The Housemaid (1960)

This type of sinister Hitchcockian thriller is rare to find in 60's South Korean film, but it's delicious when you do.

Daria: Season 2 (1998)

We see a little bit more of Daria's soft side in this season.

Blue Velvet (1986)

Pretty much a less-good Twin peaks with more F bombs and product placement.

Miracle at St. Anna (2008)

This film had so many things it wanted to say that it ended up not saying any of them very well.

Daria: Season 1 (1997)

Watched this in two sittings, so, you know I like it.

The Amityville Horror (1979)

Scene after scene of undercutting their own climaxes until, by the end of the movie, nothing happens.

The Fall (2006)

A story about story-telling.

The Spirit of the Beehive (1973)

Fairly accurately portrays the innocence and curiosity of childhood.

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

At my fourth viewing this movie still has so much magic.

Enter The Void (2010)

While it at parts is too spacey for people not on drugs, and at other parts too blatant in its attempt to shock and offend, this film still mostly succeeds in creating a nightmarish world for the viewer to get lost in.

Director Review: HAL ASHBY

Until I undertook reviewing him I had never seen a movie by Hal Ashby. And yes, this means I had never seen deserving cult classic HAROLD AND MAUDE (1971).

I'm sorry.

I am now convinced that this is an unpardonable sin. In fact, after seeing three of his movies I now consider Hal Ashby to be a genius and a staple in American cinema.

In HAROLD AND MAUDE Ashby presents a funny, backward little story of death, life, love and expectations. Every character in this movie is developed in such a way that you fall in love with them. Even Harold's controling, oblivious mother you love for her deadpan reactions to Harold's various death reenactments. With every new scene you fall more in love with Harold and Maude. The writing is endlessly quotable. So many timeless lines. Ashby also shows us here that he knows exactly where to put the camera. You can't feel appropriately close to characters that the camera is not apropriately close to. In the end, this film has a sort of reflective quality, by which I mean this: It carries with it real, human emotions that remind you of your own life. It's one of those films that I carry around with me and certain emotions I experience will bring moments from the film back into my mind. I feel comfortable calling it one of my personal favorites. (P.S. Has a better soundtrack ever been compiled? Perhaps not.)

I also saw Ashby's BEING THERE (1979). Excellent idea, of a man who has lived his whole life in one mansion, working as a gardener and learning all he knows of the world through television. Though there are cool moments scattered through-out the 130 minutes, really only about 30 minutes of it were really terrific. Peter Sellers puts forth a pretty awesome acting job. But there are peices of the plot that seem too improbable and silly and it moves too slow to be interesting the entire time. I can't say I understand the surprise ending, but I also can't say I dislike it. Leaves the film off on a mystical, intriguing note.

Finally I saw COMING HOME (1978) Ashby's unconventional wartime love drama. This movie is very good, if not excellent. Once again, Ashby proves he can make you fall in love with whomever HE wants you to fall in love with. He sets you up by getting you to laugh a lot and feel warm and comfortable just to use that trust to break your heart. The sad parts of this are sadder than in his other movies, but Ashby pulls off dramadic seriousness as adeptly as he does goofy tomfoolery. And once again he has selected excellent music for us.

Director Review: DARIO ARGENTO

Dario Argento is not a great director. I find very little to like about his movies. Of the three films of his I've seen [THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMMAGE (1970), SUSPIRIA (1977), & INFERNO (1980)] the only one I really think was worth seeing was the oldest which was his premiere. I hope for his sake that I simply selected poorly from his extensive library of fake-gore-filled, stereotypical, ridiculous horror flicks. To say that his movie epitomize cheesy slasher films is no stretch. I found nothing progressive or impressive about them. If anything it felt almost like they were intentionally mimicking what was happening in that genre in America at the time, which was not good either. I forgive him very little for his films not aging well. If Orson Welles can pull off CITIZEN KANE in 1941, there's no excuse for filmmaking like this in the 70's.

But I don't want to spend my whole review just bullying him. His use of crazy colors shining onto walls from off camera may not be good or exclusively his (I'm thinking of German director Percy Adlon's use of this exact same tactic around the same time) but it is interesting. Also the first scene of THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMMAGE lures you into the film, then effectively haunts you after the film.

Hopefully he's gotten better since I'm excited to see his 2011 release DRACULA 3D (that's a joke)

Director Review: MICHELANGELO ANTONIONI

Michelangelo Antnoioni, the Italian filmmaking master, is deserving of every grandiose word fans of modernism have spoken about him. Clearly influencial in the New Wave era, he, in my opinion, earned his place in movie-making history.

L'AVVENTURA (1960), one of his most celebrated films, is where I started my relationship with Antonioni. The movie is eerie and peculiar in ways that are hard to explain. A woman goes missing on a boating trip and in their search for her her best  and boyfriend become attracted to each other. I found it intersting that the focus of the film is more on the relationships of the various search party members than on the mystery of the disappearing girl. Though it treads along slowly I never found myself bored. It ends up a really cool study of attraction, alienation, friendship and the loneliness and boredom of the upper class. Oh, and it's one of the most beautiful shot films ever.

Second I watched the film RED DESERT (1964). The first thing I noticed about this film is how influencial the coloring is in establishing the mood the filmmaker was looking for. Oddly enough this is Antonioni's first color feature. In its own way this film is just as beautiful as L'AVVENTURA. Instead of beautiful island scenery though, the setting of this film is giant factory smoke stacks emminating poinsonous gas, intertwining multi-colored pipe and polluted nature. This film caused a very different sense of disorientation: the kind that can only be felt when you can't identify with or understand your main character (played by the beautiful star of L'AVVENTURA, and many other Antonioni films, Monica Vitti). This an effective method though, since the film is about the character's general sense of depression, isolation and malcontentedness with her surroundings and acquaintances.

Third I watched a horribly boring film called THE PASSENGER (1975). Apparently both Antonioni and star Jack Nicholson were taking breaks from making good movies (Nicholson had just barely finished ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST and was maybe tired?). I find it odd that this film is so highly regarded. Maybe I just didn't get it. I'm all for Antonioni's signature slow pace, which this movie has in spades. I'm all for a suspense-filled film where almost nothing actually happens. I was bored with this film more because the characters were made of cardboard and to me it looked so drab. Not much beauty in the frame.

Still, Antonioni is a classic-maker. His eye how to produce beauty is undeniable. I can't wait to see his film L'ECLISSE which is rumored to be among his best and once again stars Monica Vitti who I'm beginning to have a really big crush on. Is 78 too old for me?

Director Review: THEO ANGELOPOULOS

Greek director Theo Angelopoulos is in no hurry to get you to wherever it is he's taking you. Each of the three movies I've seen by him were comprised of very long slow moving shots. They're all sort of depressing also. But his slow storytelling doesn't take away from his ability to develop a character or draw you into his often fable-like tales.

First I saw ETERNITY AND A DAY is about a famous poet trying to tie up his affair before what he believes is the end of his life. He spends time trying to find someone to take his dog which lauches us into a series of melancholy scenes and flashbacks that are all languid and sentimental. In a strange change of pace he ends up saving a little boy from a gang who kidnaps children to sell to couple who can't legally adopt. These almost actiony sequences didn't feel like they fit well with the rest of the film, but it does lead to a relationship between the man and boy that is touching seems to lead the man, though still afraid, closer to accepting his own mortality.

The next I saw was my favorite of those I've seen. LANDSCAPE IN THE MIST is the story of two children who set out for Germany to try and track down their father who they believe lives there. Along their trip they have a number of adventures, some funny and whimsical and some dark shocking. I think I'll always be scarred by a scene where a truck driver rapes the older sister. The photography in this film is beautiful and benefits from the slow camera work Angelopoulos demands in his work. As far as "coming-of-age" movies this is just about the top of the list for me.

Lastly I saw TRILOGY: THE WEEPING MEADOW. This is one of the saddest stories I've ever heard. As a child the character Eleni is taken in by a village leader named Spyros. She falls in love with Spyros' son Alexis and when she's 16 she gives birth to twins which are given up for adoption. Some years later Spyros' wife dies and he attempts to take Eleni as his wife, but she and Alexis run away together to seek freedom, love and their lost children. These actions lead to spiral of misfortune and despair that is exquisitely painful to watch. Seriously, don't watch this unless you're ready to see the worst-case-scenario of what can happen to life.

I'm glad that Angelopoulos is still working because I anticipate that he will release some really good work in the future (including the latter portions of the TRILOGY

Director Review: WES ANDERSON

Wes Anderson is my favorite director. I wish I could choose some more obscure, possibly foreign director to be my favorite, but I have no control over it. Wes Anderson has forced me to love him with his highly stylized films. Sure, most of the characters (especially the protagonists) are morally irresponsible. Sure, most of the films have similar themes and mood. Sure, the cinematography is deliberate, transparent and slow. Sure, the humor is dry and awkward and the dialogue a bit unreal. But these are the reasons that I love his movies.

Just a few words on each of his films (in order of how I'd rank them [and yes, this means his most famous movie is also my favorite one. You like what you like and as I said before, in my case I have little control over it])

THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS: I love the colors. With the exception of the attempted suicide scene it's all warm colors, mostly primary. It gives the film a comfortable almost familiar feel. The way a family feels, which is appropriate. This is one of the most quotable movies of all time. I probably quote some line from it everyday. Also there is one continuous shot at the wedding immediately after Eli crashes his car that I love with my whole heart. Look for it, every cast member is represented and I'm sure it was a nightmare to shoot, but it's beautiful.

THE DARJEELING LIMITED: One of my favorite aspects of Anderson films is his portrayal of familial relationships. This movie is the second best example of that.

FANTASTIC MR. FOX: The height of Anderson's silliness, but with the same wit as any of his films. Not really a film for children, but I think they could enjoy it anyway. I love the throwback animation too.

BOTTLE ROCKET: WA's first film is different in mood than his latter ones, but on its own it is amazing. More low key. Just go see it.

RUSHMORE: His second movie established his future style. It is pretty good. I'll love Jason Schwartzman forever.

THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU: I'm not saying I don't like it. I do. But it's long. And drags. And the characters aren't as loveable

Director Review: P. T. ANDERSON

Everytime I think I know P. T. Anderson I see a film by him that redefines him in my eyes. Of the five full length films he's released since 1996, I've seen four and own two. Needless to say, he's my kind of filmmaker.

P. T.'s second film (I've still never seen his first, HARD EIGHT. I really want to) was BOOGIE NIGHTS. Despite it being a truly great representation of the 70's and a highly stylized film, I didn't really like it too much. This is just one of those incomprehensible things. The film displayed Anderson's great skill in color usage, dialogue, storytelling, cinematography, etc. I can't think of a single thing wrong with it actually. Just not my cup of tea I guess.

Anderson's third film, MAGNOLIA, on the other hand is. To say it borrows heavily from a variety of sources (Altman, Scorsese, the Bible) is no stretch, but still he makes the several intertwining storylines his own, adding peices of himself along the way. The whole thing, from the writing to the acting to the at times uncomfortably close cinematography, feels very intimate. And no important topic seems to be left out. We have here commentary on love, sex, family and most of all forgiveness.

My first Anderson film was his third PUNCH DRUNK LOVE. I saw this soon after its release to DVD in 2002. On my first viewing all I could think was, "What?" I did although enjoy it enough to buy it and give it another shot. The second viewing revealed to me that, like I'd later learn is true of all of Anderson's films, things with Punch Drunk Love must be more or less taken at face value. It's a simple, strange representation of love. As a film it's flawed, but I forgive all that because I love it so much. As a couple of side notes, people site this as the point when they realized Adam Sandler could act. I personally think anyone in the world could have acted that role, and if he ever displayed decent acting (which is still questionable) it would be in Funny People of Spanglish. But he should not be rich. Also, the music in Puch Drunk Love is awesome. Jon Brion is one of my favorite score writers (Eternal Sunshine, I Heart Huckabees).

Anderson's most recent film is, in my opinion, his best. THERE WILL BE BLOOD is the story of an oilman who, through his search for success loses all reason in life to succeed. It's dark as hell. Every part of it is perfectly tuned and this is the point at which I feel like P. T. Anderson proved that he is meant to be remembered. The music in the film is also noteworthy. Composed by Jonny Greenwood of Radiohead, it's an odd mix of dissonant strings, feedback noise and sometimes low, heavy drums. Nothing at all what you'd expect for a film set in the early 1900's.

P. T. Anderson is a diverse filmmaker. His work is always different, but it's always excellent.

Director Review: ROBERT ALTMAN

Altman is one of the classic American filmmakers. Known for commanding big star-filled casts through dramatic, intertwining sotrylines, his work is both diverse and identifiable.

First I watched 3 WOMEN because I was told it was awesome. It was not. With the exception of one strange, experimental dream sequence there was little I liked about the movie. I specifially did not like Sissy Spacek's performance, or any for that matter except for Shelley Duvall who did alright. The dialogue was the worst. I couldn't even believe what I was hearing.

Next I watched IMAGES which, though it was released five years earlier than 3 WOMEN, was better in every way. The camera moves around the scenes like one of the actors. I loved the way this film built upon itself. Cathryn, the protagonist, starts becoming plagued by illusions of people who are not there. As the lines between reality and delusion become blurred the whole pace of the film speeds up. This is a beautiful movie I would suggest to anyone.

My most recent Altman film was SHORT CUTS. This film came late in Altman's career, after some critical acclaim and success in the box office, then an almost decade of less impressive releases (including the movie POPEYE with Robin Williams. Not a shining Altman moment). But when Altman makes a comeback he does it right. SHORT CUTS is excellent. The only film I've seen from Altman that has his signature style of huge casts acting out numerous storyline. As the shorts criss-cross over each other you start to feel the themes Altman wants to convey. Isolation. Indfidelity. Death. Sorrow. Chance. Set in Los Angeles, the film also relies more heavily on its music than most I can think of. There are both Jazz and Classical string arrangements which were composed for the film and act as a perfect backdrop. Unless you'll be disturbed by a pretty heavy amount of nudity go see this movie. Awesome performances from Tim Robbins, Julianne Moore, Lily Tomlin, Tom Waits, and (beleive it or not) Huey Lewis.

I know I need to see more films by Altman. NASHVILLE and MASH are a couple of his most famous that I haven't seen. Also don't hesitate to let me know which ones are your favorites. I'd love to get to know Robert Altman better.

Comment · · Share

Director Review: PEDRO ALMODOVAR

Pedro Almodovar is a master of dark comedy. His films are wrought with personal drama, human difficulty, addiction and self-destruction, but approach it so whimsically that no topic is overbearing. The dialogue between his characters reveals both his empathy for suffering and also his amusement at the circumstances that sometimes cause people to suffer. Visually most of his earlier films are have an unreal vibrancy. In later years he would ditch this to some degree, but he would also free up the camera to move about and play a more critical role in the scene. His movies are always beautiful, but in different ways.

I've seen four films by Pedro Almodovar. The first I watched was his first real breakthrough and critically acclaimed film WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN. This is a highly stylized look at an actress, Pepa, dealing with a break up. Much of the humor comes from plotline twists and turns. I do feel although that some of the hilarity gets lost in the translation to some degree. It's hard for someone like myself, raised on and still mostly accustomed to Hollywood American film, to tell exactly when characters are being sarcastic, witty, or goofy. I want to watch this one again, because the parts that I was sure I was getting the intended mood, were brilliant. Aside from the vibrant color usage and some key visual symbols (a burning bed, an answering machine through a reflection) I would say that this movie is more about the story than painting beautiful frames. But I loved it.

Next I saw ALL ABOUT MY MOTHER. This is an incredibly sad, dramatic movie. A woman, Manuela, witnesses her son killed in a car crash, then learns through his journal that he felt his whole life like he was missing something from not knowing his father. Manuela decides to search for the father, a transvestite named Lola. In the meantime she become the personal assistant of the actress whose limo killed her son. A decade after WOMEN, this movie is heavy, but still maintains the same complicated story twists and witty lines as his earlier work. Less funny, and I enjoyed it less, but it might be a better movie.

After that I saw DARK HABITS. This is an earlier work and was suggested to me because I enjoyed WOMEN so much. This definitely has a lot of similarities, with a lot of funny banter and zany characters. A woman hides out at a convent after her friend dies of a drug overdose. This is no normal convent though. These nuns are nuts. Some take drugs. Some write strange pulp fiction novels. And they have a tiger. But all their dark habits can't stay hidden long when a new mother superior takes charge. Again not an excellent movie cinematographically, this is my favorite Almodovar because it's absolutely hilarious. And its religious implications of repression and self-destruction resound with me.

The most recent Almodovar film I've seen is his newest BROKEN EMBRACES. He's changed in this film from the film maker he was in the previous decades. This is a sharper movie cinematographically. Beautiful, dynamic shots (especially in bedroom scenes). Almodovar has traded in, by this point, the striking colors for a more realistic look, and he pulls it off very well. The central character, a writer who went blind a decade earlier, and his family begin to unveil secrets of the past after encountering an old, vengeful acquaintance. Themes of fatherhood, sexuality, honesty, and truth are studied through the stories told, but unfortunately it feels a bit rushed at parts and a little contrived. The numerous morals of the story start to trip over each other and at the end you feel a little muddled. Still a pretty good movie.

In closing, I want to see more Almodovar. That is all.

Director Review: WOODY ALLEN

Oh Woody. I don't even know what to say. Not many other film directors of the last four decades have influenced the American perception of what is funny more than Woody Allen. For me not all his movies are excellent, but they all have that charming Woody Allen flare: the laugh-out-loud scene-close one-liners, the neurotic, pessimistic, self-destructive characters, themes of love, happiness, sadness and searching, and in most cases Allen himself playing some role. In general the magic of Woody Allen's movies isn't in the visuals as much as in the stories and the characters. He's more a playwrite than a painter. But that's what I love him for. I'll always enjoy seeing Woody's movies because they're powered by an almost Shakespearean understanding of the human condition. When someone who doesn't know you has you pegged that well, all you can do is laugh.

I'm just going to share a couple quick ideas of mine for each of Allen's films I've seen. It's not in any sort of order, and getting upset with me for not having seen this movie or that won't do any good. I'll eventually see them all, I promise.

DECONSTRUCTING HARRY: This is my favorite film by Woody Allen thusfar. I loved that each of Harry's "fictional" characters was a representation of one or more people in his life, and yet played in the movie by different actors. There are so many awesome parallels in the storyline and in the visuals of this movie. This would probably make it onto a list of my top 50 movies if I ever were to make such a list.

SCOOP: I didn't like this. Last time I saw it was soon after it came out on DVD, but I felt like the impossible and strange elements of the story were too spaced out for the film to have any feeling of consistency.

ANTZ: He didn't direct it, but was the main voice. I think this movie is underrated, but it's also not excellent.

WHATEVER WORKS: Allen's most recent film felt like a high school student trying to recreate Woody Allen's style. The dialogue was sometimes great but sometimes absolutely awful. The pessimistic characters were too pessimistic. The stupid characters were too stupid. The artistic characters were to artsy. It was like one long cliche. I did although like the moral and employ it in my life.

SHADOWS AND FOG: An old time mystery thriller fuzed with Allen's flair. He may have tried a little too hard to make this feel genrized, but that and the lame ending are really my only gripes.

HANNAH AND HER SISTERS: One of his several masterpeices. Michael Caine is awesome in this. Family drama and the fickle nature of desire are always fun topics through a Woody Allen lense.

ZELIG: One of the funniest mockumentaries I've seen. It still stays sweet though. I love this movie.

EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX * BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK: Allen being playful and funny. A series of nonsensical shorts, half of which starring Allen, meant to exemplify the various obsurdities about sex.

ANNIE HALL: This is most people's favorite Woody film and I see why. Though it leans surprisingly heavily on monologue and dialogue, there isn't a second of it that feels boring or useless. For this reason it's become one of the most referenced romantic comedies of all time.

Director Review: CHANTAL AKERMAN

I'm entirely conflicted about whether I LIKE Chantal Akerman or not. She is a director with a very clear, identifiable voice, typified by obsessively long takes, feminist themes, an intense study of ritual or mundane actions, minimal dialogue, either no or little movement of the camera, a fixation with sexuality (both homo- and heterosexual) and the use of both neorealism and hyperrealism in the storytelling.

The first Akerman film I watched was her most famous film "Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai Du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles." I hated this movie. I'll tell you why. A big part of movie-watching for me is entertainment. I want to watch things that stimulate me visually, emotionally and intellectually. That's simply not the case in a movie where almost nothing happens for at least 180 of its 200 minutes. We spend hours watching Jeanne clean her house in real time. I understand that the statement is meant to be that these everyday chores and activities say just as much as a conventional storytelling plot line, but I just don't agree. I also didn't much like the bedroom scene toward the end of the film. It was meant probably to shock the audience and punctuate the lonely repression that is Jeanne's life, but it came too far out of left field for my liking. There was no real build to this moment and its randomness just didn't fit the rest of the almost non-existent storyline that was playing out. That's not to say that I think this movie is all bad or completely worthless. I consider it a conceptually and thematically important film. Its clearly feminist themes are compelling and identifiable. I find brilliance in the symmetry of every shot and the eye-level viewpoint that makes the happenings all the more real.

Next I watched "The Captive", a newer release. This is an adaptation of a Proust novel, but I haven't read the book so I can't comment on how well the filmmaker tansmitted the themes and mood from the source material. Judging it solely as a film, I loved this story. The protagonist Simon becomes obsessed with fully knowing his lover Ariane. As he follows her around town, almost as a detective looking for clues, he tries to figure out if she cares for him or has homosexual feelings. The statements on male jealousy, insecurity and obsession are so subtley brought forward that you don't even feel the filmmaker unfolding it. You feel only the characters. The slow pace of the film mirrors the gnawing doubt or the protagonist, bringing to the mind the question: Who is really the Captive in this relationship? If there's any part of this film I less than loved it would be the ending, though even that had congruency, as the final scene is set on the same beach as the event that initiated Simon's investigation.

Lastly I watched "Je Tu Il Elle", Akerman's first feature film. This, too, felt like too much of a neorrealist waste of time. The first 30 mins literally take place in the protagonist's (played by Akerman herself) bedroom where she performs ordinary task, half of which naked. Finally she leaves the room and proceeds to hitchhike, accepting a ride from a trucker. The two ride together for seemingly a long while. All of it is pretty boring with dark, fuzzy, long, uncomfortable takes. In the final 20 minute or so sequence of the film the protagonist reaches her apparent destination, the apartment of a female friend, who feeds her and makes love to her. The film seems to me to be about the search for identity in relationship to sexuality and the concept of home. The protagonist never finds a home and the film ends with her leaving the apartment for who knows where.

Though I only have these three films to judge off of, it feels to me like Akerman makes very unified work. You know what you're going to get with one of her films, more or less. The variable for me is whether or not she will make it likeable.

The Virgin Spring (1960)

This exquisite folk tale tragedy from my favorite Swedish director Ingmar Bergman is a masterful anecdote of innocence, religious penance and revenge.

Synecdoche, New York (2008)

Charlie Kaufman once again proves himself a filmmaker who can make me feel a plethora of different exquisite emotions within two hours.

Howl (2010)

James Franco portrays young Allen Ginsberg in a beautiful, warm way.

Doc Godby (not a doctor)

I'm going to post things I think about film I see. Check frequently. I'll be posting frequently.