Change Your Image
eshaines_zuke
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Irishman (2019)
Guess I was in the Right Mood for this Film
Not concise, but how could Scorcese be? This is verging on historical fiction and teeters the line between conspiracy theory and fact. Bob DeNiro is a tour de force-as are Pesci and Pacino-to be expected, but some unlikely surprises are performances by Ray Romano, comedian Sebastian Maniscalco. Deals with the tragic self-imposed family-perpetuating world of the mob and even its political implications. It's a wild ride, and if the Academy's announcement of it isn't enough, stay bored and disappointed. Just epic-violent, sad, but epic. What happened to Jimmy Hoffa??
Gone Girl (2014)
Criminal Cheaters!!
Tense, insanity, uncouth, criminal. The dark side of humanity. A cheating husband and an disloyal wife get their come-uppance...from one another.
Radioactive (2019)
Deeply saddening portrait
Darkly lit and dark in concept, but also mysterious, adventurous, and contemplative. Tragic life of a genius of sorts, whose discoveries went on to help, and harm, millions.
The Baby-Sitters Club (1995)
Kids Flick with Depth
I liked this movie a lot as a kid because it is all about kids being proactive in pursuing their own goals and happiness. There is drama, conflict, social pressure, and family pressure, set to an overarching backdrop of friendship. One of the primary motifs pertains to Christi's relationship with her estranged father, and I think this helps a lot of kids today deal with the very sensitive and often silenced topic. It certainly helped me growing up. I would recommend this to anyone trying to introduce kids to the Baby Sitters Club stories, or to parents helping their kids cope with estranged parents/divorce/etc....boys or girls alike, but particularly girls!
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
Fifteen Years Later: Not Terrible for a 60K Budget
I'm not sure what it is about this film that makes it interesting. By all accounts, it should be quite dull: much of it is shot in motion or out of focus by hand-held cameras, the dialogue is petty and tedious, there's an absence of sexual tension between the main characters, and much of what is feared throughout the film, while eerie, is merely suggestive of horror. Perhaps I am spoiled by modern day horror and suspense films, which are less understated, follow an explicit plot, and don't leave me wanting in terms of visual access. The "agenda" of this film is still fear —we are to believe that even after one or two centuries, the so-called "Blair Witch" still lives in those woods and is still out to kill, as evidenced by the eerie ending.
An obscurity that doesn't ever quite seem resolved for me, and there is more than one, is what one man at the beginning of the "documentary" tells the filmmakers: that a man was found guilty of killing some children and confessed to the crime—are we to think that the witch possessed this killer? Or were these unrelated crimes that just happened to be occurring in the same geographical area?
It also seems to me that all of the folklore and mythology surrounding the Blair Witch deaths pertain to attacks on children—with the one exception of the men tortured on that rock whose bodies later mysteriously disappear—why would the witch go after children for so many years but then in the modern day attack these three grown adults? It is a possible statement that these three filmmakers were so consumed by naiveté and child-like curiosity for the macabre, or a rather dumb, stop-at-nothing passion for art, that they were mistaken for children by the witch, or at least considered to be one in the same. Because really, what thinking, rational adult would so discredit a history of serial killings—just for the reason that its roots were non- scientifically explained—to put themselves in what would potentially be harm's way? Aren't there a million other things to explore and about which to write and direct films? Ridiculous.
This is the second time I've seen this film, the first time being early in high school, for me about thirteen or fourteen years ago. I watched it the first time at night, at a friend's house, and when the movie was over and I had nearly peed myself in fear, never having seen any movie quite like it, she insisted we go to the local woodsy lake area to light some fireworks—naturally I was petrified, tried to convince everyone it was a bad idea, but ended up ignored, and went. That was the first night I forced myself, for my own sanity, to make a distinction between film-based fear projected onto reality, and reality itself. Why would a witch come out of the woods in the middle of Dallas, TX, where I was at the time, when the witch in this film haunts a forest in Maryland, I asked myself. And so I found my firmer footing. It is only now, thirteen years later, in revisiting the movie to see if I still found it as scary, that I have decided to reevaluate it.
I guess I could've done without the foul-mouthed protagonist—why on earth would I empathize with this woman who doesn't know how to speak without dropping an 'f-bomb' every other word? Not that I have a big problem with cursing to convey a certain amount of anger or frustration—but to hear it constantly, it was as if she were beating me over the head with it. Her male counterparts were far better behaved and easier to stomach as characters.
I think that what works about the film is the gradual decay in the lead characters' morale. They begin their adventure peppy, excited, naive, almost cocky—and by the end of the film disintegrate into panic, rage, fear, cynicism, and desperation. I still get a kick out of seeing that extreme close-up of the leading lady in her beanie, only half of her face visible, welling up with tears, whispering: "I'm afraid to close my eyes, I'm afraid to open them...." I think it's the first time in the movie one can really feel the film's trademark desperation and isolation these characters must have been internalizing as their project progressed.
The movie's not perfect; there are some things I would've done differently: fewer, but more focused, less scattered interviews with locals (when in doubt, simplify, don't obscure your characters' motivations), interspersing steady cam shots with the hand-held, blurry ones—purely for palatability to the audience (you are trying to achieve the effect of a realistic out-in-the- woods experience, but isn't filmmaking just as much about satisfying an audience as pleasing the filmmaker?); some more clues as to what happened to Josh; and maybe, if the steady cam shots were included, when Mike drops the camera at the end, there would be a way to show the climax of the film without the girl having to pick up the camera herself and film—it is simply not believable that, in this state of panic, after having formally apologized to her and her colleagues' parents for her stubborn will to make this film, she would still want to film what was at that point a very desperate and unpleasant situation. For a budget of $60,000, I think they did a great job, though.
Needless to say, I still won't be going on a hike in the unpaved, unmarked woods any time soon. In that regard, hats off to the writers and directors of this movie. Fifteen years later, and it still has that effect!
Kids (1995)
This Film Really Takes Me Back to My Days As a Teen in Manhattan
....just kidding. I only moved to Manhattan after graduating college, well into my adult life, and nothing about my life was remotely like the events in this film.
Watching Kids was at once overwhelming and saddening. While I found it incredibly rich in entertainment value, I also felt deep pangs of terror for what might be happening to a pocket of American teenage society. With the advent of HIV+AIDS circulating the modern world, the lack of responsible parenting or other forms of positive role modeling, and youth's ignorance to safe sex practices due to an abundance of abstinence-only health programs or a lack of funding that would allow schools to provide free access to forms of birth control--everything has coalesced into the microcosm portrayed in this film.
I don't think I know of any place in America, rural,suburban or urban, where parents are so dramatically unaware of the whereabouts and behavior of their children as they are in this film. It is just plain shocking. Also shocking was the opening scene, in which a, what, 13-year old, sleeps with a, what, 12-year-old? I mean I felt like i was watching kiddie porn, and even if it made sense in the context of the film, and was relevant to later scenes, that didn't stop it from being awkward and uncomfortable.
All of this established, however, I do think Kids is a very stylistically successful film. The shots and acting are spot-on, so much so that one could not imagine these young actors and actresses having any alternate, real-life personas outside of their characters. Ten-year-olds getting high in a parentless apartment, talking about the quality of the weed they're smoking as though they were in their college years or late high school years--what does one even say to a scene like that? Newly acknowledged HIV-positivity of Chloe Sevigny's character--her subsequent getting high and showing up at a party and being more or less raped and unable to speak up and say a simple "no", not to mention divulging her health condition to prevent the disease's spread. This communication never happens during the course of the film, and it is this lack of conclusiveness that rounds out an overall very dark depiction of teen recklessness and the spread of disease due to irresponsibility.
Fun times!
Enough Said (2013)
Understated Romantic Drama/Comedy (Dramedy?)
To be quite honest, I really enjoyed the film. There were no big plot twists save one, and the lack of the film's complication made it highly palatable. No art school new wave film here, that's for certain.
And yet, the movie reeks of charm, with Julia Louis-Dreyfus countering the late James Galdolfini for lead character. Julia's character meets James's character at a party, where Julia also meets James's ex-wife, a well-established poet who she takes on as a massage client. She does not know until very far into her highly gossip-driven massages of this ex-wife that the ex-husband her client gripes about constantly is Gandolfini's character, who Julia L-D has started seriously dating. Instead of coming clean to both her client and her significant other, she chooses to preserve the seeming peace that listening to her client's highly negative gossip while sleeping with her client's ex-husband on the side provides. This proves to be a mistake, and everyone involved gets a little hurt in the end. The couple puts distance between themselves; meanwhile each of them is busy sending their now-adult daughters to their first semester of college. So there is a shared emotion of loss and adjustment, as well as a sincere interest in each other, that brings them back together.
What I found interesting and a little unrealistic were the portrayals of relationships each adult character had with their exes. They were all able to sit together at a table for dinner, and there was shared interest in their growing children, general civility, and even concern of the exes for the new wives. In what universe do these non-talk-show-worthy interactions between divorcées occur?? The only relationship between exes that seems plausible to me is the one between Gandolfini's character and his ex, Julia's massage client: there is hostility, bitterness, defensiveness, and resentment, and all the things that tend to come with a divorce. Were it not for this dynamic amidst the quasi-sickening peace between ex husbands and ex wives, the film would not hold up under the microscope.
As can be expected with JG and JLD, the film was incredibly well acted, and each one of them exudes a comfort and comedic confidence that makes the film's dialogues unfold organically. I have always respected Jim Gandolfini, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus is one of the funniest women on screen today, and has been since the 90s when she played Elaine on Seinfeld.
An interesting side-note: I notice that Julia tends to always drive a prius in her recent work, particularly on this film and in her former sitcom The New Adventures of Old Christine. She clearly endorses this product or else there is a huge coincidence.
Pick this film up if you want something lightweight, sharp, simple, and touching, but like I said, don't expect any hidden subtext.
The Kings of Summer (2013)
Cute and Funny, But eh...
I give this film only six out of ten stars. While I feel it would typically be worthy of a seven at least, I found the film tended to only graze the surface of its potential plot and character development. I also thought it was highly over-acted by every character except Nick Offerman, who is, as usual, a highly reliable comic actor. ALL of the young characters, the so-called Kings of Summer, as well as the young girls who serve as the objects of the boys' affections, act with a pungent overabundance of constant wit and spunk, which as an end result makes their characters seem contrived. We don't need a clever line every other line, do we? And how old are these kids anyway, 35? They talk and act like it, instead of like the teenagers they actually appear to be. These are only a few of the factors that contribute to the unsatisfying nature of the film.
On a positive note, the two main boys who fight with one another, then eventually make up, do a great job of conveying some sort of deep personal relationship between them, particularly when one abandons the other and the fort they have built, and when they finally re- acknowledge each others's presence in the hospital. Like I said, Nick Offerman was funny and most importantly, real, which helped offset some of the other characters' theatricality.
Not a must-see, but interesting if you would like to see where new talent is headed these days, perhaps due to poor direction or poor skills, or both.
Pierrot le fou (1965)
One of Godard's Most Tedious
I found very little about this film's plot personally appealing. During the course of the set-up of the film, there is little justifiable reason provided by the filmmaker for the viewer to *want* to follow these characters' lives together as the film does, in such dull and aimlessly detailed dialogue.
Of course, Anna Karina is, as usual, stunning. The close-ups on her face are truly magnificent. As is the gorgeous Jean-Paul Belmondo, with his artistically perfect features.
On a positive note, the sequence in which Karina's character's boyfriend is killed by the two protagonists in their apartment is very interestingly shot and edited, and did provide Godardian interest. Beyond that, it became difficult for the film to hold my attention fully. Maybe I am getting old, and New Wave films simply do not have the effect that they had on my once elitist heart, but I much prefer other New Wave Films to this one. I think Breathless is a much more enjoyable film directed by Godard, and other than the fact that this movie is part of the Criterion collection, which makes it halfway decent at a bare minimum, as well as stylistically interesting, plot-wise, much of the film leaves me wanting.
Where the Wild Things Are (2009)
Charming Rendition of Sendak Classic
This was a superbly well-acted and energetic romp into childhood imagination. If you're familiar with the books of Sendak, you know what to expect: a boisterous main character hell-bent on playful wildness, elaborately imagined playthings, escapism, self-discovery and love. There is a more developed story in the film than I remember there being in the book, but it kept things moving.
Sometimes the plot seemed so far-fetched that it was hard to empathize with any of Max's wild things--for example, I didn't quite understand the drama between the characters K.W. and Carol. It was, however, fun to watch the young actor playing Max scream enthusiastically, or howl like a wolf, and even sad to watch him cry. He does a fine job and is headed places if he continues.
Cute soundtrack by Karen O, lead singer of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, which is also uplifting and playful, featuring an overlapping of children's vocals to echo the themes of play/innocence in the film.
A great film for kids/families, as well as for anyone who enjoyed the book as a child (like me). You might have trouble keeping the attention of younger kids, though, I think, unless they are very familiar with the book and thus more interested.
The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013)
Gorgeous and Surprising Directorial Talent
I have nothing negative to say about this film. I am actually glad Iceland is becoming so popular in Hollywood these days, because it has long been a stronghold of natural wonder and cultural glory, just typically less likely to be seen on screen before than it is today.
I don't even want to classify this film as a simple "romantic comedy" because the comedy is not the driving force of this film (although the daydream vignettes do have quite a comical effect when put in the context of Mitty's reality), and because the romance seems to tie in quite strongly with Mitty's quest for self hood and adventure, which makes the film's love story deeper and ultimately more fulfilling than other mainstream romantic movies I've seen.
So, soundtrack? Fits perfectly with the images of the film; it is good that understated Swedish folk artist Jose Gonzalez continues to churn out those subtle classics that make an overcast day and a hot cup of tea seem close to perfect.
Cinematographically, I have to say, the images were positively breathtaking at times; specifically, I am talking about the way way long shots where Mitty is traversing bridges by bike or foot, or when he is trying to reach a volcano and has the Icelandic geography as his backdrop; or the close-ups on Mitty when he realizes the volcano is about to erupt and he cannot understand that the driver of the car is trying to tell him to get in so he can drive them both to safety; I think that might have been a fish-eye lens there, but I am not entirely sure, as the image was only just barely warped. The special effects are really above par, too: such as in the fight sequence between the protagonist and his boss.
I know that for many, this sort of thing doesn't count in the evaluation of a film, but I am also a sucker for a decent title sequence and end credits, and the graphic presentation of the titles at first, then the cast and crew at the film's close, are really the kind of thing that makes me go, "Damn, I've GOT to learn how to DO that!"
I think most of all I loved the journey the film took us on, from a place of Mitty's longing for a seemingly out-of-reach coworker on an internet dating site, to a place of dreaming, to a place of self-discovery and making those dreams a reality, to getting the girl in the end. But something about this film probably will not bother you the way stereotypical boy-wants-girl narrative film does, because it really didn't for me.
If you are looking for familiar actors in a wholly new setting and under wholly different acting conditions, beautiful image capture, engaging visuals including special effects, some kind of representation of Icelandic culture, some moving statements about art, photography, and journalism (or really any field that blends art and the corporate world), and a better than average soundtrack, then this film is most definitely worth your time.
My hat (and I can say this since I wore one today) goes off to Ben Stiller, his cast and crew. I have a renewed interest in narrative romances, so long as they measure up to this one. It actually made me cry as the credits rolled, I was so full of love for TSLOWM.
Kudos!