More Reviewy Thingys

DODGE THIS

It seems some cinephiles fail to “get” The Matrix. I remember Roger Ebert’s review on his and the late Gene Siskel’s program At the Movies compared it unfavorably to Dark City, and the shared consensus of he and then guest critic Joel Siegel was “at least it tries.” Honestly, I don’t think anyone can fully appreciate this film until they have some understanding of Japanese animation and comics, which I’m sure Roger Ebert does not. Much like Star Wars was an amalgamation of film and television classicism and mythological archetypes, The Matrix unites anime and manga influenced cinematography with wuxia style action sequences. But this isn’t to undermine its Western roots; recall Neo and Smith’s final battle: a Mexican standoff of patently “Western” flavor, complete with a listless tumble-weed, only now it’s subway garbage. Sweetly topped off of course with (increasingly) relevant Internet society commentary, The Matrix is technocalyptic, philosophical, purely kick-ass filmmaking at its very best. I firmly believe that its quality and relevance is only beginning to be understood, and no film maker will ever entirely escape (or dodge, har) its impact.

YOU KNOW, THAT GOD THING

The most crucial part of The Seventh Seal to me is the fact that Jof and his family are the only ones to escape “unscathed.” Of course they too will eventually join the dance of death, but that naive optimism can only come from such absolute faith.

I don’t believe Bergman is advertising Christianity though, and perhaps I am interpreting the film through my own beliefs, but I think the point is more that faith is indeed a powerful thing, and that God and Satan (or what they represent) exist in us all. The scene in the chapel after Antonius’s confession, when he marvels at his own hand, to me that is Bergman asserting: Man is God and creator of his own domain, master of his own body. This is my hand, and I can move it.

Again this could be less Bergman and more my own beliefs, but you can’t really watch this film without laying down, in black and white, what DO you believe? Which is the film’s true power, I think.

This motif of absoluteness, of "black and white," is hugely significant. The film of course is not in color, and whether or not this was a creative choice or sign of the times truthfully isn’t important; the similarity to and (apparent) emulation of a chess board and pieces results in images as beautiful and meaningful as they come.

Super Dead

I had planned to write a review of the film Die Hard and talk about the quintessential American-ness of it, and why this wasn't propagandic hero-worship (despite overtly foreign, even Aryan villains), but why the film was in truth an examination of such worship, particularly in the film medium. In short, Die Hard shows that us Americans like our ultimate badasses, and that their super-human qualities expressed through the average Joe has a legitimately positive and inspiring effect on viewers (personified by the Sgt. Powell character).

But then I decided that there was only one sentence in all the world that could effectively and accurately describe the film, and at the (brilliant) urgence of a friend, I let the review stay at that. Here is that sentence in all its concise glory:

In Die Hard, people don't just die -- they super die.

Snob snob snob

Long time no post. These are, based on my experience and reaction, the most overrated, uninteresting, boring, Oskar Bate films of 2009. I can not grasp or even begin to fathom the praise for them.

Let it be known that I haven’t seen many non-American films this year, because, well I’m a fat American who enjoys all manner of apparatus-flung spheroids.


STAR TREK
I at least get the appeal here, I guess. I enjoy Trek as much as the next nerd, but I’m not really a fan, so that right there detracted from my enjoyment. Even taken on summer movie terms, though, I still found it boring. The production design was fantastic; all the sets, props, and costumes were a joy to look at; but I could never get over the annoying cinematography. So many cuts and close-ups! This is a very dynamic way of shooting films that is a popular trend right now, very Bourne kind of stuff, and I do not think it works for sci-fi. When there’s fantastic technological wonders zipping across the screen, explosions used like most people use punctuation, all the magic is lost. We should be able soak that stuff in, really appreciate the craft and thought gone into their design. Star Trek, to its great detriment, never lets up.

DISTRICT 9
I said all there was to say in my review already, but I think that this film and the other sci-fi duds of the year were so well received because there has been such a shortage of great films in the genre. This drought has people so thirsty that they guzzle down whatever droplets are being produced and think them to be great works.

AVATAR
This could be a trilogy of sorts; “Sci-Fi 2009: When Tastes Dilute.”

UP IN THE AIR
Jason Reitman needs to stop with the musically-edited opening credits sequences. They bother me.

UP
This is the big one. I am so baffled by this film’s love. Am I really such a bastard that I was apparently the only person not moved to tears by this aesthetically-challenged, bland, wheeze of a forgettable film? You’ve got two geezers, for all intents and purposes senile, fighting each other on top of a freaking zeppelin. This should have been incredible! But it wasn't – it was boring. Totally, unforgivably dead on the screen.

For All Mankind

For All Mankind is an extraordinary documentary that chronicles the Apollo missions. Director Al Reinert poured over endless amounts of NASA's archival footage to create one of the most inspiring and communal motion pictures ever made. I don't think I can fully articulate this film's invaluability to myself, film in general, or (seriously) mankind, so rather than write my own piece I have a link to an essay by Terrence Rafferty. Read it, have a listen to a bit of Brian Eno's fantastic soundtrack, and then seek out the film for your own viewing. You can watch the film on Criterion's site for a mere five dollars, and I strongly encourage it.

EDIT: I caved and decided to write my own, bad, piece on the film. But it expresses how I was feeling, so that is at least worthy. I am happy.

HAPPY

For All Mankind is an extraordinary chronicle of the Apollo missions. Director Al Reinert poured over endless amounts of NASA’s archival footage to create one of the most unique documentaries ever made. Unlike conventional docs, there are no talking head interviews or camera movement over still photographs. Video is entirely comprised of on location photography by NASA personnel and astronauts, voiced-over by the astronauts themselves. Footage from all the Apollo flights is spliced together to create the sensation of one epic, singular trip. This results in a technically fictitious series of events, but that’s filmmaking. The absence of subtitles to designate who is on-screen or who is speaking creates a humbling anonymity that trivializes the flags and initials emblazoned over the crew and equipment. These aren’t people, but humans.

Can I truly articulate this film’s invaluability? I have watched it every single day since my first viewing, and I can’t wait to watch it again tomorrow. To be there for Armstrong’s famous words, to cower at the terrible, explosive power of liftoff, like some infernal bullet fired from the depths of hell, or to simply marvel at Earth’s, my home’s, beauty. For All Mankind is representative not just of one of our greatest achievements, but of all humanity. You are unlikely to ever see a more inspiring or communal motion picture.

Whatever.

Whenever not epitomizing the role himself, Woody Allen has always found appropriate actors to portray his neurotic, obsessive, and pessimistic protagonists. I stress that Allen is the only one really fit for these roles because he is essentially playing himself, but John Cusack seemed to work alright, and now equally neurotic Larry David is giving it a shot, perhaps to better represent Allen’s age. On paper he seems a great fit. What have become known as the “Larry David moments” of Curb Your Enthusiasm could theoretically work well under Allen’s witful direction, but Whatever Works isn’t a film about Larry David moments, despite the actor’s declamatory presence. David’s deliveries feel forced, and his chemistry with the other actors is generally awkward, in such a way that it’s more like watching a screenplay than a movie.

However, I kept wondering whether or not this was intentional. Is the script supposed to feel so obtrusive? Jokes are obvious and by the climax the characters are all tidied up uncharacteristically neatly for an Allen film. David’s character, Boris Yelnikoff, even turns to the audience to deliver a denouement so no one is left behind. He actually breaks the fourth wall frequently throughout the film, each time the rest of the cast, interestingly, aware of his apparent soliloquies, yet unaware of us, the film-watchers. He must look insane, and maybe he is. Boris is frequently named and self-proclaimed a genius, but history has shown that the line between genius and insanity is a fine one. Maybe that’s why he’s such a misanthrope?

This is all too absurd to be taken seriously or at face value, so I’ll give Allen the benefit of the doubt and say he was being subversive. The point? No idea, so I’ll end this review in similar fashion:

Whatever Works? Well, it kind of does. Whatever works for you, Woody.