Up to a certain point, I agree that this movie is not horror. Horror films are usually crowded with ghosts, demons, devils, witches, necromancers, zombies, vampires, monsters, evil kids (sometimes from space), evil creatures, evil spirits, people possessed by evil spirits and other such utter nonsense of the sort (which I nonetheless admit to enjoy--and sometimes love--watching!). So, in that respect, this is not a horror film. On the other hand, having being raised in a cult, having watched a woman "possessed" and a relative attempting to perform an exorcism on her, and having spent years terrified of being possessed by demons myself, I have first-hand knowledge of the true horror this movie shows: the real-life damage that beliefs can wreak on the most vulnerable. Thank you to everyone who made this movie! You helped me in the ongoing process of healing the little "demon" inside.
Reviews
6 Reviews
The Life Before Her Eyes
(2007)
Gorgeous to watch and hopefully will inspire conversation
3 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I don't usually write or like reactive comments but in some cases I feel so strongly about previous comments that I can't keep quiet. And there are serious spoilers ahead.
"Copycat"? Last time I checked, "copycat" is used when you imitate slavishly, you just reproduce some previous thing. Now, if someone can't see the differences between "The Sixth Sense," "Elephant," and "The Life Before Her Eyes," maybe that person should watch more movies before writing. Taking another idea and putting a different spin on it has been done forever, since art began, in paintings, music, literature, all arts. That's creativity, when you put something personal on an old story. Now that person might think that we only need one film about a high school shooting and its consequences. We already have "Elephant;" why do we need more? It's not like we keep having shootings, right? I would also be really sad if I thought that the subjects treated in this movie are only interesting to academics.
"Overly-convenient plot points"? Well, it's all her imagination of her own life before dying. You can't expect realism when it all has this dreamy, life passing before your eyes feeling (with a clever twist). Of course the reminders will keep popping up and flooding her consciousness. Besides, since when all films have to be realistic? On one level, the film represents the guilt and remorse experienced by someone who keeps trying to forget a traumatic incident. But sometimes the hardest you try, the more things keep reminding you of it. The film could have interwoven a brief scene imitating a shock of memory, instead it presents it from an external source, which is how you sometimes feel the memory of traumatic events, as something that is coming from outside, something that you can't prevent or avoid, like a radio that tells us what we've been doing the best effort to put out of our minds.
"A LOT of contrived pathos"? It's about a person dying!!!!!
"An exploitation of columbine"? See comment above about "coypcat."
"Metaphor-laden"? Amazingly, it's only the professional critics who are invoking this one. I really don't understand critics anymore. It's true that speaking plainly has its advantages. But since when do all films have to follow the same rules? Some artists thrive using metaphors. Let them use them! Or maybe they actually are annoyed because they understand the metaphors and we all know that the more unintelligible a film is, the better. Especially if we DO think that we understand them, because that means that we're part of the intelligent elite that can appreciate those films.
"Confusing" and "tiring flashback-flash forward method"? The film follows the pathway of memory, which goes through associations (metonymies, metaphors, repetitions, similarities) and not chronology. Now, wouldn't it be so much less hard if all the past were first and the future later? I guess we're too intelligent so we're above the metaphors but putting pieces in the right order is haaard!
Finally, the jewel: "An overwrought and patently offensive anti-abortion drama"? Clearly, this is coming from a man (Lou Lumenick, New York Post). And he might not have any friends that have had abortions. I'm pro-choice but I know that all of my friends who did it had feelings of remorse (not guilt, although that could be a component). What do you think? That a woman just pretends that it never happened, that she never questions if she could have done something differently. That doesn't mean you're making an anti-abortion diatribe. It's just dealing with a hard, traumatic memory. I'm so sorry that this critic thinks that talking about those feelings implies a moral choice. Talk about manicheism.
I'm not saying that the film is flawless. Maybe it is too precious, even though it has a good excuse for it. It's a collection of idealized moments of past and future passing through someone's imagination. You could certainly find fault in the way that Evan Rachel Wood is sexualized; I mean, the camera really loves her and it's clearly from a male perspective. Others might be able to live with such obvious exponent of "the male gaze."
"Copycat"? Last time I checked, "copycat" is used when you imitate slavishly, you just reproduce some previous thing. Now, if someone can't see the differences between "The Sixth Sense," "Elephant," and "The Life Before Her Eyes," maybe that person should watch more movies before writing. Taking another idea and putting a different spin on it has been done forever, since art began, in paintings, music, literature, all arts. That's creativity, when you put something personal on an old story. Now that person might think that we only need one film about a high school shooting and its consequences. We already have "Elephant;" why do we need more? It's not like we keep having shootings, right? I would also be really sad if I thought that the subjects treated in this movie are only interesting to academics.
"Overly-convenient plot points"? Well, it's all her imagination of her own life before dying. You can't expect realism when it all has this dreamy, life passing before your eyes feeling (with a clever twist). Of course the reminders will keep popping up and flooding her consciousness. Besides, since when all films have to be realistic? On one level, the film represents the guilt and remorse experienced by someone who keeps trying to forget a traumatic incident. But sometimes the hardest you try, the more things keep reminding you of it. The film could have interwoven a brief scene imitating a shock of memory, instead it presents it from an external source, which is how you sometimes feel the memory of traumatic events, as something that is coming from outside, something that you can't prevent or avoid, like a radio that tells us what we've been doing the best effort to put out of our minds.
"A LOT of contrived pathos"? It's about a person dying!!!!!
"An exploitation of columbine"? See comment above about "coypcat."
"Metaphor-laden"? Amazingly, it's only the professional critics who are invoking this one. I really don't understand critics anymore. It's true that speaking plainly has its advantages. But since when do all films have to follow the same rules? Some artists thrive using metaphors. Let them use them! Or maybe they actually are annoyed because they understand the metaphors and we all know that the more unintelligible a film is, the better. Especially if we DO think that we understand them, because that means that we're part of the intelligent elite that can appreciate those films.
"Confusing" and "tiring flashback-flash forward method"? The film follows the pathway of memory, which goes through associations (metonymies, metaphors, repetitions, similarities) and not chronology. Now, wouldn't it be so much less hard if all the past were first and the future later? I guess we're too intelligent so we're above the metaphors but putting pieces in the right order is haaard!
Finally, the jewel: "An overwrought and patently offensive anti-abortion drama"? Clearly, this is coming from a man (Lou Lumenick, New York Post). And he might not have any friends that have had abortions. I'm pro-choice but I know that all of my friends who did it had feelings of remorse (not guilt, although that could be a component). What do you think? That a woman just pretends that it never happened, that she never questions if she could have done something differently. That doesn't mean you're making an anti-abortion diatribe. It's just dealing with a hard, traumatic memory. I'm so sorry that this critic thinks that talking about those feelings implies a moral choice. Talk about manicheism.
I'm not saying that the film is flawless. Maybe it is too precious, even though it has a good excuse for it. It's a collection of idealized moments of past and future passing through someone's imagination. You could certainly find fault in the way that Evan Rachel Wood is sexualized; I mean, the camera really loves her and it's clearly from a male perspective. Others might be able to live with such obvious exponent of "the male gaze."
The Lookout
(2007)
Good character study; okay thriller.
1 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The film takes a long time in developing Chris's character, four years after the fateful accident: he's a shadow of what he used to be (given the initial scene, some flashbacks and a story told by Luvlee, he was not a very nice guy: cocky, irresponsible and violent), without much support from his wealthy family except for the monthly rent, incapable of doing the simplest things (and yet, somehow, even though he's prone to seizures and dozing off, he's able to drive?!?) and, above all, dealing with the enormous guilt of having killed two friends and maimed his girlfriend in the accident. All this renders him powerless and, therefore, an easy prey to the charm of Gary (someone who, we're told, respected him and might be able to give him back some of the power he used to enjoy) and Luvlee (who gives him one of the many things he doesn't have: tenderness -and sex- from a woman).
The best moments are those in which he's asked by Gary or told by Luvlee what happened; the guilt registers in the uncomfortable silences and the pained expression in Chris's face. It's painful to see him go back day after day to the site of the accident. In a later scene, his guilt leaves him in tears after he's recovered the memories from the accident. Yet all this is carelessly brushed away at the end with a throw-away remark about his hope that the people will eventually forgive him (given what we've seen before, he would be consumed by the guilt of having involuntarily caused the death of another person).
The thrills start in the last half hour and Frank creates some very tense moments. It's also refreshing to see that he steers from the predictable and Deputy Ted is not the stupid town cop he seemed to be; he's actually quite resourceful with a gun. And, consistent to what we've seen before, Chris's hiding place for the money is easily found out. Aside from this, though, the plot is quite predictable: it's just a question of time before Lewis's advice on writing a story becomes helpful; and the tension is robbed somehow because we've already been told that Chris was quite good shooting.
The problem is that both parts (the character study and the heist) are just okay; neither part is given enough time to actually grab us. Somehow, the result is just not memorable. Nothing quite shocking as the final-reel revelations in "Memento" (and, of course, without the masterful use of editing to reflect the protagonist's state of mind); none of the disturbing actions that people in "A Simple Plan," "Simple Blood," or "Fargo" carry out. Great acting; great moments; just not a completely satisfying whole.
The best moments are those in which he's asked by Gary or told by Luvlee what happened; the guilt registers in the uncomfortable silences and the pained expression in Chris's face. It's painful to see him go back day after day to the site of the accident. In a later scene, his guilt leaves him in tears after he's recovered the memories from the accident. Yet all this is carelessly brushed away at the end with a throw-away remark about his hope that the people will eventually forgive him (given what we've seen before, he would be consumed by the guilt of having involuntarily caused the death of another person).
The thrills start in the last half hour and Frank creates some very tense moments. It's also refreshing to see that he steers from the predictable and Deputy Ted is not the stupid town cop he seemed to be; he's actually quite resourceful with a gun. And, consistent to what we've seen before, Chris's hiding place for the money is easily found out. Aside from this, though, the plot is quite predictable: it's just a question of time before Lewis's advice on writing a story becomes helpful; and the tension is robbed somehow because we've already been told that Chris was quite good shooting.
The problem is that both parts (the character study and the heist) are just okay; neither part is given enough time to actually grab us. Somehow, the result is just not memorable. Nothing quite shocking as the final-reel revelations in "Memento" (and, of course, without the masterful use of editing to reflect the protagonist's state of mind); none of the disturbing actions that people in "A Simple Plan," "Simple Blood," or "Fargo" carry out. Great acting; great moments; just not a completely satisfying whole.
The Devil Wears Prada
(2006)
Funny but predictable comedy.
31 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The character arc of Andy Sachs is all too predictable: a good girl enters by chance into the fashion world, loses sight of her values and then regains them. The problem is that we're told that she becomes another person but, as portrayed in the film, Andy is the same good, hard-working person throughout the movie. Maybe it is Anne Hathaway's (and the director's) fault for not showing the alleged difference. Yes, Andy becomes obsessed with her job, but she doesn't become obsessed with fashion. When Lily and Nate tell Andy that "she's become one of them," it is an unfair criticism ("them" understood to be the air-headed people who believe that fashion is the only important thing in the world); Andy is just a truly hard-working, overly responsible girl who lost the ability to put boundaries between her job and her private life. It seems that Andy could have become as obsessed with any other job, but I'm sure that if she was working as much in "serious" journalism, nobody would criticize her. This, coming from Hollywood (sooo in love with glitz and glamor), is the ultimate hypocrisy. Much is done about the fact that she "betrayed" Emily but, as presented in the film, her choice of going to Paris with Miranda is very understandable (it's either going or getting sacked); besides, if your boss offers you a promotion, is it wrong to accept it because other people wanted it? Aaah, isn't that always the case?
At least the film doesn't go for the obvious jokes when poking fun at the fashion world (in the same way that "Prêt-à-Porter" did). On the contrary, it is presented in such a way that we understand the fascination that fashion holds for so many people. In the same vain, we get to love and hate Miranda (love to watch her; would hate to work under her). But the funniest character is without a doubt Emily, in an acerbic sort of way.
At least the film doesn't go for the obvious jokes when poking fun at the fashion world (in the same way that "Prêt-à-Porter" did). On the contrary, it is presented in such a way that we understand the fascination that fashion holds for so many people. In the same vain, we get to love and hate Miranda (love to watch her; would hate to work under her). But the funniest character is without a doubt Emily, in an acerbic sort of way.
Moonlight Whispers
(1999)
Frank depiction of an unconventional love relationship
30 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Frank depiction of the teenage love affair between Takuya and Satsuki, which gets complicated because of Takuya's masochist tendencies. Takuya's pain because he knows he's not "normal" is sensitively rendered, and Satsuki's realization that she enjoys inflicting cruelty on Takuya is also wonderfully handled from the initial revenge-like need to humiliate him (as she felt humiliated, no doubt) to the possibility that she actually feels pleasure (is this the reason why she wants him dead? because he showed her a part of herself that she didn't even know existed and certainly doesn't like?). In an odd way, they're destined for each other. But what starts as an honest depiction of an apparent run-of-the-mill love affair that slowly transforms into a sadomasochistic relationship ends up slightly bordering on melodrama in the encounter between Takuya, Satsuki and Tadashi at the end of the film (it seems a little too much that Takuya would be willing to kill himself for Satsuki). Besides, what's the deal with Satsuki's eye patch? Is she using it as some way of showing sympathy towards Takuya (his bandages include an eye patch)? Did she get hurt, maybe by Tadashi? Nevertheless, the film is a wonderful, non-judgmental portrait of an unconventional love relationship.
Slight but interesting film
30 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Quirky little film about a seemingly aimless temp worker that starts working at an art gallery. Polly, the main character, is delineated in detail: lovable but mildly exasperating in her cluelessness and lack of social skills (you are constantly concerned that she's gonna embarrass herself and, quite often, she does) although she's a bit of a stereotype (the innocent, pure, slightly clueless person with a golden heart and the best intentions that gets herself and others into trouble). She's lonely too, and this detail is wonderfully depicted in a scene which shows her preparing some food and eating by herself, with only her cat as company. Her hobby is photography and she hopes that her boss will like her photographs, with heart-breaking results when Gabrielle tells her, without knowing that they're Polly's, that her photos are "trite made flesh." The pain she feels will speak volumes to anyone who fancied him/herself an artist only to face the scorn or disinterest of others. However, the truthfulness of this moment is slightly marred by the ending in which Gabrielle seems to realize that her photos are indeed good; this seems like too much of a tacked-on happy ending. Gabrielle's character is not so well delineated, although it's quite poignant to see a person who is fascinated by and knows a lot about art and yet knows that she has no talent herself.
Tell Your Friends