Change Your Image
imdb-10420
Reviews
The War on Democracy (2007)
A volley from the baseline on a clay court
I'm not sure that Pilger really hits the mark here. I've always appreciated his work for drawing attention to that which is too easily ignored, and this he does successfully. I sat through this at a preview in Sydney tonight with a friend who is normally very well-versed on such issues, but afterward admitted to being largely ignorant as to most of the content of this film, which really offered very little in terms of new information to myself. More of a refresher course in South American affairs, really. OK, it's pretty much all true... but...
It comes across very much as a one man, one camera, and limited budget for graphics effort. The directorial aspect seems to be mainly embodied in editing and glorious panoramic shots of various South American cities. And where is the real argument - about the "war on democracy"? There are veiled references to U.S. interference, almost as though this is not the real subject of the film in spite of its title and promotion. It's actually more of a self-contained examination of diverging aspirations of democracy, populist movements and the economic elite in South America, regardless of external influence.
However, the real problem here is Pilger's own personal struggle in trying to reconcile journalism - or his intended documentary - and what constitutes propaganda - or a new-age socialist diatribe. It's awkward realising that Pilger is trying to avoid allowing his own opinions to override the message of his piece, yet at the same time sitting through some inappropriate musical montages, pats on the back, embellished choices of shots and very poor selections of interviewees to offer any sort of a rational counter-point. I don't care if this particular character was head of the CIA in Latin America in the early 80s - he's senile. There really isn't any sort of decent argument mounted against the pro-socialist-democracy taint of this film. Thereby it allows itself to be tainted.
And I am absolutely, in no way at all, disagreeing with any of it. It's just that Pilger tries so hard to not be Michael Moore that his lack of audacity and commitment impinges upon the merits of this as a movie (i.e. a piece of fluff or engaging entertainment). At the same time, allowing himself to draw more rhetoric than conclusion or argument in his intros and outros can only attract criticism.
I really do hope that people go and see this anyway. It's a great summary of U.S. political interference in South and Central America over the last half of the 20th century, and without indulging them, raises issues that are parallel to our current conundrums throughout the rest of the world. And I guess a whole lot of the point of this piece is that people simply don't know, or don't pay attention to this stuff (and as pointed out, it ain't taught in school).
I think the biggest weakness of this piece is that those that disagree and have alternative pre-formed opinions will simply not pay attention - and this was evidenced by the skeptics who were sitting behind me, who initially wouldn't shut up from muttering "b..it" under their breath but ended up walking out half way through, well before any of the points they were reacting to were properly made. And there's no point preaching to the converted.
5 as a flick (which is why we're here), 7 because i believe in the message and its worth = 6 overall (sorry John, but I'm sure the next one will be better, and keep up the good work)
The Overcoat (2001)
Simply astounding
Once again, SBS Television pulls through for Australia, albeit on a Saturday afternoon when if anyone's watching this time of year they're usually watching football - but no ads. Thank God for that. The fluidity of this piece (underlain by the music) is essential to its enjoyment, along with the incredible lighting, staging, choreography, amazing sets and performances.
I thought about giving this an 8 or a 9, but it's honestly one of the best things I've seen in a long time, and I can't imagine having to save that 10 for something else. So why not, it's a 10 from me! In many ways it could be classified as modern dance - an area that generally holds limited interest for me - but there are so many other elements and influences infused into this masterful piece of cinematography.
I've always liked Shostakovich (and many other Russian composers - too much Bach in your youth will do that to you), and his music along with the costumes, darkness, silent movie style, bland colours (in which the subject garment stands out), industrialism... They all give this a very strong period aura of late 19th century central Europe that reminds me of the likes of Kafka and Metropolis, but also of more recent efforts - Dark City even springs to mind.
Overtly a story about a man and his jacket, this piece deals with vanity, materialism and dare I say it - office politics. The social context of our main protagonist and his unrequited aspirations, along with an unintentional turn of events, drive him to indulge himself in a manner which he can't afford, which ultimately brings him to grief.
Watch out, because you may get what you wish for - in this case, a brand new jacket.
Thanks, Canada.
Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
Fictitious licence combined with epic film-making
Most of those points are for the costumes and extras. And the CGI. I don't know about Bloom, he seems a bit skinny. Elfish, even (arrows fly in my direction).
Although well researched, a lot of the individual character plot lines and factual basis of this movie are rubbish. Then again, as a whole, it does give you a fairly accurate portrayal of the period of the Crusades, the benevolence of Saladin (let's get this straight though - he engaged in just as much gore as anyone else at the time), the internal conflicts within the Christian brigades and the entire pointlessness of everyone trying to kill each other.
For what? "Nothing"; yet, "Everything", according to Saladin. Political gain through religious conquest. At what cost? Scott tried to pussy-foot around contemporary issues with this movie, but he needn't. It's a blood-and-guts epic very much in the vein of Gladiator and stands on those two feet alone (umm... those would be blood on the one foot, and guts on the other. Literally).
Obviously he felt that he needed to tread lightly around the issue of the Crusades lest he offend someone. However I thought it interesting that he highlighted the "killing a heretic is not a sin but will bring you closer to God" thing, which makes me think about the various crusades of the current world and their various morals.
But then again that's what he's trying to do, and entirely besides the purpose of this piece - and to be avoided in order to appreciate the cinematographic merits of this movie. It's a romantic re-invention of historical fact, worth enjoying for the grandeur as long as you appreciate the fact that it is just that - fiction, even if the names haven't been changed to protect the innocent.
Click (2006)
If only it had a G rating
Sorry but I thought this was rubbish. I'm complimenting it with a 4.
Sandler revisits some of his Happy Gilmore characteristics which push this beyond the boundary of the family movie at the same time as restraining it from being effectively humorous for adults. I quote: "muthaf..." (change scene) I don't have children, but I wouldn't want them to ask me to complete that "sentence". In any case this theme has been revisited many times, even the Butterfly Effect comes to mind.
Yes I cried at the end, but only because I thought SANDLER WAS GOING TO DIE!!! };) (evil grin with pirate hat) Really fell flat for me. Some of the acting was atrocious. Story fell apart. Still love Winkler.
If there were a third as many sex references and less poorly disguised swearing then this would probably have made a great family movie. Unfortunately it just ends up serving no particular audience at all.
World Trade Center (2006)
Better than I expected
After careful consideration (read 24 hours with a bottle of scotch), I'm giving this a six. I would say it's slightly above that, but not quite enough to warrant a 7.
I was really apprehensive at first - I was scared that this would be some self-indulgent diatribe on the suffering of the American people (I apologise to all non-U.S. Americans, but I'm trying to be obvious here).
Instead it turned into a story about a group of Port Authority police persons stuck in the rubble, the angst of their families and the combination of positive and negative emotions that comes together in order to save them.
To be honest with you, 30 minutes into this I was convinced that Cage's character wasn't going to make it out. That would be too saccharine. Wouldn't it now? All powdery and a bit clammy on the tongue...
I see comments here which are highly critical of this movie simply for the fact that it doesn't pay tribute to the diversity of rescue personnel that were caught up in this affair, doesn't account for the less than 300,000 persons that died, doesn't "expose the truth behind 9/11". Do you hear yourself talking? Definitely too soon, but remember - it's just a movie. I remember seeing a telemovie about the 93 attack well before this happened.
I won't engage in a debate here on the merits of what came before or after, although many people have raised them and they are poorly alluded to in the film itself. Suffice to say that one thing I did get from this movie, coming from a position of little sympathy, is an appreciation for the emotions of the families of the victims involved in this event.
I should also add that this is classic Stone direction with lots of use of original footage, shaky cameras, aerial shots, it all comes together.
I'm feeling sufficiently depressed that I'll be putting off the whole flight 93 experience for a while (that movie seems to go by a few different names) - all I can say is don't underrate this movie. It's not the most amazing piece of work you'll ever see, it is self-indulgent in many ways that I wasn't expecting, you will see lots of things you've seen many times before and asked to never see again whether out of boredom, pain or frustration... but you will see another side to the story.
Perhaps one that is more important than the events themselves.
Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
A guilty pleasure
I think it's a seven but I'll give it an eight because I enjoyed it so much.
The plot is utterly pointless - almost non-existent - in fact it's really just a road trip.
It's essentially about the coming together of a family, pursuing your dreams and taking a chance.
As a comedy, it's not a barrel of laughs, somewhat more subtle and even sad at points. However it's the right length, highly enjoyable and just a good movie to sit down with on a Friday night to watch with the missus.
Gerry (2002)
Men... who'll ever understand them?
I won't rate this movie here because I've already rated it once. I think i gave it an 8 or so. I watched this movie last Summer and will rent it again this year. Yes, I am willing to put myself through it again. And probably again after that, in another year or so. It's good mind-food and should be regularly absorbed in times of extreme patience.
I just don't get people who don't get this movie - it's basically about the inability that men have to communicate with each other. That's a Gerry in itself, and one that you would think women would hark on, but more importantly one that men should be able to recognise.
Gus van Sant explains this in a void - a desert - to the point where "Matttt Daaammmonnn" goes home in an SUV with a foster family, rather than waiting for others to come and retrieve his dead Gerry - sorry, his dead buddy.
This is about male persona, inherent dishonesty, our own inability to face consequences and take responsibility for them. As "men".
I originally read this very much as a self-examination of the failures of the male gender in a world where we feel increasingly isolated. But I think you can now extend the analysis into broader realms, where men who claim to be in control lead you into a desert that will ultimately starve you.
And I admit readily that i love GvS' directional technique, everything that he's borrowed and stolen (or had stolen), everything in recent history that he reviews unnecessarily and the way he forces us to watch things that don't necessarily entertain us. I thoroughly enjoy all of his films and everything that he tries to not deliberately try to tell us through them. And I understand that that doesn't work for all. Or at all.
I can also accept that this particular film could really, really bore many people, even most of those that I know personally, to death and at very great lengths - but I consider it to be a masterful portrait of contemporary male relations to those that are willing to entertain it.
Watch it with patience or don't bother watching it at all. You've been warned, and there's no point in criticising something that you were told not to watch in the first place. Personally I find this movie quite therapeutic and would most definitely pick it up in a DVD sales bin if I ever found it.
8/10.
El laberinto del fauno (2006)
Confrontingly fantastic
I'm not quite sure what to make of this.
Is it a happy ending, or a sad ending? Is one more real than the other, and if we accept that it is simply because it seems obvious, is it necessarily more important than the other? In a sense, it's the happy ending that Ofelia strives for that brings about the unhappy version of events, and in the end the two coincide.
I guess I'm still somewhat confused and trying to make sense of the senseless, and in some ways maybe that just means that I got the whole point of the movie. It's politically charged yet poetic, senselessly violent as it is fantastic and as inspiring at is depressing.
I'd expect that many people would walk out of a cinema with similarly mixed feelings - I didn't know whether to smile or to cry. Much of the audience I sat with dealt with some of the more gruesome moments with a form of collective comic relief - where humour inappropriately surfaces to confront harsh realities that we prefer to deny: "they're not really going to make us watch that, are they?"; followed by, "can i look now? is it over yet?".
This is definitely not for children, although I doubt it would exceed an M (15+) rating in this country. Only things like sex and drugs seem to qualify for that. If the language and violence were toned down then you might be able to pretend that there were something in it for both adults and children, but that's clearly not the intention here and I think best avoided.
Instead, the fantasy world of Ofelia becomes almost as relevant, almost as real as the world of the adult characters, and it's the parallel course of the two and their eventual interjoining that leads to the inevitable conclusion of this story.
So I guess I could sit here and think about this in terms of a portrayal of the evils of fascism - in context. I could think about this in terms of an artwork - a traditionally surreal and complex way of telling a story that's set in a particular place in history. But I think I'll choose to look at this as a way of experiencing a story from two different points of view: the harsh actuality of the adult world with all its nasty and cruel realities (just as Ofelia's mother points out to her), contrasted with the coping mechanisms and "innocence" - verging on denial - of Ofelia's own journey through the events that take place...
Having said that, it's hard to give one more weight than the other. Who's really in denial? So I leave the theatre not quite knowing what to think, how to feel or what to do next.
Cool.
P.S. There are plenty of bombs and action scenes for the rest of you.
Les diables (2002)
Disturbing and powerful
Chanced across this movie on the ever-reliable SBS television network tonight, and got hooked very quickly.
After the "prison break-out" scenes at two-thirds of the way through I honestly thought that this movie should end. In fact I started to get annoyed with it at that point, but the relationship between the two leads was in fact extended in a completely different direction and the conclusion - that you only "have to sit down and push with your own two feet" - was well worth what seemed like a lengthy epilogue.
In fact for me it was really the performances of the two leads that made this movie special. It's great to see such convincing performances from such young actors. It's certainly no Rain Man - thankfully. Joseph is particularly powerful as the Tom Cruise equivalent in the lengths that he goes to defend his "sister" - to the point of losing his own sanity. It's also no Shine - Chloe's almost wordless performance is really quite convincing without any of the effort that Geoffrey Rush had to make. I just hope she doesn't get type-cast.
For the record, I don't think it's ever made clear that there is any direct family relationship between them, and in fact Chloe continues to seek her true "home" with Joseph's assistance - while he rejects his own.
And ultimately it thereby becomes a story about family. Joseph rejects his true "family" when it is found, perhaps because he isn't satisfied that Chloe has found hers. When she wanders into her final ideal home and and hugs her final ideal parents (who Joseph holds at knife-point) it really gets rammed home that the only family they've ever had is each other.
Sniff.
Of course if you don't understand French and have to read the subtitles it's probably only a 7.5. And then I could spin a few more paragraphs about the story this tells about how we treat our children. But I won't.
And having said ALL of that I do have some issues with some of the nudity in this movie. Having grown up in France I understand that it's "purely artistic" but I'm not sure that those standards apply in other countries.
Beneath Clouds (2002)
Sad but true
Ultimately the fact that Vaughn doesn't recognise Lena as a fellow Aboriginal underlies the whole youthful crisis of identity that is so poignantly illustrated in this film. It's simple to gloss over the whole black vs. white thing, but these two kids are on the same journey, have the same problems and don't know what they're going to find when they get where they're going. That could be anyone, and Vaughn doesn't realise this at first.
Having said that you can take just as much from the film in terms of what it is to be young, aboriginal and male in Australia, as opposed to young, white (which everyone in this film seems to simply assume of Lena due to her freckles) and female. Both are judged and abused as a consequence of their identity... I must say I do get a bit sick of the constant portrayals of an unavoidable culture of racism in Australia, and there's the one guy who gives them a lift in the film (without really saying anything) who is obviously designed to counter-balance this. I guess I'm just hanging out with the wrong people! I initially saw the first 60 minutes of this film on television but had to tear myself away to show up to some social engagement that I was consequently late for. I hired it on DVD to see the last 30 minutes, but watched it again from the beginning thinking I could skip some scenes - I didn't. It was well worth watching again from the beginning.
It's an utterly pointless plot (it's a road trip) which becomes a beautiful story about the relationship between the two main characters and their personal aspirations of family. And it's amazingly illustrated. Highly recommended, and I'm off to look for the NZ version that another commentator here claims it was based on... but then again they do say something along the lines of "there are only 13 scripts in Hollywood".
Compulsory viewing for all schools in Sutherland Shire and Lakemba. Anyway I'm blabbering now. I just wanted to give it a nine.
Supernova (2005)
Poorly researched
This movie is full of holes. It's the middle of the day in Sydney at the same time as the Sahara, India and what I presume to be Central America, when they're all meant to be in Australia they keep changing the side of the road that they're driving on, the number plates are not Australian (the cars either), half the street signs don't even exist here, waitresses in cafés don't wear uniforms (except at Starbucks), the only Australian accents are terrible, the desert scenes are definitely more like 14 than 4 hours drive from Sydney - everything about Australia in particular is just wrong! And that's because clearly none of it was shot in Australia. Oh and incidentally - we don't have the death penalty in Australia.
Extend that analysis to pretty much every other aspect of the movie and the only conclusion you can draw is that whoever wrote the script lives on a desert island without so much as an Internet connection. Even the Sun manages to explode on only one lateral plane (that which includes the orbit of Earth), and when the city's burning, the riot police waste their water on looters.
It's really difficult to tell what's going on where (and when) because of all these obvious inconsistencies. It wasn't until Luke Perry says "St Louis is half way around the other side of the world" that I really became convinced that they were meant to be in Australia. Couple all of that with a triumvirate of bad special effects, flat acting and a recycled doomsday premise and you've got a real stinker. A complete waste of time if you ask me.
Still, it wasn't as bad as The Perfect Storm.