Change Your Image
bwilkening
Reviews
Oslo, 31. august (2011)
Great little foreign film
I think I learned about this film when I searched for the highest rated films on Rotten Tomatoes. I saw it had earned nearly universal high marks, so I decided to check it out.
It follows a recovering addict named Anders who is granted a leave from the rehab clinic where he is currently residing to go into Oslo for a job interview. While in Oslo, which he has not visited in some time since going to the clinic, he meets a number of old friends, attempts to reconnect with a former girlfriend, and visits some old haunts.
That is essentially all in the way of plot. What makes the film so affecting are the conversations he has with these friends about life, feelings of regret, lost opportunities, etc. The conversations seemed so authentic and realistic; the writers never gave into the temptation of injecting false notes of sentimentality..
Even though Anders is an addict, this isn't really an "addiction movie." His addiction is always there in the background, but the themes that the film explores are far more universal and general. And the lead actor's performance was very poignant and impressive. I definitely recommend this to anybody interested in a strong dialog and character-driven film.
Lake Mungo (2008)
Effective, slow burning ghost story
This is a faux-documentary style film from Australia about a family that recently lost a teenage daughter, Alice, in a drowning accident. The film follows the family (mother, father, son) as they cope with the tragedy and begin to experience strange occurrences that may or may not be of the paranormal variety.
I really enjoyed this film, although admittedly it might not appeal to everybody. There weren't really any jump out of your seat fright moments (okay, maybe one), but there were a number of chilling scenes that literally made the hairs on my arm stand up. The style of the storytelling, plus the effective but not overbearing use of music, really enhanced the creepiness of the paranormal scenes.
The film really excels as an examination of the emotional devastation wrought by losing a child and the feelings of regret and helplessness that they feel in the wake of tragedy. These feelings are kindled as the family learns about secrets that Alice kept from them. There is a big reveal towards the middle of the movie in which the family learns about a very big secret. I suspect that opinion will be divided about this big reveal. I thought it was a bit too unrealistic and scandalous and that it felt out of place in a movie that otherwise cultivated a sense of realism. That would probably be my one major criticism.
One other thing that I haven't seen mentioned much: the director made excellent use of the rugged, beautiful landscape in this corner of Australia. Setting the film in a rural area with rugged, arid hills, endless skies, and starry nights really contributed to the atmosphere the film was attempting to create.
Kairo (2001)
Slow-moving psychological horror
I think I saw this film mentioned in of those many "Scariest Movies You've Never Seen" lists that always seem to circulate around Halloween time. The plot sounded interesting, so I decided to check it out. If one had to describe a plot, it starts with a teenager who kills himself in a creepy fashion, and how his death affects his coworkers and friends. Each of this small group of young adults starts to experience strange occurrences.
All of this is tied together with the emergence of a new phenomenon called the internet (remember, this was released in 2001). In a separate side story that eventually intersects with the characters mentioned in the first paragraph, a young man is excited to be installing his internet software and connecting his dial up modem for the first time, but when he finally connects, his computer seems to be a portal into rooms populated by creepy half human/ghosts. He seeks to advice of a computer science student, and together they try to figure out what is going on while being drawn further into the mystery.
The film is obviously pushing in a not so subtle way a message about how technology and the internet are making us more isolated and lonely, to the point where the line between people and ghosts is blurred. Even though the message is not subtle, it is effective, and story delivers some genuinely creepy and disturbing scenes in exploring that message. As many other reviewers who are much more familiar with Japanese horror than I am have mentioned, this genre of horror is less interested in quick and instant payoffs than in gradually building a sense of dread.
I deducted a couple of stars because I felt the running time could have been shaved a bit without much loss of effectiveness, and because I shared the concerns some other reviewers have mentioned about how the ending felt disconnected from the earlier parts of the film. But I'd still recommend it. Even though the internet technology displayed in this film feels extremely outdated already, the film's message is still relevant, and it left me with a lingering sense of dread and creepiness that endured even after the movie had ended.
388 Arletta Avenue (2011)
Fairly creepy psychological horror
This film is shot from the perspective of a stalker who torments and manipulates a young couple. He installs some sort of monitoring devices in their home, and much of the action is seen from the perspective of these hidden cameras that follow the couple around the house. Thus, the film has the feel of the Paranormal Activity films, despite the different subject matter.
The villain breaks in on multiple occasions to set up traps to toy with the couple. Fairly early in the film, the wife (Mia Kirshner) leaves following a heated argument that ensued as a result of one of these traps set by the stalker. The vast majority of the film, then, involves the husband (Nick Stahl) trying to figure out where she went and who the person is who has been messing with him. The sense of danger escalates as the film progresses.
The one major complaint is that the film requires some pretty major suspension of disbelief regarding the capabilities of the villain stalker. Specifically, he is almost like an omniscient puppet-master who is able to manipulate Stahl's character to do exactly as he wants. There were numerous times when Stahl could and SHOULD have reacted to some provocation by the villain in a completely different way, but instead reacted exactly as the stalker wanted, thus propelling the plot to its desired end. Stahl's troubles are compounded by some stereotypical inept, unsympathetic police and pesky in-laws who are suspicious of his story.
Overall, it's a decent little film, in my estimation certainly better than the low rating here. Just go with the flow and the film will give you some genuine chills.
The Bible in the Beginning... (1966)
Only as good (or bad) as the source material
As much as I wanted to try and rate this film independently of my own beliefs (as an atheist), I found it impossible to separate said beliefs from my appraisal of the film. The film succeeds to some extent purely from the standpoint of a dramatic retelling of the stories in the book of Genesis. The stories are retold faithfully, albeit with an air of solemnity and drama that even exceeds that found in the Bible. However, as someone who doesn't believe in the historical accuracy of the episodes depicted here, the film didn't do anything for me other than turn me off even more from religion. For not only are these stories made up, I find them profoundly immoral. Those who believe in the Bible and think that there is some profound moral lesson in the stories of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, of Lot's wife turning into salt, or of Adam and Eve being cast out of paradise for their "disobedience," well, they will probably love the film. As someone who finds the lessons expressed in those stories repugnant, this film contributes nothing to human progress. Perhaps the most reprehensible scene in the history of film is the depiction of the half-naked homosexuals of Sodom and Gomorrah, whom the loving God of the Old Testament annihilates in a fireball that looks suspiciously like a nuclear bomb. Thank God (pun intended) we've come far enough since this film was made that such depictions of gays are rightfully deemed not only politically incorrect but downright despicable.
Dead Poets Society (1989)
This movie hasn't aged well
Well, I remember loving this movie when I first saw it 15 years ago in junior high, but perhaps the film's main theme of a young, convention-defying teacher challenging kids to think freely and "seize the day" (an injunction that was repeated ad nauseum, even by a kid who used it as justification for molesting a passed-out girl) has been mimicked so many times that it just isn't novel anymore. More than that, however, the film has a number of inherent flaws.
Williams plays Keating, an English professor who has just arrived at a prep school run by an authoritarian type who is hell-bent on adhering to the institution's guiding principles of tradition and discipline. Williams literally appears to be the only teacher at the school under the age of 95. Williams throws around a lot of quotes, but the full context and meaning of the quotes or the poems from which they are plundered are never explored but are rather exploited to make a cheap point. Whitman's "Oh Captain! My Captain!" is invoked merely b/c Keating wants the students to call him that. At one point Keating gets in an argument with an older teacher who questions his teaching methods, and both engage in a competition of trading quotes from poems. Have any two people in the entire history of humankind ever argued like this? Just curious.
So what are these teaching methods that have the school's elders so worried? Well, most of Keating's classes seem to take place outside. He has the students do things like walk around in a courtyard (so they can "choose their own direction") or recite poems while kicking a ball. He also has them stand up on desks. Keating is apparently a rugby coach as well. At least, I am assuming this, because of the shot in which the kids are playing rugby and Keating is running along the sidelines like an idiot with his hands over his head. Keating doesn't care for textbooks, having students tear out the introduction to a textbook in which it is claimed that poems can be judged on two dimensions and then plotted on an axis. Did such textbooks actually exist back then? What poetry scholar would make such a ridiculous claim? It just seemed as if the filmmakers were setting up a straw man that Keating's character could knock down.
Williams does a decent job with the script that he has to work with. The young actors who played the students were also decent, including a young Ethan Hawke. All of the other characters, who include the school principle, as well as the parents of one of the kids who kills himself, are one dimensional caricatures. This kid kills himself because his domineering father won't permit him to act; such frivolous extracurricular activities, the father claims, will interfere with the father's intentions to send his kid to Harvard to become a doctor. Okay, I had one question. Even assuming that the father sees the fine arts as a distraction from more practical concerns, why in the hell would acting in a play hurt his son's chances of going to Harvard? Don't schools value extracurricular activities? In any case, the father's opposition to his son's acting ambitions is wholly disproportionate, as is the son's failure to realize that once he is in college he will be more independent.
Overall, I think that this film had something to say before the emergence of alternative teaching styles, but it just seems incredibly outdated now.
The 40 Year Old Virgin (2005)
Decent comedy
Overall, I thought that this comedy contained a good number of laughs and was an enjoyable viewing experience. Steve Carrell was convincing and likable as the title character, and for the most part I liked the supporting cast portraying his coworkers who tried to help him to remedy his "predicament." Catherine Keener was also good as Carrell's romantic interest. The couple inexplicably had a decent on-screen chemistry, which made you root for both characters. The sarcastic banter between Carrell and Keener's teenage daughter is pretty funny, although the daughter kind of drops out of the last half hour of the film. While a lot of people have mentioned the film's raunchiness and gross out humor, I actually didn't really notice it while watching the movie. It certainly didn't strike me as being worse than anything out of a Farrely Brother's movie.
I had a few problems with the movie that forced me to detract several points. First, as many have commented, the film is really much longer than it needs to be. There are too many long scenes that don't arouse laughs and that don't contribute to either the plot or the characters' development. I actually would have been fine if the movie had ended right after the chase scene when Carrell finally confesses his secret to Keener. I didn't really need the typical happy Hollywood ending (not to mention the bizarre and spontaneous musical number at the conclusion). Some of the scenes that others have raved about didn't really do it for me, such as the excruciatingly long chest waxing scene. Similarly, the racial banter between the two South Asian characters and Romany Malco seemed out of place. They were funny at first, but they recur far too often and the South Asian guys never develop identities apart from trading racial insults with Malco. Finally, there is a scene in which Carroll criticizes Keener for trying to change him by making him sell all of his toys so that he can open up his own business. It looks for a moment that this is leading somewhere, and that maybe both characters will learn something about being too demanding of others, but then the premise is completely dropped, and we learn at the end that Carrell has indeed sold all of his toys to hold an extravagant wedding, which seems very inconsistent with his and Keener's characters.
Overall, this comedy had its share of laughs, but I was glad I waited until it came out on DVD.
Crash (2004)
Superficial examination of race relations
I really don't understand how so many people seem to think that this movie has contributed meaningfully to the national dialog on race relations. Reading some of the positive reviews from critics and viewers, you would think that there have been NO other movies dealing with race in recent American cinematic history. I would recommend that people check out some of Spike Lee's early films, like Do the Right Thing, if they are looking for searing, realistic examinations of this sensitive subject. Even the seriously flawed American History X offered a more penetrating look at racial prejudice.
Where to begin with the problems that I had with this movie? First, there is the simple fact that this movie offers no fresh perspective on race. The conversations between the two young black men are supposed to provide insight on what it is like to be a young black man in America and on what the root problems facing the African American community are. Instead, everything that they say has been covered more effectively in other films. We learn that white women often avert there eyes away from young black men on the street. We hear two different perspectives on the role of rap music and on the dearth of respected leaders in the African American community. Apparently, black people are of two different opinions about the use by blacks of the N-word. Who would've known? We then learn that Middle Easterners often face discrimination from those who regard everybody from the region as terrorists. These scenes seem blatantly designed to appeal to those who have never thought about these issues in their lives. Geez, it really IS hard to be a young black man these days. I never thought about that! Geez, it really would suck to deal with ignorant Americans who think Arabs and Persians are all the same. I never realized that non-Arabs are often mistaken as being Arab! If this movie does succeed in providing insight to those who have never thought about these issues before, then more power to it, just don't expect to find anything insightful here if you do not fit into this category.
Movies like Do the Right Thing treat race as a subtle sentiment that lurks beneath the surface of people's everyday exteriors. People may hold prejudices against other groups, but these prejudices might not explode to the surface except under extreme circumstances (like police brutality against African Americans, for instance, or when there is a mob mentality effect). Not so in Crash. Race is never far from the surface, in fact, it seems to be the only factor that enters into people's calculus in their interactions with members of other races. The first part of this movie basically shows people launching into racial tirades in reaction to the most trivial provocations. When an Asian woman and a Latino woman are involved in a minor crash, what do they do? Examine each other's cars to assess the damage and exchange insurance info? Hell no! They immediately unleash a slew of racial invective. There are numerous scenes like this that just seem designed to bang us over the head with the message we are all racists.
Other people have already addressed some of the other weaknesses of the movie. One other thing that bothered me was the fate of the two characters who actually made concerted efforts to transcend the limits of the race-centric mindset. The Ryan Philipe and Larenz Tate characters seemed to try think outside the racial box, but their interaction led to the most tragic outcome of all the characters. So apparently, even when a white guy and a black guy who eschew the prejudices that their respective communities hold about the others' race TRY to find common ground and break down racial barriers, they can't succeed. Okay, so what's the overall message?