How many cigarettes do characters need to smoke on screen before one is tempted to suggest this film cripples itself in a endless, looping tribute to French cinema circa 1965 a la Jean-Luc Goddard? That M. Cheung won best actress for this at Cannes is absolutely baffling, suggesting again that there is much more than meets the eye to jury selection and awards at festivals. Cheung's character travels a flat-line arch; there is no development. No explanation is provided for her character's 'getting clean' other than forced detox in prison, buffered by methadone and then, brace yourself, so she can be trusted to see her son (whom she basically abandoned years ago). Drug use, abuse and addiction can offer some opportunities for storytelling. How one gets there, how one stays there and how one gets out (if at all, see 'Leaving Las Vegas'). Not much of an attempt is made to find out why Cheung's character is/was such a loser, the mother-son bond appearing only as a bald attempt to create character motivation. Clearly in love with itself, this film stood me up. I'm sorry it wasn't better.
Reviews
5 Reviews
Zizek engages and entertains, but don't expect to understand
27 September 2007
His choice of films, the basic 'conceit' of the production (which places him in the sets or simulacra of the films he is commenting on ) and his delivery are brilliant! But if you want Freud, be aware that you're getting Zizek's version of Lacan, which should not be confused with Lacan himself. As usual, Zizek delivers complex ideas with gusto and in a convincing manner. The rub is he is also quite mercurial and so there may be more in his gusto than in actual content. Cinematically, it is a gem. Psychologically, this will have people of all persuasions (Freudians, Lacanians and Jungians) scratching their heads but reaching for the popcorn all the same. Zizek is a phenomenon and pop icon unto himself.
Mystic River
(2003)
Am I the only one who thinks this movie sends a terrible message?
22 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Call me simple, but I just watched Mystic River for the first time last night and it appears to condone the killing of the character played by Tim Robbins in a sort of, "Well, he's been all messed up since he was raped and molested as kid, anyway, so doing him in does everyone - especially him - a big favor." Excuse me, but I think that's a terribly brutal message to send. Yes, physical and emotional abuse can cause untold damage, but there are ways for people to seek out treatment through therapy.
The best thing about this film is how most everyone kind of 'expects' the Tim Robbins character to be found guilty and is surprised in the end. The fact that the writer makes 'Dave' actually complicit and responsible for _another_ murder does not wash with me as a sort of way of saying 'Well, he deserved what he had coming to him' as is insidiously and mischievously implied. It seems like a cop-out to me.
The bottom line is that Sean Penn's character brutally murders his childhood friend based on hearsay and the third friend, played by Kevin Bacon, suggests he will just look the other way even though it's pretty clear he knows Penn did it. And he's a cop!
So what the f*ck is going on with the little speech Penn's character's wife gives at the end of the film? "You could be the king of this town?" Maybe true, but also clear is the fact that he's going to be eaten by his demons in the process.
And all of this is OK? Watching the freaking parade stand murderers and friends side by side? Being guilty of murder is OK as long as you atone for it? Let's put our attention and hopes on the next generation?
Am I the only one to find this to be a bunch of crap?
The best thing about this film is how most everyone kind of 'expects' the Tim Robbins character to be found guilty and is surprised in the end. The fact that the writer makes 'Dave' actually complicit and responsible for _another_ murder does not wash with me as a sort of way of saying 'Well, he deserved what he had coming to him' as is insidiously and mischievously implied. It seems like a cop-out to me.
The bottom line is that Sean Penn's character brutally murders his childhood friend based on hearsay and the third friend, played by Kevin Bacon, suggests he will just look the other way even though it's pretty clear he knows Penn did it. And he's a cop!
So what the f*ck is going on with the little speech Penn's character's wife gives at the end of the film? "You could be the king of this town?" Maybe true, but also clear is the fact that he's going to be eaten by his demons in the process.
And all of this is OK? Watching the freaking parade stand murderers and friends side by side? Being guilty of murder is OK as long as you atone for it? Let's put our attention and hopes on the next generation?
Am I the only one to find this to be a bunch of crap?
Running on Karma
(2003)
A pleasant surprise!
28 September 2003
I did not expect the depth that this film mines when buying tickets yesterday for "Running on Karma" starring Andy Lau. In fact, when it began, I cringed wondering how campy it could possibly be. This first impression quickly transformed as some special effects were artfully used to convey that I was in for fast and thought-provoking ride.
The violence in the film stops just short of being gratuitious. In fact, it is quite purposeful and well done. As a whole, the film has a little of everything that attracts me: the supernatural, special effects, humor, love story and surprise, surprise, an actual heartfelt message that provides the viewer with 'the big picture' on life. I wanted to give the flick an 8.5/10 but opted for the 8 since this system does not take half points.
By the way, seeing this film is Hong Kong has the added effect of illustrating one of the film's points: there are many layers to our day-to-day 'reality.' This may not have such a strong effect for the viewer who lives elsewhere.
The violence in the film stops just short of being gratuitious. In fact, it is quite purposeful and well done. As a whole, the film has a little of everything that attracts me: the supernatural, special effects, humor, love story and surprise, surprise, an actual heartfelt message that provides the viewer with 'the big picture' on life. I wanted to give the flick an 8.5/10 but opted for the 8 since this system does not take half points.
By the way, seeing this film is Hong Kong has the added effect of illustrating one of the film's points: there are many layers to our day-to-day 'reality.' This may not have such a strong effect for the viewer who lives elsewhere.
Home Page
(1998)
How does what one posts on one's home page create a new reality?
21 March 1999
Home Page is an insightful, thoughtful and well crafted piece of work that follows the life of Justin Hall over the period of roughly one year from Swathmore College to a job in San Francisco. Using Justin's unique relationship to the web, the film coaxes the viewer to perceive reality through this digital medium of the 'open' notebook. Justin tells it like it is on his home page; Doug Block tells it like it is as he follows Justin around and meets others who bare their souls in the public forum of the internet. My favorite aspect of Block's film is the way in which he allows the object of his study - the internet and home pages - to form a new context in his own life. Block creates his own home page and juxtaposes interviews of his wife with his own self-examination through the one year + making of the film. In the end, I walked away feeling like I had participated in other people's lives - an experience that I may have gotten by reading the characters' home pages, but probably not with the same intensity as I did by watching this film.
An excellent and timely piece of work.
An excellent and timely piece of work.
Tell Your Friends