Reviews

It was... interesting. It's different, that's for sure. Takes place in a poor area of the U.S. (not sure where) and looks into the lives of some kids living there. The main character (well, I guess he's the closest thing to a main character) is George, who has a sensitive skull and is kind of slow.

The movie struck me as very ad-libbed. I think I was probably wrong to assume that, but while watching, that's how some of the acting made me feel. Thinking of it in that way, you can understand that some stuff will work and some stuff won't move you. But if this was ad-libbed, it's 50x better than that piece of crap "Black & White". Anyway.

The movie is different. At first, I thought it'd be kind of neorealist. It has elements that are (setting, casting, certain scenes), but it also has elements of surrealism and other styles. It seems kind of random sometimes - like the director shot a lot and kept what he liked. The characters in it are pretty interesting. Most are black, but the town is mixed - some black, some white, all poor. There is a scene in which some teenage girls are sitting doing hair, talking - this I really enjoyed. It felt familiar, but unfamiliar. Why? Real life vs. reel life. The scene drives home how little we really see of the black female experience on the screen.

The settings + the low budget make for inexpensive-looking but engrossing photography. Storywise, um, it has stuff that drives it, but story is not the main focus of the film (see my previous comments on randomness). You can mainly look at it in terms of what parts you felt and what you made you go "Uh, okay...". It has some very funny moments. It has touching moments. It has a number of disturbing moments. All in all, it has a lot in it. But I have to admit, I wasn't completely caught by it. Maybe the "differentness" of the style and tone were a little hard for me to assimilate. But as a film student I'm going to nix that option for the sake of my ego.

About "differentness": I was being kind of vague. "George Washington" is not just "Well, that was a refreshing break from the norm" type different or "genre-defying" or "new approach" - to some degree, it may be these things but most of all, it's "I don't really have a clear idea of how I feel about this movie because it's hard to have a clear understanding of the movie itself" type different. That's how you get some people praising it to death and some who listen to them being not disappointed, but just... unsure.

Beautiful visually. One of those films where you can't help but notice the importance placed on colour as it relates to set design, costume, props, etc. Painterly precision. Wanna teach someone the possibilities of great mise-en-scene? Almost every frame in this film could serve your purpose.

Then there's the film's gimmick: all the dialogue is sung. When I was watching this film, I kept thinking one could write a really great paper comparing this film to "Moulin Rouge". Both unorthodox musicals. Both quite melodramatic. Love is the main theme in each. But to me, "Moulin Rouge" was multicolored whip cream compared to the sumptuous sundae, with rich ice cream, fresh fruit, and tasty chocolate syrup, that is "Umbrellas". I preferred the latter film in a major way. Of course, there are some who would prefer "Umbrellas" before even seeing it. Rare French New Wave flick vs. hyped Hollywood production? For elitist moviegoers, the choice is already made. That's not me, though. It's just, "Moulin Rouge"'s in-your-face approach represents the excited overachiever and Demy's film represents the calm ACHIEVER. See both and tell me you disagree.

What makes "Umbrellas" so rich? It's a package. The story may be melodrama, but it is fascinating, beautifully-structured melodrama that holds you in its grasp as it unfolds. The story is extremely well-done and the movie has THE best ending I've ever seen in a romantic film. I won't reveal it, but let's just say that those ready to dismiss the film as sentimental before seeing it are missing out on pure genius. But the sentimental will enjoy this film as well. You have these baby boomers who look back fondly on stuff like Zeffirelli's "Romeo & Juliet" when this is 10x better. Anyway, characterization - amazing. Each character is fleshed out well and engrossing in their own way. Add to that impressive, touching, memorable performances as well as striking attractiveness (that last one is not something I look for in a film's characters, but for those who do...). Then there's the realness of the story - the way it touches on the politics and current events of the time (the war with Algeria, etc. - French colonialist pigs!).

As I said, it's a package. Any complaint this movie could inspire would sound petty. I'll come out and say it - it's a masterpiece. If I made it, any slump I hit, I'd remind myself, "I've made a masterpiece. I've made a valid contribution to the world of art. I am satisfied." If you get the chance, check it out. Without a doubt.

It angers me how overlooked this film is.

It is not an easy film. It is bleak and at times very off-putting. Actually, if you are a thinking, caring person, this is movie is overall heart-breaking.

But it is brilliant and, for the person who truly tries to understand it, a compelling, insightful look at the problems killing black America today. The only reason for the film's lack of recognition I can imagine is that its subject matter had been examined a number of times before. But the inescapable fact is that this one of the best examinations of the subject matter there has been on screen - on par with "Boyz N The Hood".

And it is FAR from uncreative. In fact, on one level, it is not a "hood" movie, but a whodunit. The mystery aspect of the plot is very interesting. But there are other, more important layers. It is the story of the confusion and crisis of a young man's life. Most importantly, it is a brutal look at drugs, guns, and life in the projects. It is a movie asking why so many young black men are dying in the streets.

The lead character Strike has a stomach problem. It might be an ulcer or something like that. I believe it is a metaphor. Just as heat represented racial tension in Lee's masterpiece "Do The Right Thing", Strike's sickness represents the illnesses plaguing the ghetto: drugs, guns, liquor.

Like DTRT, this film looks at community. The mothers, the cops, the young people, the kids, the men trying to make a living - there is eloquent commentary in "Clockers" on the situations of all. In Spike's movies, paying a little attention is rewarding. A good essay could be written on what I call the Spike Summarization technique. This is when Spike compresses a serious debate or concern in the black community into a few expressive moments of action or dialogue. There are better examples in other movies, but it manifests in "Clockers" a few times. A bunch of kids are sitting in front of Rodney's (Delroy Lindo) shop; one of the kids is rapping while the others pay attention. The two sides to the coin: we feel the artistry and skill of the moment, the continuation of a rich tradition of oral art; we're also struck by the cruelty and coldness in the kid's violent lyrics, and we think about where that comes from.

Stylistically, this movie is a huge success. The cinematography is amazing, and I wonder what must be wrong with my tastes when I'm floored by a film like this and find visually bland a more oft-praised classic. The projects become blinding panoramas, landscapes which add tons of meaning to the poignant ending (I won't reveal it here). The sound is great; many films of this nature use hip hop in the soundtrack to produce certain effects, but "Clockers" does it in a more methodical way which jars some people, but contributes to the film's meaning.

I could say more about the film, but I encourage you to just see it, along with the rest of Spike's oeuvre. He's not a perfect filmmaker, and some of his best films are marred by elements that don't work, but I feel his consistency in terms of delivering brilliance is not below most of the cinema's most celebrated auteurs.

Much has been said by others about this film, so I will make this a short commentary on something I think few people meditate on after watching this very different piece of work. The critique of technology, man-made things vs. nature, the cynical view of civilization - all this is much discussed while people reflect on the impact this combination of images and music (created by director Godfrey Reggio, cinematographer Ron Fricke, and composer Philip Glass) had on them. What struck me the most about this film, however, is that in many ways it can be viewed as a celebration of the power of cinema to influence perspective. I saw this film in a Fine Arts Cultural Studies course at university, and I'm often very tired during that class. As a result, I slept through the first half of Koyaanisqatsi after seeing some of the beginning. Me sleeping through a movie is not an indicator that it's a bad film since I've dozed for the first halves of a number of movies I respect (it has to do with lack of sleep). After waking up, I paid attention to the rest of this very hypnotic film and found myself thinking about everything from theology to politics to anthropology.

The main sequence I'd like to refer to is when we are looking at the city, sped up, slowed down, from high up, in the streets, the malls, etc. This film gives us an omniscient perspective on mankind and we find ourselves looking at people, structures, and locales in a very different light. As time is sped up, we find ourselves concentrating on patterns (cars, moving humans), which relates to the patterns in the music. Having us identify with the music is very important to the critical aspect of the film. The music sometimes has a wondrous feel, and we feel awe looking at the corresponding image (which is always so good it would be powerful on its own anyway). Other times, the music is ominous, and something so natural as people walking down the street, shown slowed down, arms itself with emotional impact totally different from what we would feel just being there, walking down the street ourselves. The three people I mentioned earlier truly did an amazing job with this movie, and depressing or not, it's a great way to remind yourself what an amazing artistic tool humanity has in film.

Run Lola Run is the wildly creative work of someone who obviously has a great love for cinema and the myriad ways with which it can be experimented. At the base of the film is a great story (Lola must find a way to get 100,000 deutschmarks to her boyfriend or he will be killed). This story idea is expanded upon through the "what-if-it-happened-differently?" approach, which is not new, but feels so fresh and is done so amazingly here, it feels like the first time you've encountered it.

Away from the story, there is the way the film is shot. Many creative and meaningful angles, lots of strange but effective techniques (including animation), and a tendency to trade reality for the excitement of seeing time, space, and action differently through film. The most notable (and sure to be copied elsewhere) technique is the flashing of a quick sequence of snapshots telling us the possible future of an individual Lola encounters. The novelty of this, of course, is the change in the sequence when we're seeing the other options concerning Lola's story.

Time is obviously quite important to the film (framing device for story, techniques). Indeed, not a second is wasted in this extremely fast-paced film. When a scene slows down the racing feel of the movie (ie. Lola's father's office), it accentuates the content, the emotions, etc. of the scene. Which reminds me, the acting is also quite good, especially the lead actress.

Every element of the film works. Berlin is exploited well as a busy urban setting. The music (pulsating techno) is essential to the pacing, and an action scene where slow jazz is used out of the blue is great in surprising the audience and accentuating the scene differently. The best element however is the editing, which must be seen for a film lover to understand how well it's done. The four types of editing - graphic, rhythmic, spatial, temporal - are all innovatively put to spectacular use in Run Lola Run.

One thing that even certain fans of the film might not notice is the depth of the film (seen as a whole - story, editing, cinematography, etc.). I would be surprised if this film is not one day heavily discussed amongst film scholars. The strange opening sequence sums up perfectly the dichotomy between the two ways to experience the film: philosophically or simply as escapist action. Run Lola Run is successful on both levels. To me, that is the mark of a great film. In fact, I would go so far as to say director Tom Tykwer created a masterpiece.

Run Lola Run is the wildly creative work of someone who obviously has a great love for cinema and the myriad ways with which it can be experimented. At the base of the film is a great story (Lola must find a way to get 100,000 deutschmarks to her boyfriend or he will be killed). The story idea is expanded upon through a "what-if-it-happened-differently?" approach, which is not new, but feels so fresh and is done so amazingly here, it feels like the first time you've encountered it.

Away from the story, there is the way the film is shot. Many creative and meaningful angles, lots of strange but effective techniques (including animation), and a tendency to trade reality for the excitement of seeing time, space, and action differently through film. The most notable (and sure to be copied elsewhere) technique is the flashing of a quick sequence of snapshots telling us the possible future of an individual Lola encounters. The novelty of this, of course, is the change in the sequence when we're seeing the other options concerning Lola's story.

Time is obviously quite important to the film (framing device for story, techniques). Indeed, not a second is wasted in this extremely fast-paced film. When a scene slows down the racing feel of the movie (ie. Lola's father's office), it accentuates the content, the emotions, etc. of the scene. Which reminds me, the acting is also quite good, especially the lead actress.

Every element of the film works. Berlin is exploited well as a busy urban setting. The music (pulsating techno) is essential to the pacing, and an action scene where slow jazz is used out of the blue is great in surprising the audience and accentuating the scene differently. The best element however is the editing, which must be seen for a film lover to understand how well it's done. The four types of editing - graphic, rhythmic, spatial, temporal - are all innovatively put to spectacular use in Run Lola Run.

One thing that even certain fans of the film might not notice is the depth of the film (seen as a whole - story, editing, cinematography, etc.). I would be surprised if this film is not one day heavily discussed amongst film scholars. The strange opening sequence sums up perfectly the dichotomy between the two ways to experience the film: philosophically or simply as escapist action. Run Lola Run is successful on both levels. To me, that is the mark of a great film. In fact, I would go so far as to say director Tom Tykwer created a masterpiece.

Les 400 coups did not strike me as a work of staggering genius. Perhaps it is the naturalistic approach of the film, the type of approach that does not beg to be called "genius" but "realistic", that inspires many to call it a masterpiece. The problem with calling it that is it makes you want to analyze and take apart the film, but it does not reward those who do, if what they're looking for are complex themes or keys to deeper meanings. By creating the world of young Antoine, the hero of Truffaut's film, in a very lifelike way, the film bypasses dense symbolism and other such artistic ploys for a truly realistic feel. Example: Antoine's family. In a film wanting to make clearer statements about humanity, there would be more consistency shown in the characterization of the mom and dad. As is, they can be rough, they can be loving, they can be dysfunctional, they can make a loving family - they are complex like normal people, forcing us to sometimes reconsider how we feel about them.

This film interested me in the way it showed us the troubles a young boy can go through, but is that what it is about? Antoine's problems can be traced not only to the school system and his parents but also himself. I don't think this is a bad thing, it just means the movie is not about how a criminal develops, it's about life and people and how they can develop in general. It's a semi-autobiographical slice-of-life film skillfully created and filled with very interesting moments (the classroom, life as a runaway from home). It has nice cinematography, good acting, a good score, and it is certainly a worthy debut for its director. However, it is does not blow you away, so do not come with preconceived notions of what it must be like considering its fame. Let its interesting moments impress you and enjoy it for what it is.

One final note: the very interesting ending provides a great topic for discussion after the film is over.

Frankly, I really didn't like this film. I had some major problems with it that I have run into in other, more recent comedies, the best two examples being "My Best Friend's Wedding" and "Meet the Parents". My problems center around Katharine Hepburn's character, Susan. One can see from her first appearance at the golf course that she is supposed to be the opposite of Alice, the fiancée of Cary Grant's character, David. Alice is stiff and slightly oppressive, Susan is carefree. The crazy (and sometimes quite amusing) twists and turns Susan takes David through as this screwball romantic comedy progresses are unpredictable, though we expect all will turn out well and Grant and Hepburn will be in each others' arms. These are the simple norms of a comedy like this.

What I can't stand is the fact that Susan is a thoroughly reprehensible character. She is not just a scatterbrained chatterbox klutz (as we quickly understand her to be), she is also a careless, selfish, lawbreaking, walking disaster. This, however, is a character we are obviously supposed to like! It appears to me that the title of the film has a double meaning, referring both to a leopard named Baby and to the incredibly childish Susan. She steals cars, she hits people in the head with rocks, she loses important things, and every time she commits a horrible act, she shows no signs of true remorse and seems to feel sure of being forgiven. Let me explain the ties I made to the recent films. What is true about "Meet the Parents" and "Bringing Up Baby" is standard in much comedy; the comedic complications that unfold would be traumatically unpleasant in real life, but as we know we are heading towards a happy end, we are supposed to laugh and take delight in the misery on screen. The connection to "My Best Friend's Wedding" is the way both Julia Roberts' and Katharine Hepburn's characters scheme ruthlessly to prevent the male leads from marrying, and the way we are supposed to root for them in this treachery (this is even more true of "Bringing Up Baby" than of the Roberts film). Those who completely enjoyed the film will point out that Alice is not right for David. And Susan is...?

I'm not against comedy of errors. While I found parts like the dinner scene stupid and the search for the leopard tedious, the jail scene was pretty well-done. Hepburn had me laughing with the gangster moll imitation. The phone calls, the flustered chief... anyone who's seen the film knows it was some good stuff. I'd like to add that Grant and Hepburn turn in some great performances and Howard Hawks can be congratulated for the great pacing in some scenes. Still, my "issues" with the film made watching "Bringing Up Baby" an occasionally painful experience. My favourite part of the film remains when David, unable to shut the incessantly chatty Susan up, stomps hard on her foot. He begins and ends the film letting others walk all over him, but for this solitary instant, he took control of the chaos.

I have just seen the director's cut of Wolfgang Peterson's Das Boot and it is a movie I feel I can comfortably call brilliant. It is even tempting to use the word "masterpiece", though this might be going too far. Surely it must be Peterson's greatest work.

Having not seen it in its previous form, I cannot compare what I saw with the hour-shorter version previously available. My guess is that comparing the two would show difference rather than big changes in quality - one movie more action-centred, one more realism-centred. In evaluating the director's cut, these were my feelings:

Especially in light of the attention to detail, I would imagine that any war movie buff would find this film flawless. For the rest of us, two elements - the three-and-a-half-hour length and the realism of the film - can spell boredom. These are important elements; the length is part of taking the audience on a long trip through "the madness of war" (Peterson's words). Even more important, the film very realistically represents the U-boat experience: the tension, the claustrophobia, the action, and (significantly) the inaction. This film is based more in reality through not trying to shove in as much action as possible. Of course, this results in a film you shouldn't watch late at night if you want to see it to the end.

Still, the adjective that comes to mind when trying to describe this film is "gripping". The overall atmosphere (highly skilled camerawork and lighting) is part of this. Specifically, though, scattered through Das Boot are masterful moments of intense psychological drama and terrific suspense (ie. certain encounters with the enemy). The great script presents you with flashes of extreme depth that truly illuminate the war experience. The acting and direction brings these flashes to life. The acting is especially astounding. The lead actors and the supporting cast leave indelible memories with facial expressions that make action scenes twice as riveting. Comparing the beginning of the movie to the end and realizing the change in the characters that has taken place before our eyes increases the appreciation of the job that was done by all.

So the film is high quality. It also makes you think. I feel the dominant theme of Das Boot is man's helplessness at the hands of other forces. The crew of the submarine is in the hands of machinery and the scenes involving diving deep really express this well. A telling shot has an officer happily resting his face against, almost kissing, an engine that wasn't working after it has been brought back to life. The crew is at the hands of its superiors. Note the scared mistrust in the faces of officers as the Captain does what he feels has to be done in action sequences. Yet the Captain is included in this helplessness when orders come from higher up for the ship to take an almost suicidal course. Finally, the crew is at the cruel hands of war, that evil aspect of humanity that makes disillusioned men out of bright-eyed boys. All the drama in the film, psychological and otherwise, comes from the characters being at the mercy of cold-hearted war. The stunning (and, I feel, quite appropriate) ending reflects this. Das Boot is a rewarding film experience for all those who are up to making the effort of sitting through it.