Change Your Image
ixtlan
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Awakening the Soul (2021)
It's Mostly an Infomerical But this Filmaker Shows Promise
This documentary unfortunately plays like a travelogue and advertisement for an ayahuasca retreat called Rythmia which is located in Guanacaste, Costa Rica. It is run by a wealthy playboy turned spiritual cheerleader named Gerard Powell, an amiable, likable fellow, who seems to sincerely believe in the power of ayahuasca to heal. The retreat looks well appointed, clean and inviting. But the information we are presented with is not science nor evidence based. For example, the Curandero, Sarah Saso, tells us, as part of the "Ceremony" segment, to ask yourself "...how does your body react if you give yourself food that's alive and vibrating, fresh, and green or how do you feel if you're eating junk food, packaged things from a box...?" This is where Sarah lost me for the remainder of the documentary. My body doesn't mind a salad, not in the least, but my body also doesn't mind popcorn to be watched with a great movie. What's one man's poison is another man's nourishment. This is true of lactose and gluten. It is also true of the vegan lifestyle versus the meat-eating lifestyle. When is come to diet, there is no one size fits all in my experience and according to research. This question she asks is to prepare participants for the main ceremony, the cleansing aspects we are invited to watch before the actual ayahuasca ingestion begins. The cleansing ceremonies are not for the faint of heart, as they involve vomiting and other purging activities which indicate that the subject is ready for the next leg of the spiritual journey. She and other interviewees speak much pseudo-scientific nonsense that has no basis in fact but is fun to consider philosophically.
Terrence McKenna quotes abound in this documentary, the western voice of all things DMT. At one point, Terrence McKenna, in voice over, says the earth is 3 billion years old, and that humans have only been around for 2,000 years. The earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old and scientists estimate that humans have been around for at least 200,000 years. Austin would have been better served to edit out such misinformation. The comment further erodes the scientific credibility of the film. McKenna can be forgiven but not the filmmaker.
Then there is that scene at approximately 57 minutes 10 seconds in. A slow fade-in from black to a long lithe blond beauty standing alone by the water in the tropical Costa Rican eden. Her back faces us. She is wearing white bikini bottoms and we see she is topless. Then the camera cuts to her from the waist up for some slow motion, let's linger on her body, maybe we'll see her breasts shot. What this scene means, in what is supposed to be passing for a documentary, was beyond me. It doesn't fit in the discussion about integrating the experience that is the voice over. My immediate reaction was that it was completely gratuitous. A little cringy in that I do not want to be privy to the filmaker's personal erotic fantasies. Perhaps it only proves that the film doubles as advertising for the Rythmia retreat. Beautiful sexy people sell product. Could one, at a stretch, interpret her as a metaphor for Mother Ayahuasca? I didn't think so. This scene does not fit in the documentary.
Samuel Austin's cinematography is stunningly beautiful. He is skilled at bringing out the colours and movement of the scenery and people. We feel the lusciousness of the surroundings. It was a pleasure to watch the film in this regard. I wasn't too sure about the psychedelic, mirror image, and otherwise other fractal effects. Overdone, I did not think they added anything to the documentary, but they were certainly pretty.
Another one of the more interesting aspects of this film is that Austin, during his ceremonies, was asking the medicine, Mother Ayahuasca, as they call her, how she wanted to be perceived and how he should speak her truth for his film. He discovers instead that it is his own personal experience that is going to be more important than who she is or wanted to be. I think this realisation was an unintended insight into his vision and artistic process for this film which frankly, I found endearing.
Needle in a Timestack (2021)
Hallmark Science Fiction
Good acting, but too long. Interesting premise. Why does Zoey act like she is in love with her "best friend"? Their relationship is sterile and confusing to the viewer. It's very odd and disconcerting. In any case we are hard pressed to care about these people. We know from the beginning that Nick and Janine will eventually end up together. Nothing unique or original here. There is something very sanitized and shallow about the story. A Hallmark story that we know has a happy ending trying to disguise itself as deep philosophical concerns. Move on to the next movie.
Severance (2022)
Great Acting and Special Effects
When a writer is competing with Season 1 of "Westworld" and all seasons of "Black Mirror", it's hard to come up with something new that will grab and keep viewers. It has a "Lost" feel about it, in the sense that I've a strong suspicion that in the end it will fall just as flat. The savvy viewer will know that to keep up the momentum and suspense there had better be some good explanations for the inconsistencies and apparent mysteries. The acting is very satisfying and well done. The viewer identifies completely (especially if they've been in the corporate world), with the crew working away mindlessly in the Macrodata Refinement department. And, just as the people in the department are perplexed and often mystified by their managers and other support staff, so we too are. The personalities of these characters are what kept me going throughout the first nine episodes. I fear, and rightly so, that it will disappoint as seasons progress. I enjoyed some of the special effects, like the never ending corridors, and the visible changes as the severed worker wakes up to their work day in the elevator. There are however so many questions that need answers.
1. Why is there so much wasted real estate in the macrodata refinement department? There are only four staff, but a football field size room, a bathroom with enough stalls for twice that, and a giant kitchen and storeroom?
2. Why does everyone hear different noises in the break room?
3. Is Ms Cobell a friend or foe? Why does she reveal so much to Milchick throughout the season if she is (c)overtly a friend?
4. Why does Cobell leave the baby unattended? Is the baby important?
5. Why do people wake up on a boardroom table? Why not a nice comfy couch in Wellness Check with Ms Casey? Wouldn't that make people more amenable to being severed? (Bad choice in my opinion)
6. What's the deal with false guru Rickken and his books? And his fans? Why have his book reading in his home and not in a separate venue like most writers?
7. Why was Burt retired? Did he make this decision with his partner?
8. Why didn't Burt and Irv kiss? Actually this seems like a thing that perhaps either one or both actors refused to do. Just speculation, but I can't imagine Christopher Walken agreeing to that. Maybe the writer didn't want to subject the viewers to elder gay sexuality. ('cause hey it does exist).
9. Why hide the full complement of staff in the O&D department?
10. How do Innies let people in their Outtie world know that they have to work late or do overtime?
I am only excited for a second season in the hopes that further revelations will be interesting and consistent with the characters and action.
Planet of the Humans (2019)
Our Current Way of Life is not Sustainable. By Any Means.
This film has all the usual hallmarks of a Michael Moore documentary, quotes taken out of context, emotionally manipulative scenes that shock and overwhelm. Most people will come out of the movie looking for someone to blame. Al Gore? Bill McGibbon? Elon Musk? As my neighbour said tonight about the coronavirus, "I have to find someone to blame." At first I said there is no one to blame. But she doubled down. I repeated it again. But she shook her head smiling. I wanted to believe that she wasn't doubling down but just joking with me. Maybe she was. My partner says she wasn't.
I think it's important to note that the message the movie is : Our current way of life is not sustainable by any means. Now if you want to know what the movie is trying to show, it illustrates how environmentalists are in bed with the traditional fossil fuel business. Whether they are, knowingly or not, might be up for debate. It is possible that Al Gore and Bill McKibbon are stupid or naïve and want to believe that the fossil fuel businesses care. Maybe they think these businesses really want to find a sustainable alternative. Maybe they do. Maybe they are at war with their inner greed, hate, and ignorance. If we don't have someone blame, then we have to look inward, perhaps acknowledge how much we need to change, collectively. No one wants to do that. Everyone wants an easy answer that we can add to our personal narratives and belief systems.
It's not about blaming someone. It's way beyond that. Is Dennis McKenna on to something when he says that Gaia, through the SARS-COV-2, is trying to teach us something? Virologists would say, "Nonsense." We've had epidemics and pandemics before. Humankind just picks itself up, dusts itself off, and continues to gorge on the fruits of the earth with abandonment. This film is trying to warn that it is the same when it comes to the climate crisis.
Hereditary (2018)
Less Would Have Been More
This film had potential to be a brilliant psychological study of family tragedy and the failures of communication. Instead it devolved into a second rate creep show that overused gore, death and unexplained revelations. For so much trauma to be visited upon one family gave me horror fatigue during the last half of this film. In a review by NPR, the writer and director Ari Aster, says that he, "wanted the film to function first as a vivid family drama before I even bothered attending to the horror elements". In this aim he certainly does succeed, owing to the brilliant performances of the cast and moments of writing genius. Aster says that the turning point of the film was "designed to operate like a chute that opens up under audience and kind of drops them into hell". Aster also says in a Vanity Fair interview that he "wanted to make a film that served as a serious meditation on grief and trauma." In these objectives he ultimately fails because he uses the gimmick of horror, inspired by Rosemary's Baby, Psycho, and other similar movies, to try take us down a rabbit hole of the supernatural, instead of exploring the non-supernatural horror of their situation. The real terror is invoked by the riveting performances of the actors, especially Toni Collette, whose character's grief and suffering touched me more deeply than desecrated graves, headless corpses and hovering evil monsters ever could. Alex Wolff also gets kudos for his heartbreaking depiction of teenage angst taken to the extremes. But, the supernatural elements of the film left me completely cold. It seemed like the easy way out for Aster who convinced me that he didn't know where to take the real horror that such misfortune can engender.
Allure (2017)
Made it to minute 26
I knew what was coming. I wasn't interested. And how was I supposed to believe anything about the story after the first scene? It seemed gratuitous. I didn't want to hang in to find out how it fit in or if it fit in. As the minutes went by it just seemed like someone's fantasy of what a nasty girl must be like.
Ghost Town (2008)
Sweet and Delightful
Worth seeing - pretty much your run of the mill rom-com. And I don't like rom-coms, but this one made me a little weepy. Most of the credit for this goes to Ricky who plays a mean pathetic misanthrope that you just have to end up loving. No kudos to the director for trying to make Tia Leone a helpless nymphette at the end.
Crimson Peak (2015)
What a Waste of Acting Talent
There is some really good acting in an otherwise horrible script. Yes the sets and costumes were amazing. Jessica Chastain was brilliant as the possessive sister of Tom Hiddleston's Thomas Sharpe. But she had some awesomely tough plot turns that worked against her. She had so little good dialogue to work with. There is absolutely no way even someone as stupid as the Edith Cushing character (Mia Wasikowska) is going to sign away her wealth, at that particular point in the movie. Why did Del Toro even think that was going to work? Maybe he was trying to emphasize the psychological horror of Edith's predicament. I wondered why have the story even go there? Learning not to drink the tea is one thing (we got it: Rosemary's Baby), but to then go ahead and eat the porridge when we all know that's poisoned too. It's just too obvious. And then to have to work with the plot device of having Lucille leave the rest of her keys on the tea tray, knowing that Edith stole one, was too much for me to believe. I kept losing my suspension of disbelief over and over and having to find it again to get back into the movie. Very distracting.
He also chose two completely wooden actors to play the sympathetic leads. I don't think Wasikowska knew at all how to make Edith believable. Charlie Hunnam as Dr. Alan was marginably better. For me, the violence overshadowed any subleties and interesting philosophical questions Del Toro might have raised. The final two lines, "Ghosts? They never go away," were intriguing. But any answers that could be inspired by the last assertion were not in the least way explored in the movie. It is a waste of a final statement. I came away thinking, Huh? What exactly happened in this movie? Why did it happen? Do I care about Edith? She's stupid and careless. And she's freakishly strong for a woman on death's door.
This was a gorgeous movie in a visual sense, and had good horror for the sake of horror, but not of the calibre of say a Cronenberg or Hitchcock. It might seem that Del Toro built the sets and ghosts, loved them so much, and then just tried to fit in a story, with any old horror trope, and hope we wouldn't notice. Well I noticed and was disappointed.
Solaris (2002)
Too Cerebral for the Average Viewer
Yes. I mean that. Viewers want to see explosions, murder and mayhem. Not unanswered questions and thought experiments. This movie will give you plenty of those. A typical quote from the movie is "There are no answers. Only choices." Now how many of us have the patience to think about that one? This movie challenges us to sit still for a minute and really listen to what the characters are saying and what it could possibly mean. I thought the acting was excellent given the complexity of what Stanislaw Lem was trying to convey. If he was trying to convey existential crisis, I think the movie succeeds. I loved the touch of making one of the scientists a strong black woman. I watched the original Russian version (1972) before trying to digest the newer one. The newer one resonated with me more. Perhaps because it is more current - perhaps because the in Russian version I had more trouble understanding the timelines and how they fit it - until the end. In the American movie, the timelines make more sense but there is no twist at the end. The last few minutes become predictable. I also found the Russian version much more difficult to relate to emotionally though.
I don't know how either movie compares to the book, but that will be my next stop.
John Wick (2014)
Two Hours of Plot and Character Inconsistencies
That was one of the all-time worst movies I have ever seen. And a sequel is coming out in 2016? That adds insult to injury. So many things in this movie just do not make sense: Here are just a few:
1. Vigo and Iosef are right: It was just a car and a dog. Now I am an animal lover but the fate of the dog does not justify in any universe the wanton destruction of dozens of people brutally murdered and in public places.
2. A real Vigo would have killed him and never let Wick go after his son. After spending all that time and money to prevent his own and son's murder? His actions when he catches Wick make no sense. Just off him. Oh yeah then the rest of the movie can't happen.
3. Kill a priest in front of his church in broad daylight? Rubbish.
4. Suddenly Vigo is no longer afraid of Wick?
5. Marcus has no reason to set up his expensive equipment and elaborate stake outs to not kill Wick.
6. A hotel that is so out in the open about being a hotel for gangsters? Really? And men dripping blood show up at expensive hotels all the time?
7. A hotel that has a doctor whose stitches and staples gangster wounds for a living?
So unbelievably disappointing I just want to blame someone - and get my money back. But alas, I only have myself to blame for sitting through it.
Knocked Up (2007)
Don't Let The Title Fool You Into Thinking This is Just Another Tasteless Puerile Comedy
This is a completely delightful and warm movie. It sometimes plays a little stilted but that only endeared the movie to me more. A friend of mine mentioned this film to me several weeks ago and I sneered at him thinking it was probably just another tasteless toilet humour flick.
Yes it is crude but at the same time it portrayed real people with real pain and real joy. It presents the turmoil of trying to make it through a difficult situation without any guidance whatsoever and somehow getting through it all it same.
I loved the understated way the actors move through the action and the lines. This downplaying actually underscores the tragic comedy and gives the film an easy and believable naturalness that is rare is most mainstream movies.
Lily Tomlin (1986)
It's Just About A Couple of Sincere Hard Working Gals
I have watched this film and shared it with friends dozens of times over during the last 15 years. It is true as "jimmylee" has stated in his comments that it is a rare glimpse into the creative process and into the very private life of Lily, her partner Jane, and their production company. I found many bits very candid and revealing and it only endeared both of them and their art to me. They show themselves to be just a couple of very hard working girls like millions of other working girls. The difference, of course, is that their work is much more public than most. The work they did for this show is part of and reveals much of the prevailing culture of the seventies and eighties. Lily Tomlin, herself, is a cultural icon in her own right.
I enjoyed it many times before I actually got the pleasure of seeing the one woman show that came out of the work in progress documented in this film - "Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe". I enjoyed it so much and wore out a copy of the play I bought to such an extent, that the live show was a huge disappointment for me! Quite unfair to such a brilliant artist and her writer.
I have many more questions than answers about each of their creative processes and I was left wanting to know much more.
The Saddest Music in the World (2003)
It's "Moulin Rouge"+ Turned Inside Out and On It's Head
Warning: Spoilers but I'll try not to reveal too much.
For me it's a toss up: Japanese flute or the cello? I can't personally decide which of these instruments plays the saddest music. But it is generally accepted in the western world that only the cello can convey that unique type of saddest that can conjure up the deepest depths of human despair. So although I wasn't really sure where the story was going until well into the film, I was pretty much not surprised by how the contest would turn out in the end.
Kazuo Ishiguro co-wrote the screenplay with Guy Maddin. And you have to like Kazuo Ishiguro to stomach this film. It is a sprawling, disturbing dream sequence of complex and huge dimensions. But if you are no stranger to the charms of his equally sprawling novel, "The Unconsoled", you will like this film. Unlike a dream, this film, has threads weaving subtly in and out, that at a very fundamental level, make sense. Things make sense because his movie focuses on the most basic of human experiences in a short 90 minute period: love, joy, loss, despair, and of course, sadness. Terrible heart wrenching sadness.
I had the same reaction when I started watching it as I did when I started watching "Moulin Rouge". I was thrown completely off balance when I heard characters in a turn of the 20th century setting singing pop tunes from decades later. With jaw dropped, I rebelled against what I was hearing believing I couldn't be hearing right. Surely it was me loosing my mind, for what film maker in his right mind would dare betray my sensibilities and expectations this way? The same jarring, rug-pulled-from-under-my-feet, feeling assaulted me when I realized soon into Maddin's film that the weird presentation and strange plot directions were not going to go away like a bad dream in the morning light. Indeed, this movie is a "Moulin Rouge" taken to its most surreal level (If that is possible). Instead of pop or rock tunes, Maddin uses other genres and classic tunes from the history of the music as a backdrop to his dream sequence of a story. Like a diamond turning in your hand revealing different facets, the film directs your view this way and that never letting you get comfortable. Each scene is dense and every word and movement move you closer to the final conclusions. Nothing seems wasted in any scene. In a grainy 40s style mostly black and white presentation that purposely loses focus at all edges of the frames - you never feel clarity about the events and people - yet you can feel the cold of the Winnipeg winter, the horror of a car accident (gone even more horribly wrong as the scene progresses) and the terrible violence of human relations.
If you can handle all that, then you will find this is a powerful and moving film.
Vanilla Sky (2001)
Mostly Misses The Mark - But The Film Was Oddly Compelling To Me
(Warning: Some Spoilers)
I do not think that this movie accomplished the filmmaker's goal. The whole mystery unraveled in a rather melodramatic and pedantic way at the end. It was bad science fiction (but not as bad as "Return of the Clones"). It is as though the filmmaker thought it was unthinkable for the audience to be left with the impression that the character David Aames (played by Tom Cruise) could possibly have murdered his lover. The movie might have had a lot more impact if the question of what was real and what was dream had been left ambiguous. Tom Cruise had some fine acting moments in the film, but in many ways he merely reprised the emotional outbursts that were so fine in "Fourth of July".
The movie seems to be about a life reformed. I think this is is one of the film's main messages. Witness when the character Sofia says to David during the evening they spend together: "Every passing moment is another chance to turn it all around." But David Aames never does take advantage of that opportunity. His life, a loveless one, essentially ends the next morning. The movie also seems to be about a perfect love realized. But this is only on the surface. It is actually about a love never realized yet acted out in someone's fantasy anyway.
In his fantasy Sofia tells him that he never should have gotten in that car with Julia, his stalker, that fateful morning. That is the opportunity he missed to turn it all around - to resist the temptation to join Julia. Instead he could have moved forward in a reformed way instead of giving way to vanity. The character of Julia, is, I imagine, supposed to represent a mirror to his vanity and the selfish lovelessness of his life.
The movie revolves around one sexually charged but unconsummated night with the only woman one man will ever truely love and the chase to capture and hold on to the fantasy of that love, which remains unfulfilled. But it is about hope too. When David Aames confronts Sofia in the club and implores her to share her thoughts and feelings about their relationship, she, in my opinion, tortured but compassionately replies, "No I can't. I will tell you about it in another life...when we are both cats." This is the great hope of the movie - that somehow their love transcends this life (or this fantasy). In some way true love never dies and will manifest itself in an afterlife and beyond.
I Am Dina (2002)
Compelling
I was distracted by the fact that non-native English speaking actors of various European persuasions were acting in a clearly non-English setting and cultural context. I was not sure if this had some artistic or symbolic intent or not. Once I set this discomfort aside, I found myself completely compelled by the movie. There are dark themes enveloped by a bubble of hope. The plot twists and turns keep you wondering constantly if that bubble is going to burst.
For women this is an encouraging (though macabre) portrait of a woman who not only is very strong emotionally, but is also strong physically and is not afraid to use these strengths. It is also an interesting study of what motivates and empowers someone who has nothing to loose and nothing left to fear.