asu Reviews

Tarnation (2003)

Something you won't see, makes the movie dishonest and exploitive

[3/10 · 15 September 2006]

The reviews, polarized as some of them are all honest. Jonathan Caouette lays himself out in front of the camera in scenes that are uncomfortable by truthful as well as clearly self-indulgent and narcissistic. Scenes with family members tread from necessarily confrontational and honest to (as it progresses) increasingly exploitive. At least for me, there is no question that it was frequently arresting. It's up to the viewer to decide if the mixture of honesty and exhibitionism, and the uncomfortable scenes become too much. Myself, I was unnerved at the length at a scene of his mother talking to a doll that he held for whole minutes past any point.

Two things tipped it, one scene you can see and one bit of fact. First, towards the end he sits in front of a mirror (he's close now to the age of where he wrapped up making the movie) and recites a poor soliloquy that's clearly not improvised or natural. In fact, in it he refers to what he's doing as scene ... something that quickly casts doubt on the credibility of a wide stretch of the movie, though not all of it. The second thing comes from the fact my viewing at the theater was followed up with a Q&A with one of the producers. He revealed that he father refused to allow himself to be seen unless shown favorably. That he asked if his soon had aids. Basically, that he acted completely counter to the depiction shown in the movie. If Caouette had shown it all, and dealt with the consequences that'd be one thing. If he didn't, and dealt with gap that'd be something else. Instead, he chose to mislead everyone who happens to see this movie, robbing it of honestly, which was the one thing gives it any power.

Whatever impulses I may have had to ignore or overlook the films flaws went away with that.

Lost in Translation (2003)

Superbly constructed (and you can see the seams)

[7/10 · 4 October 2003]

I came in with misgivings, having admired the craft but not enjoyed the Virgin Suicides. Quite and silence are used in film to add gravity to scenes (we're so used to constant soundtracks in American films), and I thought there was a lot of ill earned gravity to that movie. and honestly accounting for that, I still dislike Lost in Translation ... the entire first half consisted of one cheap shot after another to build up two characters who in the end I tolerate but generally think of arrogant tourists. Actually, I actively dislike the girl at the end. I understand that it was meant to show culture clash, the we're so lost and how do you reach out ... but with such a mean spirit that I couldn't help but think that of the shallow, low side of the characters. Nor did was it an elevation of what is basically a normal, common feeling for many of us. The culture clashes were so constructed as primarily sight gags, or reaction shots, or god forbid the japanese mispronouncing english...in Japan? It was a spirit that permeated the film, especially including the poor little rich girl actress. Sure its funny, the Bill Murray and Scarlett Johannson (who did fine) are our surrogates, and they built entirely at the expense of the ill-conceived characters, who are merely more "the world is crazy and crude and we're lost" props for the leads.

The second half was better, more even, even if the good things about Japan that they like are a very hip, elitist selection anyway. Had the first half been more tonally even, I think I would have enjoyed it much more. But by then I wanted the well made, well acted, pretty movie to end. Everyone was very good. The script was very constructed, every other character astonishingly poor. Like Storytelling, well sure I don't like those people. You wrote them that way.

Happy Together reminds me of a lost in foreign country movie that wasn't so mean. Being lost shouldn't be a feeling that requires insults, like Coppola's shots w/o people. Simlarily, there are quiet banal moments we're just supposed to gauzily watch. I say we're suppose to feel a bit of their existential ennui. And I don't. Its the same thing as <SPOILER>

mumbling the last words, and not giving it to the audience- cheap shot. Scenes that add the appearance of depth, but completely artificially.

Monster's Ball (2001)

completely astonished...

[5/10 · 21 July 2003]

So much craft went into this work, obvious love and care to make this film beautiful and powerful, and for the most part competent acting job. In the end, I felt insulted, and that so much wasted effort on a script that is doing its level best to be important, it forgets to be good, and ends up hamfistedly telling me how important it is. I hesitate to call it horrible, since its in no way a badly crafted movie, but the crass manipulation involved in the story made the movie a chore. Thornton rose a bit above the role, but everyone left it what they must have found in it, one-sided, static, mouthing out platitudes about the worrisome naure of race in america. God if we could only crumble and rebuild ourselves together!

These folks could probably get together and make a good film about race, but first they need to drop the after school special style script and shot making. Completely inorganic...

Prospero's Books (1991)

A notable work, but come prepared

[8/10 · 12 February 2001]

I was absolutely in awe the first time I saw this film, but haven't really been able to sit through it again (its mainly the shoddy VHS I own), but I plan to give it the time it deserves. First off, I love Shakespeare, and I knew the Tempest fairly well before seeing this. I can imagine enjoying it fresh, but honestly, its main pts are for those familiar with the play. That said, Greenway has created a grand piece of artwork with this film. I love plot, I miss it often (and its often missing these days), but I equally enjoy works that don't use it or go beyond it. The visuals are lush, and Michael Nyman's score is fantastic...Prospero's Books is more experience than story, like a painting or a song.

Understandbly, Greenway is one of those filmmakers whose audience should be prepared for something different than the regular fare. I have a feeling my own attachment to the source material may be casting the film more glowingly than it deserves. The play has its flaws too, but for someone who takes the time it certainly rewards you well.

I'll comment on the nudity, very briefly. Sex, sensuality, and natural forms are three things that can be very differently perceived, and Prospero's Books deals with it in an adult (as in mature) manner, come that way and you'll be fine.

New Year Sacrifice (1956)

A well-made, simple tragedy

[7/10 · 12 February 2001]

This movie is a generally well made, occasionally melodramatic story of a peasant woman in China who is widowed twice, and betrayed by both the strict confines of society and by the cruel nature of her neighbours.

The original tale by Lu Xun is more complex, and compelling, but the elements that the movie retained are convincing and solid (probably more than they could've been with all the stories elements).

A special note: the narrator's voice makes only three appearances, and are either redundant and useless, or party of the propaganda of the time period. For what its worth, the film depicts the real ills of China that its later inhabitants are still struggling with...the old ways and the solutions they chose.

Snatch (2000)

Better than Lock Stock

[21 January 2001]

A Better Tomorrow got perfected in Killer and Woo's followups, and so Ritchie does Lock Stock better the second time. Nothing new, really, and if anything, being more familiar with the style you can guess how more of the events are going to wrap up together, but a generally fun ride. A multi-thread caper, some really fun camerawork and nice shots.

As close to Wong Kar Wai doing a straight gangster movie as it gets, chk out Fallen Angels.

****spoiler****

Now why did Vinny put the gem back in the case? The plot depends on it, and it doesn't make sense. It nagged me throughout the film.

Gladiator (2000)

Pure entertainment

[6/10 · 21 January 2001]

A fun, pretty shiny thing. The almost braveheart, or Ben-Hur/Spartacus redux. Ridley Scott does it again, he really does create an immersive beautiful, obviously faked world. The acting...well, not much to work with, so hell, Scott always has scenery chewing, so what. They're not the show, the Roman world, a very specific silly version of the Roman world is. Its a well-balanced movie, with nothing being especially good.

Speaking of which, for a budget that big, the effects were pretty, but they clearly weren't that impressive. You can tell where they are, which is too bad. In a year with better movies (hardly a bold statement, and its not like they get much better), this wouldn't be considered for anything. Hell, even Titanic might have had more merits. ...

Nevermind.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

A stunning rehash of the war film.

[7/10 · 21 January 2001]

It started well enough, with the protracted horrors of war on screen, there to teach the audience the cost of war. And then Spielberg, as always, played for sentiment and proceeded to created the best, least-challenging, war-patriotism movie on record. It was well acted, made, and stunning to behold. It just offers nothing new...and fails as a lesson about war. Spielberg...sigh...I just can't get excited about the guy. I know what he's going to do...

The Starship Troopers comparison is good, the bugs = Nazis, but the troopers were Nazis too. It isn't that private ryan were evil, but you can see the way propaganda runs its course in media. I remember the audience cheering for the sniper all the way. That doesn't sound like the horror of war stuck with anyone. Patriotism is a good thing, but maturity as an audience involves recognizing our flaws too.

And thats why we have movies about Vietnam.

Starship Troopers (1997)

Verhoven does it again. and again. and again.

[7/10 · 21 January 2001]

Once again Verhoven decides to go over the top with his satire, leaving behind whole tracts of the audience as always. As an action movie, its good, pure fun. The special effects blend amazingly well, to me the most important part of it. Take a look at Gladiator and you can tell the difference between a well done blend job and a hackneyed take. Verhoven didn't need to pay his actors much, so all the money could go there. Everything else pretty much adds up the satire. Who else would take these actor and put them in these costumes? Doogie Howser the SS officer, the machismo talk and glamour faces...

As for the nudity, we as an audience are the only ones who care, as an American audience most of all. The carnage is the same as the Wild Bunch and westerns, we watch violence and blood and gore. If you didn't like this one, well, if its more graphic then its safe to say its more realistic too.

I'm usually a purist about movies following books, though considering Heinlien it fits. Increasingly conservative in his own politics, this is the spirit that he wanted, though perhaps not portrayed this way. And if Verhoven mocks it, well, someone should. Duty and responsibility are fine things to promote, but Verhoven wants to warn us about what happens when any one group takes control, and its closer to reality than Heinlein's vision.

Calculated and over-the-top, but a well crafted and fun movie.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

Good, solid film

[8/10 · 11 January 2001]

So personally I think Ang Lee gets a lot more credit for Yuen Woo Ping's scenes interspersed between his than without...but its still a solid film. The scenes are beautiful, the score works perfectly to complement the action, and the acting is generally great. Ah...its so much better when actors are more accustomed to the language, they seem to concentrate so much less on pronounciation, though I've heard about the strains of using classical mandarin.

The plot is pretty packed, as per the form its based on a novel. So a few pts seem to drop out, but its a bit like coming into a story, not necessarily in the middle, but at least one which you're familiar with the world for. The camerawork...was solid but missing some of the movement that would have added to the work. We see much of the world in still frames, and that method is occasionally lacking.

I've heard rumblings this is considered feminist...ha!

Lest I be too judgemental, I did love this movie, by far the best I've seen coming out this year. If you let yourself become absorbed by the film, or you already know the conventions of the genre, it certainly takes your breath away. Argue about the logic later...

Traffic (2000)

Basically good, though overrated- big budget afterschool special

[6/10 · 11 January 2001]

I've been fairly disappointed with this year's films, and looked forward to something that might truly impress me. Traffic is a solid, well-crafted film, with good acting, and a profoundly mediocre script.

Do I need an upper-class, white, A-student victim to know drugs are harmful? Extracurriclars are going to save society? Corruption in Mexico, advanced drug cartels, and the witness at trial. Sigh... The good minority characters, the bad minority characters, the loving father, average joes in support groups...sigh. An irritating boyfriend who spouts the occasional lecture to knock us into place. Actually, 100,000 black people wouldn't make it into a white neighbourhood...there's more to life than econ. I disliked him so much I ignored almost everything he said, good or not.

Technically, the camera moved too much for me. I usually appreciate some fancy cinematography, but some of those angles seemed to be there just so it wasn't straight, it didn't mean anything more than...look, real life-jerky film.

I don't expect perfect answers from a movie, but frankly, for something as heavily touted as this was I was disappointed. An afterschool special with a heavy budget. I had expected this movie to be informative, and it was. As something touted as eye-opening, it wasn't. As someone who considers himself marginally aware of current events, I either knew it or saw it coming.

Sigh...Jesse is so scared...

Showgirls (1995)

Underrated, overrated

[10/10 · 11 January 2001]

Technically an excellent film, and I basically agree with the notion that its a satire. If its been so successful in making people upset and disappointed, then perhaps that was its pt? Verhoeven is a good enough director for me to give him the credit of having put on screen nothing by mistake. It suffers the way all his movies suffer...when he wants to show you something awful, he does. But where other directors have the token moral center character, the one who the audience goes by that and teaches us the lesson, or learns with us. Showgirls, like Starship Troopers is a cruel joke. Either you get it and are genuinely disgusted with what it says about us as a society, or you don't.

I give this film a 7 in real life, though I voted 10 just for the sake of raising its score. There are a lot worse films out there.

**spoiler** I'm not sure this spoils anything...but the scene with the monkeys running amok, and putting on makeup. God, thats the single most obvious metaphor i've ever seen...It works, but rather like a sledgehammer does.