, and every design element had meaning, was rooted in some concept. The original film already treated the question of whether androids have rights as sentient beings, and whether a manufactured being is capable of love.
I fail to see what this 2017 film adds, while being incredibly loose and contradictory in the story telling (if you can call it that). Maybe the director should stick to music videos for meaningless gratuitous visuals: random elements for visual effect with no utility or explanation; naked women; character responses that contradict motivations and sentiments implied in earlier scenes; naked women; sets and technological elements that have zero function except to "look cool"; naked women; long, ponderous scenes and unnecessary fist-fights whose outcome you already knew 2 minutes ago, meaning it's time to cut! I found it tiresome how good-looking and fashionable every single extra was -- in such a nasty, dead world, they sure have plenty of time for make-up, hair, and slick get-ups.
I love science fiction and am perfectly willing to suspend disbelief, if the writer or filmmaker creates at least a self-consistent world that is plausible given the key premise. This world is half- baked without much time spent on fleshing out at least a little backstory for each scene design and character. Thin, thin, thin. If you want to explore the idea of androids rebelling, watch the 1990's version of Battlestar Galactica, which has the political economy, military science, and existential questions actually thought through.
2 instead of 1 because the HD is very fine on an IMAX screen, but the rest of the movie is a confused, tiresome, meaningless, self-indulgent, woman-objectifying, annoying, male box office marketing scheme.
I don't get the rave reviews. Maybe people are comparing this to comic book hero movies, rather than to the ideas of Philip K. Dick and what the first movie accomplished. Well, if the standard is comic book blockbusters, fine (actually, plenty of comic book blockbusters at least have a coherent story and character development), but this movie does not deserve comparison to the original. I'm flummoxed that Ridley Scott allowed this mess to be produced under his name. Shame on him and Denis Villeneuve for making this film. Now that Harvey Weinstein has been exposed, given the objectification of women in this film, I'm wondering if we will soon be seeing more men in the business being outed, such as...
The 1982 film was visionary in creation of a futuristic world, how Earth cultures have mixed, how people live in a dystopian city, and every design element had meaning, was rooted in some concept. The original film already treated the question of whether androids have rights as sentient beings, and whether a manufactured being is capable of love.
I fail to see what this 2017 film adds, while being incredibly loose and contradictory in the story telling (if you can call it that). Maybe the director should stick to music videos for meaningless gratuitous visuals: random elements for visual effect with no utility or explanation; naked women; character responses that contradict motivations and sentiments implied in earlier scenes; naked women; sets and technological elements that have zero function except to "look cool"; naked women; long, ponderous scenes and unnecessary fist-fights whose outcome you already knew 2 minutes ago, meaning it's time to cut! I found it tiresome how good-looking and fashionable every single extra was -- in such a nasty, dead world, they sure have plenty of time for make-up, hair, and slick get-ups.
I love science fiction and am perfectly willing to suspend disbelief, if the writer or filmmaker creates at least a self-consistent world that is plausible given the key premise. This world is half- baked without much time spent on fleshing out at least a little backstory for each scene design and character. Thin, thin, thin. If you want to explore the idea of androids rebelling, watch the 1990's version of Battlestar Galactica, which has the political economy, military science, and existential questions actually thought through.
2 instead of 1 because the HD is very fine on an IMAX screen, but the rest of the movie is a confused, tiresome, meaningless, self-indulgent, woman-objectifying, annoying, male box office marketing scheme.
I don't get the rave reviews. Maybe people are comparing this to comic book hero movies, rather than to the ideas of Philip K. Dick and what the first movie accomplished. Well, if the standard is comic book blockbusters, fine (actually, plenty of comic book blockbusters at least have a coherent story and character development), but this movie does not deserve comparison to the original. I'm flummoxed that Ridley Scott allowed this mess to be produced under his name. Shame on him and Denis Villeneuve for making this film. Now that Harvey Weinstein has been exposed, given the objectification of women in this film, I'm wondering if we will soon be seeing more men in the business being outed, such as...
Romeo and Juliet
(1968)
Utter beauty, Expert adaptation of literary work to screen.
5 February 2016
No need for me to add another rave review on the perfect casting of the teenage Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting, the authentic, colorful costumes, the top-notch supporting cast, the deft camera work.
Instead, I learned about excellent screen writing from this film. After being enthralled by this movie, I fetched a copy of the play to check the scenes: I found that Zefirelli expertly cut any dialogue that was largely exposition. Where on the stage dialogue is needed to describe what happened, on screen one can show it visually ("show don't tell"). Zefirelli retained the essential words that the characters would need to say to communicate and just cut the exposition. He also cut lines that somewhat repeat other lines (which made me read Shakespeare's words a lot more closely and realize the bard was sometimes a bit verbose), following another screen writing adage to cut anything that doesn't necessarily move the story forward. Yes, some famous soliloquies get cut, but in filmmaking, sometimes you have to "kill your baby" no matter how precious. In terms of moving the story forward, nothing was missed, nothing was excessive. If anyone wants to take a good lesson in screen adaptation of literary works, learn from this.
And I would like to give my response to those who thought the crying was a bit over the top. Well, Zefirelli not only cast age-appropriate actors, but he also set the film in Italy, where it's supposed to be! Romeo and Juliet and their families are Italian (and so is Zefirelli), so I think it perfectly makes sense for them to emote with great noise and abandon. :) Flawless film that is more than perfection, but a visionary work of art.
Instead, I learned about excellent screen writing from this film. After being enthralled by this movie, I fetched a copy of the play to check the scenes: I found that Zefirelli expertly cut any dialogue that was largely exposition. Where on the stage dialogue is needed to describe what happened, on screen one can show it visually ("show don't tell"). Zefirelli retained the essential words that the characters would need to say to communicate and just cut the exposition. He also cut lines that somewhat repeat other lines (which made me read Shakespeare's words a lot more closely and realize the bard was sometimes a bit verbose), following another screen writing adage to cut anything that doesn't necessarily move the story forward. Yes, some famous soliloquies get cut, but in filmmaking, sometimes you have to "kill your baby" no matter how precious. In terms of moving the story forward, nothing was missed, nothing was excessive. If anyone wants to take a good lesson in screen adaptation of literary works, learn from this.
And I would like to give my response to those who thought the crying was a bit over the top. Well, Zefirelli not only cast age-appropriate actors, but he also set the film in Italy, where it's supposed to be! Romeo and Juliet and their families are Italian (and so is Zefirelli), so I think it perfectly makes sense for them to emote with great noise and abandon. :) Flawless film that is more than perfection, but a visionary work of art.
Crimes and Misdemeanors
(1989)
Fatal flaw in premise of otherwise excellent movie on microcosm of NY
18 October 2015
This is a deftly made movie with parallel stories and portrayal of the world of Jewish New Yorkers. The angst over whether there is a true morality from an omnipotent God makes the film thought-provoking and, to some, disturbing. Allen has grappled now twice with this idea of getting away with murder and whether one can go on to live a good life without fear of retribution. He explored it in this film, and then again in Matchpoint. In Crimes and Misdemeanors, the issue was whether God was watching and if the guilty character could live well with his conscience. In Matchpoint, retribution is a matter of random luck.
The conclusions of both films can seem brilliant to some, but quite troubling to others. The reason this is so, is because Allen's main question, "Can the murderer get away with it?" hinges on one important assumption: that all rewards and punishments occur in this life...and that moral behavior is subject to rewards and punishments. This is in fact a very Jewish point of view (hence the family debate in their Midwood, Brooklyn, home). Jews do not believe in Heaven or Hell, so all has to be achieved in this life. Within the logic that emerges from the above question is inevitably a morally confused universe and cynical point of view. What's worse is that the movie assumes the rewards are things like wealth, career success, love.
If murderers do not get found out and do not suffer punishment, does that mean there is no moral God watching over us? No, their crime or misdemeanor is still wrong, because it caused harm to someone. If they have no conscience and they are not caught, it is still wrong. If there is not a God meting out rewards and punishments in this life or the afterlife, what makes it wrong? Does it not matter if one decides to murder for personal gain? Is not the rule to follow simply dog eat dog and every man for himself? Allen has not progressed in questioning the assumption, whether material rewards are the appropriate measure of morality.
To get past his ongoing conundrum, the next time Allen takes on this theme, he needs to consider how society as a whole would break down if no one subscribed to any code of morality. There would not be anything to get away with, since everyone would subscribe to the law of the jungle: who ever eats, wins. Without a common code of morals, we would be reduced to a primitive state.
Allen is very literary, but to address moral issues, he needs to go beyond the individual and consider social systems as a whole. Morality is a matter of relationships to our fellow human beings, not of individual success in life. One might argue that societies have a long history of sanctioning, through the law, behaviors we find abhorrent today, so morality is still all relative and there is no moral absolute. I think, rather, that human societies evolve as we learn from our mistakes, and we find out these mistakes because indeed there is a moral absolute that reveals them to be wrong: gradually it becomes recognized that it is not okay for women to be an underclass to men; that racism violates the rights of people; that lying, cheating, stealing, and murdering result in a breakdown of the trust required to engage in transactions and the economic health of a society; that crime is a symptom of a lot of social ills, from economic inequities to mental illness to social pressures that sway the individual's moral compass. Obviously, there are sociopaths and criminals who have no empathy for their victims and no conscience about gaining at the expense of others, including murder -- we now have clinical terms for them, and even can link aberrant, deficient behaviors to parts of the brain. Judah's brother is such a one with no twinges of conscience. Judah enjoys the trappings of success very much because those around subscribe to a moral code to which he must pretend.
Criminals are put in jail to punish them, to protect society from them, and to reform them. Society's sense of morality evolves in the effort to achieve some social order that is sustainable. If someone gets away with murder, the goal of the law is that society does not implode with everyone doing the same as some norm of behavior. One does not need a God to tell us what works or not. Our different beliefs in God or not, meanwhile, color how we codify our morals in social conduct and the law.
Good movie, within its narrowly defined universe, but Allen needs to expand beyond that small universe to truly answer the question of moral absolutes. I hope he reads my review somehow, as I get the sense that his is indeed a very troubled man.
P.S. To those who analyze the film in terms of Utilitarianism and Kant, my above take based on human relationships draws from Asian philosophy and Confucianism, and the concept of societies as complex systems.
The conclusions of both films can seem brilliant to some, but quite troubling to others. The reason this is so, is because Allen's main question, "Can the murderer get away with it?" hinges on one important assumption: that all rewards and punishments occur in this life...and that moral behavior is subject to rewards and punishments. This is in fact a very Jewish point of view (hence the family debate in their Midwood, Brooklyn, home). Jews do not believe in Heaven or Hell, so all has to be achieved in this life. Within the logic that emerges from the above question is inevitably a morally confused universe and cynical point of view. What's worse is that the movie assumes the rewards are things like wealth, career success, love.
If murderers do not get found out and do not suffer punishment, does that mean there is no moral God watching over us? No, their crime or misdemeanor is still wrong, because it caused harm to someone. If they have no conscience and they are not caught, it is still wrong. If there is not a God meting out rewards and punishments in this life or the afterlife, what makes it wrong? Does it not matter if one decides to murder for personal gain? Is not the rule to follow simply dog eat dog and every man for himself? Allen has not progressed in questioning the assumption, whether material rewards are the appropriate measure of morality.
To get past his ongoing conundrum, the next time Allen takes on this theme, he needs to consider how society as a whole would break down if no one subscribed to any code of morality. There would not be anything to get away with, since everyone would subscribe to the law of the jungle: who ever eats, wins. Without a common code of morals, we would be reduced to a primitive state.
Allen is very literary, but to address moral issues, he needs to go beyond the individual and consider social systems as a whole. Morality is a matter of relationships to our fellow human beings, not of individual success in life. One might argue that societies have a long history of sanctioning, through the law, behaviors we find abhorrent today, so morality is still all relative and there is no moral absolute. I think, rather, that human societies evolve as we learn from our mistakes, and we find out these mistakes because indeed there is a moral absolute that reveals them to be wrong: gradually it becomes recognized that it is not okay for women to be an underclass to men; that racism violates the rights of people; that lying, cheating, stealing, and murdering result in a breakdown of the trust required to engage in transactions and the economic health of a society; that crime is a symptom of a lot of social ills, from economic inequities to mental illness to social pressures that sway the individual's moral compass. Obviously, there are sociopaths and criminals who have no empathy for their victims and no conscience about gaining at the expense of others, including murder -- we now have clinical terms for them, and even can link aberrant, deficient behaviors to parts of the brain. Judah's brother is such a one with no twinges of conscience. Judah enjoys the trappings of success very much because those around subscribe to a moral code to which he must pretend.
Criminals are put in jail to punish them, to protect society from them, and to reform them. Society's sense of morality evolves in the effort to achieve some social order that is sustainable. If someone gets away with murder, the goal of the law is that society does not implode with everyone doing the same as some norm of behavior. One does not need a God to tell us what works or not. Our different beliefs in God or not, meanwhile, color how we codify our morals in social conduct and the law.
Good movie, within its narrowly defined universe, but Allen needs to expand beyond that small universe to truly answer the question of moral absolutes. I hope he reads my review somehow, as I get the sense that his is indeed a very troubled man.
P.S. To those who analyze the film in terms of Utilitarianism and Kant, my above take based on human relationships draws from Asian philosophy and Confucianism, and the concept of societies as complex systems.
Marco Polo
(2014–2016)
Grim, missed opportunity
24 December 2014
Well, what a pity: what an enthralling landscape and tapestry of culture, what incredibly dull writing and stiff directing. In short, a sadly missed opportunity. It's like they took the writers from Game of Thrones and couldn't think what else to do but add sex and intrigue to the same ho-hum medieval England thought processes, rather than mine the real historical material of Asia for great stories. Marco is a comely lad who is constantly grim-faced in what ought to be an awesome adventure story. He ought to be having a great time, getting a free education in language and martial arts, free travel around a vast country; and if he has to protect himself, well, sheez, be clever and witty about it. Instead, all he is is grim.
The producers need to take a look at Korean sageuk, the genre of medieval historical TV drama series, in which the hero(ine) is smart and spunky, and stories move damned fast. Intrigue does not require sex and killing, but instead clever wordplay, research, legal maneuvers, manipulation of popular opinion, economic games, and, c'mon! -- the forbidden love interest that keeps the audience delighted and yearning!
I recommend the producers watch the Korean "The Jewel in the Crown" and "The Great Queen Seondeok." These are set amid read history, with plenty of murder and intrigue, but the writers are just plain clever and fun in filling in the blanks of the history through plot twists, giddy suspense, and skin-of-the-teeth scrapes for the hero(ine) (saved by wit) -- and a few endearing romances between historical figures that are made rather plausible! Yes, of course, a story about the Mongols can't avoid a lot of blood, since they were barbarians, but instead of making Marco so grim, how about making him the astonished observer who is drinking in history? How about making him a bright, quick-witted fellow who is always narrowly saving his skin through his entrancing storytelling to Kublai Khan? Read also Italo Calvino's "Invisible Cities" for more ideas.
As for the character Kublai Khan, all he is made out to be is a barbarian and who rules by fear, and he really has no personality. Just another Game of Thrones character. In reality, there's a reason he managed to command a vast empire and establish a dynasty, and that's because he was in fact pretty intelligent, curious, and liked to keep smart people around him (who weren't just grim and boring and without personality), spanning wide areas of learning from the arts through the sciences of the times. The producers ought to take a look at how Forrest Whittaker portrayed Idi Amin (and also how he took a liking to James McAvoy's hapless character): Idi Amin was a terrifying butcher, but he was also a charismatic egomaniac, sharp-minded, spoke several languages, and had a way of gaining loyalties. This series has every opportunity to show Kublai Khan as far more interesting and complex, and not just Jabba the Hutt!
And for those reviewers who think somehow it's accurate to have Asian actors appear stiff, baloney! Watch Korean sageuk and a few kung fu flicks -- the actors are quite engaging and lively, I assure you. And does every single woman have to be nude? This reminds me of some of the crap they sell to Western tourists in China: drawings of native ethnic girls with big boobs and tiny waists, which no Asian would want to buy. Also, here's a big TV series with opportunities for Asian actresses, and they still wind up being prostitutes, because that's the only way Westerners can manage to see them. Sigh. Could they hire some Asian writers to improve this show?
Meh, not a single clever plot twist after 3 episodes, so I think I'll beg off. Marco has not smiled once. What a big budget, great settings, cinematography, costumes, but boring and unimaginative writing for such an historical adventure.
The producers need to take a look at Korean sageuk, the genre of medieval historical TV drama series, in which the hero(ine) is smart and spunky, and stories move damned fast. Intrigue does not require sex and killing, but instead clever wordplay, research, legal maneuvers, manipulation of popular opinion, economic games, and, c'mon! -- the forbidden love interest that keeps the audience delighted and yearning!
I recommend the producers watch the Korean "The Jewel in the Crown" and "The Great Queen Seondeok." These are set amid read history, with plenty of murder and intrigue, but the writers are just plain clever and fun in filling in the blanks of the history through plot twists, giddy suspense, and skin-of-the-teeth scrapes for the hero(ine) (saved by wit) -- and a few endearing romances between historical figures that are made rather plausible! Yes, of course, a story about the Mongols can't avoid a lot of blood, since they were barbarians, but instead of making Marco so grim, how about making him the astonished observer who is drinking in history? How about making him a bright, quick-witted fellow who is always narrowly saving his skin through his entrancing storytelling to Kublai Khan? Read also Italo Calvino's "Invisible Cities" for more ideas.
As for the character Kublai Khan, all he is made out to be is a barbarian and who rules by fear, and he really has no personality. Just another Game of Thrones character. In reality, there's a reason he managed to command a vast empire and establish a dynasty, and that's because he was in fact pretty intelligent, curious, and liked to keep smart people around him (who weren't just grim and boring and without personality), spanning wide areas of learning from the arts through the sciences of the times. The producers ought to take a look at how Forrest Whittaker portrayed Idi Amin (and also how he took a liking to James McAvoy's hapless character): Idi Amin was a terrifying butcher, but he was also a charismatic egomaniac, sharp-minded, spoke several languages, and had a way of gaining loyalties. This series has every opportunity to show Kublai Khan as far more interesting and complex, and not just Jabba the Hutt!
And for those reviewers who think somehow it's accurate to have Asian actors appear stiff, baloney! Watch Korean sageuk and a few kung fu flicks -- the actors are quite engaging and lively, I assure you. And does every single woman have to be nude? This reminds me of some of the crap they sell to Western tourists in China: drawings of native ethnic girls with big boobs and tiny waists, which no Asian would want to buy. Also, here's a big TV series with opportunities for Asian actresses, and they still wind up being prostitutes, because that's the only way Westerners can manage to see them. Sigh. Could they hire some Asian writers to improve this show?
Meh, not a single clever plot twist after 3 episodes, so I think I'll beg off. Marco has not smiled once. What a big budget, great settings, cinematography, costumes, but boring and unimaginative writing for such an historical adventure.
Blockbuster that doesn't overdo it
9 August 2011
I really enjoyed this movie, and I'm a scientist who was well pleased by the writers doing their research to come up with a plausible scientific explanation based on modern biotech ideas! Very clever, concise, even elegant. Was relieved that the story concentrated so much on the relationships between/among the people and the apes/chimpanzees and not all on action. Action served the story, period. Contrary to Roger Ebert's mild complaint that the writers didn't do more with the girlfriend scientist character or with philosophical conundrums for James Franco's character, I am rather relieved to see a movie that has the taste and restraint to describe straightforward characters who are just pleasant, intelligent good people, OMG! There is plenty of poignancy and philosophical significance to the chimpanzee Caesar's coming to self-awareness.
Only one weird thing stood out: it's set in San Francisco, but there is nary an Asian visible, not even in crowd scenes. Weird.
Only one weird thing stood out: it's set in San Francisco, but there is nary an Asian visible, not even in crowd scenes. Weird.
God of Love
(2010)
Somebody tell me about the actual dart-throwing!
8 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
So, somebody tell me, is Luke Matheny actually making all those incredible bulls's eyes with his dart-throwing?? It sure looks like it. That's pretty amazing if he is! The film is kind of like the guy's random talents all in a nutshell: jazz crooning, dart-throwing, Scrabble-playing...and I suppose he probably plays the accordion, too. What a riot!
Endearing film. Has a relaxed, jazzy pace, the black-and-white works great, every actor has an interesting face no matter how minor, Sasha Gordon's score perfectly cues the impending schemes, the onset of love susceptibility, the low-key developments. Matheny has a great eye and charming imagination. And culture, thank heaven.
Check out his earlier short, "Earano", which can be seen on NYU's website. Somehow Matheny's work manages a kind of innocent idealism and decency that I thought was dead nowadays. Looking forward to seeing his feature film(s).
Endearing film. Has a relaxed, jazzy pace, the black-and-white works great, every actor has an interesting face no matter how minor, Sasha Gordon's score perfectly cues the impending schemes, the onset of love susceptibility, the low-key developments. Matheny has a great eye and charming imagination. And culture, thank heaven.
Check out his earlier short, "Earano", which can be seen on NYU's website. Somehow Matheny's work manages a kind of innocent idealism and decency that I thought was dead nowadays. Looking forward to seeing his feature film(s).
Black Swan
(2010)
Neither enlightening nor moving, only titillating. Squandered opportunity with no dancing.
13 February 2011
Well, the rave reviews are primarily a symptom of the cultural illiteracy of film critics and the public today. I guess no one has seen Moira Shearer in "The Red Shoes." THERE's a movie with true depth and artistry, a true-to-life dramatic story for the ages, and real dancing to go with it, dancing that expresses the story, and camera-work that is to die for. Sorry, "Black Swan" is a titillating bit of over-the-top cheap thrills.
Nowadays, if we get bashed over the head with a white/black dichotomy, then people are so thrilled that they got it and think they saw something artsy. Please.
Nina is supposed to go through a transformation from uptight purity to free, dark, sexuality; however, we never see any transformation in Nina's dancing. Any change in her character was achieved through over-the-top special effects. Natalie Portmann makes certainly a respectable effort with the dancing, but if the director really had an eye, he would not have cast her. Would you have an amateur actor scratch out a violin concerto, or would you dub it in, instead? She really did not need to do much acting because of all the horror effects, so they may as well have cast a ballet dancer who could really dance the two parts. Then they could have shown some full ballet numbers where the contrast is fully expressed, and then there would have been true comprehension by the audience of what goes into achieving the ultimate as an artist . There was pretty much no choreography or real dancing in this film, to show audiences the glory and expressiveness of top-notch ballet. What a shame and lost opportunity.
Ballet struggles enough to survive in this age of zero cultural education in secondary schools. This was a chance to expose popular audiences to art that they rarely get to see. People came out of "Amadeus" having learned for the first time really to listen to classical music. They came out of "Diva" with the aria of "Tosca" burned into their brain. They come out of "The Red Shoes" having savored high art, which they can watch over and over again. They come out of "Black Swan" with little clue of how exquisite ballet can be. Well, hopefully, a few souls will have been intrigued enough to go check out a real ballet.
I rate it 4 for entertainment value as a horror flick, but that's all.
Nowadays, if we get bashed over the head with a white/black dichotomy, then people are so thrilled that they got it and think they saw something artsy. Please.
Nina is supposed to go through a transformation from uptight purity to free, dark, sexuality; however, we never see any transformation in Nina's dancing. Any change in her character was achieved through over-the-top special effects. Natalie Portmann makes certainly a respectable effort with the dancing, but if the director really had an eye, he would not have cast her. Would you have an amateur actor scratch out a violin concerto, or would you dub it in, instead? She really did not need to do much acting because of all the horror effects, so they may as well have cast a ballet dancer who could really dance the two parts. Then they could have shown some full ballet numbers where the contrast is fully expressed, and then there would have been true comprehension by the audience of what goes into achieving the ultimate as an artist . There was pretty much no choreography or real dancing in this film, to show audiences the glory and expressiveness of top-notch ballet. What a shame and lost opportunity.
Ballet struggles enough to survive in this age of zero cultural education in secondary schools. This was a chance to expose popular audiences to art that they rarely get to see. People came out of "Amadeus" having learned for the first time really to listen to classical music. They came out of "Diva" with the aria of "Tosca" burned into their brain. They come out of "The Red Shoes" having savored high art, which they can watch over and over again. They come out of "Black Swan" with little clue of how exquisite ballet can be. Well, hopefully, a few souls will have been intrigued enough to go check out a real ballet.
I rate it 4 for entertainment value as a horror flick, but that's all.
Universal Remote
(II) (2007)
Chuckling good
11 November 2010
Huh, I'm surprised this good little short hasn't won any awards! I saw this back in 2007 when it was making the festival rounds, and on coming across the DVD, I decided to see where the director has gone since then, was sure he must be doing some great things now. The acting and pacing in this short are just right for the steady sense of drollness, and, gosh, it's so true! Savored every minute. There's a daytime show created for the wife, Liz, to watch, that is hilarious, because, again, it's so true to life! Dang, can't give anything away here. Eileen Barnett as the wife is perfect in her placid blankness of mind, and Peter Van Norden as the husband in his routine is also a chuckling pleasure to watch. Nice twist with the ending. Yep, this is why I don't own a TV (except to watch fun films like this).
Moon
(2009)
Not really science fiction, but exploration of our practical near-future
1 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This is a great movie that brings something new, as a thriller, a drama. It is not merely science fiction. I have to compliment the filmmakers on excellent writing, a gripping, suspenseful mystery that leads us on clever plot twists, and wonderful acting.
For those who may not keep up with current space developments, this film is an incredibly timely, thoughtful scrutiny of what it would mean to make money off of probably the only potentially commercial resource in space, the Helium-3 on the Moon. There are real, practical questions that people are working on NOW to make this a reality. Fusion energy from He-3 is still only a theoretical idea, but it is definitely there in theory and under development. Other issues not resolved: Can we set up space colonies for people to live in, or is this a pipe dream, the reality being that it is way too expensive to support human life on a non-habitable planetoid (where are your tax dollars going for NASA's manned missions?). Can people really survive mentally in such isolation away from our home planet? Is human labor still better to have than robotic labor in space? What would be the international commercial protocols for exploitation of resources on the Moon -- can one company be granted such a monopoly, and does this inevitably lead again to corporate exploitation of labor or subjugation of people through manipulated political consent and deceit, as happened with oil? With regard to other life support issues in this film, there might be some quibbles, but I won't bother, otherwise I'd have to write some spoiler and give away the mystery, and I think the suspension of disbelief is okay in this case, anyway.
This is not really science fiction at all: it is a fictional exploration of current research questions, ethics issues, business ideas, and political debate! What a relief from all that tiresome guns-and-battles science fantasy.
A film with solid content on real issues, in a well-structured, entertaining story with a sympathetic character, and excellent acting. This film deserves much wider release. (Dang it, why didn't I think of this story? Great idea!)
For those who may not keep up with current space developments, this film is an incredibly timely, thoughtful scrutiny of what it would mean to make money off of probably the only potentially commercial resource in space, the Helium-3 on the Moon. There are real, practical questions that people are working on NOW to make this a reality. Fusion energy from He-3 is still only a theoretical idea, but it is definitely there in theory and under development. Other issues not resolved: Can we set up space colonies for people to live in, or is this a pipe dream, the reality being that it is way too expensive to support human life on a non-habitable planetoid (where are your tax dollars going for NASA's manned missions?). Can people really survive mentally in such isolation away from our home planet? Is human labor still better to have than robotic labor in space? What would be the international commercial protocols for exploitation of resources on the Moon -- can one company be granted such a monopoly, and does this inevitably lead again to corporate exploitation of labor or subjugation of people through manipulated political consent and deceit, as happened with oil? With regard to other life support issues in this film, there might be some quibbles, but I won't bother, otherwise I'd have to write some spoiler and give away the mystery, and I think the suspension of disbelief is okay in this case, anyway.
This is not really science fiction at all: it is a fictional exploration of current research questions, ethics issues, business ideas, and political debate! What a relief from all that tiresome guns-and-battles science fantasy.
A film with solid content on real issues, in a well-structured, entertaining story with a sympathetic character, and excellent acting. This film deserves much wider release. (Dang it, why didn't I think of this story? Great idea!)
Yes Man
(2008)
Highly likable homage to L.A., too!
30 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This is deft comedic writing that just romps about with fun and ease and is never strained. In case no one else noticed, the screenwriters have casually and cleverly translated the original novel/memoir's London setting to Los Angeles. Really, it's an affectionate homage to L.A. culture: the New Age self-help gurus; the exercise/photo group in Griffith Park; the great view of L.A. from the Griffith Observatory's recently completed balcony platform; the Hollywood Bowl dome and amphitheater; the easy mixture with Asian cultures; the small-time alternative rock band with its small local following; the woman with the celebrity cake business; even Carl's (Jim Carrey's) apartment layout with its bland interior courtyard concrete walkway. Maybe it wasn't intentional and the writers were just fitting in whatever came to mind, being in L.A., but for a recent Angeleno transplant to New York, I couldn't help appreciating the review of the landscape.
Dreams
(1990)
An artist's impressionistic view on major issues of humanity
8 September 2008
This set of short films are undeniably beautiful, meant, I am sure, to leave aesthetic impressions rather than to narrate: a boy's sense of treading on the forbidden and mystical; of the sadness and yearning in trying to rescue the lovely spirit of a single surviving, pink- blossomed sapling of a destroyed peach orchard; of survival from a sleeping death at the hands of an icy spirit in a mountain blizzard; of the haunted guilt of a commander of a decimated platoon; of the thrill of delving into the brilliant-hued world of Vincent Van Gogh; of the horror, despair, and guilt of humanity suffering catastrophe from its own technological hubris; of the hell that results from a nuclear holocaust; and the gentle delight of encountering a tranquil community living in harmony with nature. Kurosawa is a master at conveying these feelings. I must say, though, an artist's less than expert commentary on major issues like war and harmony with nature only appeal at an aesthetic level, but are unfortunately a bit dissatisfying and even a little irksome due to a shallow understanding of the issues. It is a rather common artist's theme to criticize technological hubris without offering better insights into how society can otherwise solve its complex problems of economics, social inequality, and governance at large scales. Kurosawa's last dream of the watermill village is a indeed a dream: a static little community in a congenial climate where the simple mechanical technology of the watermills (what are they used for?) is acceptable but not anything more complex than that. When the old man criticizes "scientists" for coming up with things that people don't need, this reveals Kurosawa's unfortunate ignorance about what science is, which is the study of nature, and that scientists are involved in inquiry and discovery, not in inventing things. It is a bit contradictory to talk about living in harmony with nature and then to criticize scientists. Scientists are constantly advancing our understanding of nature and the universe: what is the nature of particles versus gravity? how does carbon cycle through the Earth system? how do ecosystems sustain themselves? how did the planets originate? It is the engineers and businessmen (and politicians) who then try to take the discoveries of scientists to make applications that may or may not be for the good of humanity, like turning understanding of particle physics into nuclear bombs, rather than into understanding of the origins of the universe. Kurosawa's lack of distinction between scientists and engineers is a misconception held by a lot of people, even engineers, who sometimes think they are doing "science." So, let's clarify the distinction. Also, the old man's simplistic assessment of humans' minimal physical needs denies that there are also human intellectual needs that more advanced technologies often fulfill, like making films in color with good cameras and lenses and projecting them for full visual glory. These complaints aside, Kurosawa's dream films are master aesthetic impressions, but when artists seek to comment on scientific and political issues, it would be better if they focused on the personal and emotional, unless they can first gain enough expertise to address the technical.
The Last King of Scotland
(2006)
Thoughtless young doctor seeks adventure in an exotic country not knowing what he's getting into
13 November 2007
This movie is incredible not only for the performance of Forrest Whittaker but for the all-around outstanding performances, effortless directing and editing, and screenplay that deftly educates the viewer even as the protagonist becomes more aware of the complex and dangerous political situation of a foreign land. This is fictionalized history, so how much dramatic license should be allowed is up to the knowledgeable viewer; nonetheless, the education of the character in the context of Idi Amin's Uganda is well-constructed. The young doctor is a brand-new MD from Scotland who randomly picks Uganda as an exotic destination for his first job, knowing nothing about its culture or history. He thinks he'll go have some fun and adventure in a Third World country, doctoring to the natives, having sex with any attractive woman, black or white, married or not. He considers himself apolitical, free of prejudice against anyone, and perhaps so, but that shallow code of decency derives from insensitivity to others' delicate relationships and thoughtlessness about the consequences of his own acts. His ignorance allows him to be brash and frank with Idi Amin in a chance encounter, which charms the dictator, just as Amin then charms the young doctor. Eventually, the young man's thoughtlessness leads to the unwitting betrayal and death of one earnest government officer, and of women with whom the doctor gets involved, forcing finally some awareness as the atrocities escalate around him. He has been a fool, not realizing that a Third World country is not an exotic playground, but the poverty and strife there is the result of legacies of colonialism and brutal egos seeking power amid a disempowered people.
Pan's Labyrinth
(2006)
Unnecessarily violent with meaningless ending
27 June 2007
Well, the art direction is fantastic, but the story doesn't quite hold together. Unnecessary gruesome violence and a really, really bad guy, and the point is..? Yes, there were such bad people in fascist Spain, but I derive no thoughtful insights from this portrayal. The little girl's fantasy world is an equally frightening escape from the horrors of humanity, and the point is..? I guess I should not be expecting this to be a cut above the usual blockbuster fare in terms of story, but somehow all the film festival hype around it lead me to think it would have some deeper literary qualities. It is entertainment that keeps one's attention with thrills and suspense and moments of beauty, but the black-and-white good vs. bad didn't quite satisfy me. Too bad, the premise of the story had such great potential.
Tell Your Friends