Reviews

The title: Nobody knows. Four kids in Japan between the ages of about five and twelve are left behind by their mother to fend for themselves. But there are rules their mother set for them before her departure. No going outside of the apartment except for Akira, the oldest kid, the one left in charge. No loud noises. And no going to school. This sets the story. The kids must cook, clean, take care of themselves until she comes back. The mother does send them money. And when it runs out before that Akira has to contact the different fathers of all the kids for help. But who knows how long this will go on and when their mother will return.

It's a sad story. But its hopeful and filled with the idea of possibility. If we are patient, if we work together, and take each step slowly, one after another, we can make it. That is how these kids approach their predicament. It is the brighter side of The Lord of the Flies which we see her. Pictures of the most mundane things fill the frame. The kids all work together to wash dishes, do laundry, study math, buy groceries and play games. The often expressionless faces and minimal dialogue of Akira and the oldest sister (almost everyone in the film) add to the quiet desperation and yet accepted responsibility the kids deal with. Shige, the youngest boy, has no more than maybe eight lines (rough estimate) of lines in the film, is playful and smiles a lot, and seems more or less ignorant of the situation. Because, after all, their mother is working in Osaka, at least this is what she says early on. When their mother doesn't return after a few months for Christmas Akira asks a neighbor to forge a note to each of the kids from their mother and gives this to all his sibling along with some remaining as a present.

Secrecy is key. No one can know all these kids live in an apartment by themselves. A task as simple as shopping for groceries suddenly turns into a covert mission planned from the underground, and being revealed could lead to catastrophe. The things kids are normally inclined to do, run in grass, scream, shout, stomp their feet, cry, play on swings, throw balls, are not a luxury afforded to these kids who must never be discovered, must stay quiet at all times. And this is because the hardworking mother, who at the start of the film seems to care greatly for her kids (aside from when she puts the three younger kids in suitcases when moving them into their new apartment), speaks sincerely, helps Akira in math and chores and tucks them all in at night, and she does gets sympathy from her kids who believe she will makes things right for them.

The mother lets Akira know her new boyfriend might just be the guy who will take care of her and her kids. When Akira asks if this man knows about her kids, the mother says not yet. About then we can understand why one mother could have four kids all from different men. And so the cycle continues and history repeats itself and left behind to suffer from the lack of ones responsibility are the kids.

There is not much dialogue in the film, but the little that is there is realistic. The night before the mother leaves Akira and her go to a restaurant. This is where Akira says to her she is selfish. She responds with how much she is doing for the kids, how everything she does is for the kids. And how true it is, that kids often can see much more clearly than adults whose lives can often be tainted with life's obligations. All the roles are very believable.

And with the film, Nobody Knows, stands another testament to the unique voices and quality film-making in existence in the world today. Its shot on washed out, almost dull, 16mm film, though it often looks digital, probably because of the DivX version I watched. The shots often stretch out a few seconds after a character has left the frame, giving a kind of slowness and uneasiness. Most shots of the outside are so far out that all we see is tiny figures in a large canvas dominated by streets and buildings and handing ads and signs with more scattered figures around. The lighting is also very minimal looking if not completely natural and often times what we see on screen are dark muted colors further adding to the uneasiness and emotional blur in the film. A very inspiring, calm film, worth seeing for anyone interested in quality film-making.

People should see this film. Paradise Now, it's called. People don't usually these kinds of films. Why? They just don't. Maybe because this film is made by a Muslim, is set in Israel but from an non-Jewish Arab perspective, and also maybe because it is about two child hood friends getting recruited as suicide bombers and going to violently blow up innocent people and themselves in Tel Aviv. Then again, this is probably the most widely distributed Arab film in the United States and everywhere, ever - I might be only somewhat wrong on that - but the film was definitely the winner of the best foreign film in the 2006 academy award. Though that is not say that films there are objectively chosen, its just in this case it was a good chose.

It is a subtle, sometimes funny, mostly insightful, always moving depiction of the banal 24 hours before the two friends are to blow up in public. This act is a demonstration or outburst to the fear, occupation, need for reason, lack of reason that they experience living in the state of Israel today. The film humanizes the distant and complicated situation in Israel from a point of view rarely exposed - its a story about those nameless fundamentalist Muslims brutally killing innocent Jews, and during the movie they might as well just be our best friends, too. Maybe.

These guys are young, confused, trying to get by, working at a car mechanics shop, dealing with their family, falling in love, all which sounds very normal. And it is. But then what we see is also how the constant killings, the Kafka-like politics of the region, the dominance and power Israel has over the pseudo Palestinian state, with its world support - how all this could have a very interesting affect on the minds of people there... maybe leading to a kind of understandable need to gain some sort of control, any kind, where to kill yourself in the name of Islam leads to martyrdom which attests to your frustrating inability to live in a healthy and safe place with the mind set where peace and diplomacy are met by rational means. We can understand this.

And to balance the beam of bias the main character's love interest is a French born, western educated, voice of reason who argues how violence does not beget peace and resolution, but on the contrary, and that the fundamentalism and suicide attacks these two men will commit only adds oil to the ferocious fire that is the problem.

Film does not change the world. This film, Paradise Now, will not either. The killing, the struggle for borders and territory, and right to this and that according to whom will all continue, maybe for a long time, maybe our children's children, times three, will read about this problem, the suicide attacks in Israel, they will see this as reality, but at least the film, rather the director behind it, Hany Abu-Assad, who used to be a plane mechanic in the Netherlands and later moved into producing for TV there - puts an angle on it we do not often see. And in this way we can understand, maybe at least just more so, the multiple layers of this historical conflict, while also be entertained, kept in suspense, and even let out a few spontaneous, well deserved laughs which confirm to a crafted form of wit, and cultural intelligence - intelligence, period - being transmitted before you. And this will give you something you did not have before.

Almadovar's Talk to Her follows two men who are in love with women who are both in commas.

In some ways Almadovar is like Tarkovsky but a Latin soap opera version of him. The beginning scene is very expressionistic, throwing the viewer into some trance, where we watch an older, beat down looking woman going through some sort of dilapidating dance or breakdown and some 8 meters behind her is a younger woman who is doing the same dance but is just about 6 seconds behind. And the two men of the story are in, what we later discover to be a theatre, one so effected that he is crying, the other effected by how affected the guy next to him is. I'll also add how this is a very interesting start to showing characters, how they are watching what we were watching, and suddenly its like some philosophical reversal where really we are all watching some show happening before us.

Later we get into the thick of the film: two women in a comma, two men, each loving one of the women. And then the one guy (I should consider taking notes and writing the characters and actors name down - next time) who is also the care-taking of the ballet dancer in a comma is accused of raping her.

The film uses many flashbacks, giving us back stories of the relationships these men had with these women, and ultimately moving the story forward with us more clear about the emotional investment, or maybe obsession, that existed. Then the film deals with how the men each very differently deal with their emotions, and it almost feels Shakespearean at times, tragic and unfortunate but moving and sweet.

In all a beautiful story. Maybe too beautiful for me because I was very conscious of the drama, the heavy handed straight forward dialog, between the characters. And yet I can put this aside just a little because after having watched this movie it seemed the most important thing I was left with was a feeling of awe and calm. another 8 out of 10.

The film starts with an man talking about his journey to achieve his dream of opening a pet cemetery in the south bay of San Francisco. We meet the people who help him: investors, friends, pet lovers. We also meet the guy against him, the guy who makes a living out of disposing of dead animals. This is the first part of the film. The second part of the film we meet a family that runs a successful pet cemetery, called the Bubbling Well Pet Cemetery. We meet the father, the head of the business, his wife, the moral supporter, for a lack of a better definition, and we meet the two sons involved in assisting in operations, one is a former insurance worker, the other is a business admin college grad. This is the basic outline of the film. And this sounds kind of boring, maybe. But boring it is not. If anything, slow at times. Thats because the camera is usually completely still and people are positioned in front of the camera, talking into it. What is interesting is how when these characters talk they let loose and go on tangents, exposing their world views, usually in the context of pets, and what we see is the humanity of these seemingly regular people, their musings on life and death, companionship, love, filial duty. For instance, the first man with the pet cemetery idea talks about how you can't trust people, how if you turn around they might stab you in the back, but his dog would never do this because you can trust your dog. The dead pet disposal guy rants about, and is surprised at the emotional connection people have with pets, as though it was something he just discovered in his line of work, and his line of work is treated by him as just a job, not anything controversial. And the sons of the successful pet cemetery owner, one is a motivational speaker. He talks about projecting ideas of success and refraining from using negative words with his little daughter, when she has done something wrong. And the other son talks about his musical aspirations and how he found out what love is in college and then found out about the hard break up afterwards. Erol Morris succeeds at exposing the layers of peoples in a real light, sometimes showing the contradictory and absurdness of peoples personalities and yet also showing the genuineness of people and their intentions. At times the film is comical, at times very serious, and other times sad. Morris is a keen observer of human behavior and this film illustrates this very well. For some local history from the southern SF bay area, for an interesting look at peoples views on very common human issues we can all relate with and of course on pets, see this nice movie. 8 out of 10.

Harmony Korine has created a name for himself, a name almost as odd as his birth name. And his first directorial film, Gummo (1997), following his screenplay, Kids, which he wrote at 19, further carves out his relevance in today's cinema as one weird director. Once in a while characters come to prominence like Harmony and are greatly celebrated and severely criticized and consequently cause a stir of controversy. These characters mess with the medium in which they work, abandon what is normal practice, are uncompromising with their vision. Some people call these kinds of people artists. Some people call them jokes. Harmony's interview on Letterman can attest to at least his off kilter weirdness, if not an untreated bipolar disorder.

But I like that about him.

And I am reminded of two figures. The first is Andy Warhol. Definitely an experimenter, a madman of sorts, he worked inspired by impulse, channeling the consumerist world into art-entertainment-social critique. Maybe this hasty evaluation can be contested. Sure. The other figure is someone who I've never met and whose name I don't know. But when visiting the UCLA art museum during my last year of high school in dire hopes of getting accepted into that film school, I coincidently came across this person's art exhibit. This is what it was: a 40 ounce bottle of malt liquor filled halfway with water and floating atop of the water were a few Styrofoam packaging material things.

I first imagined this individual to be a football playing jock type who put off his required art class final until the last minute. And in a necessity-is-the-mother-of-invention whim during his nightly bouts of drinking, with forty in hand, he came up with this art exhibit idea. I was angry. I felt cheated. I grinded my teeth and wanted to inflict harm on this individual or anything that could symbolize his existence: football, self proclaimed artists, Abercrombie & Fitch models, berets, the French. This moment lasted the length of time it takes to tie up a pair of Nikes. And it past. Then I felt awe. Maybe this person, I even granted them the title of artist in my mind at this point, intended for me to feel these things. If so it worked. How could I be sure? Alas, I cannot. Alas again, we are left with the question: what is art and what is trash? I have no answer. You may think you do. Harmony Korines existence, but more specifically his film Gummo, hinges on the brink of that space which separates the Andy Warhol and this no name jock from UCLA, trash from art.

But I will throw an empty bottle, why not a forty, at his head that will cause him to firmly fall to the art side. Albeit deranged and at times random, this Harmony guy has revealed a unique and disturbingly entertaining vision in Gummo. Even Herzog, a visionary of cinema – without a doubt – is all about Harmony and his vision. When many films are rather similar and stale and stifled by plot or style a film like Gummo cries out, or rather gurgles, something like this: "my huge and oddly shaped balls itch with furry, wanna see them up close?" Then you see them. Maybe Herzog wouldn't agree completely with that but the idea is there.

Watching Gummo, you will see this vision. And it's a disturbing vision not quite set in the past as much as in the future but mostly in some parallel world far from what we know. For example: two young characters who kill cats and sell them to the local deli owner. And they are not the only ones in the town working in this field. You will see Harmony being drunk and hitting on a black midget, proclaiming his loneliness. You will see a man pimping out his retarded sister. Women arm wrestling. Albinos. Chloë Sevigny as an albino, who looses her cat and can you guess why(one of few hints at a narrative form)? Guys fighting a chair. Glue sniffing. Bacon taped on bathroom walls. Shaved eyebrows. Tapped nipples. Are these things reminiscent, on a purely figurative way, of a forty bottle filled with water and Styrofoam? Maybe yes. These characters are illustrations or a caricatured embodiment of Harmony's own ideas of the world we live in - filling the landscape of this town, which is Xenia, Ohio. And maybe we can blame how they are the victims of a tornado that hit some time before. But it is not a normal tornado that only causes property damage. No. It is a tornado of spiritual chaos, a destructor of decency, which has left behind a morally devoid, meaningless wasteland. Sounds like science fiction. Herzog said that first.

There is no solid story in Gummo. There are just happenings. Something in the vein of Linklater's Slacker. Something in the vein of Jim Carrols book – the film failed at adapting the essence of the aimless characters – Basketball Diaries.

The film Gummo is a tribute to, or maybe just a tree house for, not necessary independent film-making but rather an independent vision. Harmony himself denies making independent films, instead calling it simply cinema. But simply cinema it is not. So with Gummo, and his other films, too, Harmoney Korine has made a name for himself. It's a weird name, and it is one of the most ambitiously unique ones at that. Whatever it is, it is interesting and cool. Maybe the kind of cool like when I second guessed myself and considered the possibly intended affect of the forty bottle with water and Styrofoam. Would Warhol even care? Probably not.

8 out of 10. Good.

Xmen 3 is entertaining. It's a film about comic book characters. So it's not hard to be entertained.

The story as a comic book idea is basically a good one. A potential cure for the mutant 'disease' has been found in a young mutant's blood. Anti-mutant supporters are rallying mutants to join the ranks of normal society by volunteering to receive treatment. But Magneto and his brotherhood see this as a weapon to eliminate the mutant identity completely. Xavier and his students stand as the mediators between the hard line mutants and the humans. Sounds good. And it is.

What this film fails at is bringing in a truth to the characters, a sense believability in characters and what they are doing. One could say, this is a film based on a comic where people can shoot lasers out of their eyes, have adamantium claws in their hands, and walk through walls, so therefore disbelief should be somewhat suspended. Sure. And if X-Men was left to exist in the comic book medium or even as a cartoon I would maybe be less critical. But the suits and ties have decided to ride this comic movie wave and capitalize on the X-Men franchise, consequently choosing to elevate these characters and stories to a human level with live actors. And the third film in this trilogy failed to understand this, resulting in fake characters, cheap dialogue, overly sentimental situations.

The film struggles with the amount of characters introduced. This is a challenge considering the amount of mutants existing in the X-Men universe and so on some level I will accept the difficultly in doing this successfully in a film shy of two hours. Yet, as von Brusak, from metroactive.com wrote in his X-Men 3 review, someone (the director) with a more careful hand could have done this more successfully. With this in mind the film tends to feel sloppy and rushed.

For instance, Angel is having trouble accepting his mutant-ness. His rich father suggests the cure. Angel is hesitant, and just before he takes the cure injection he burst out of the straps and is suddenly proud to be a mutant. He flys around a little in the film. At the end he saves his rich father from amidst the chaos of the war between magneto and the humans.

And more. Hank McCoy, The Beast, is also introduced in the film. He is a diplomat, working in the government for the betterment of the mutant cause. He talks about diplomacy. He is rational and smart. He reads, and does it upside down. He is against unnecessary violence. But by the end of the film he flips a switch, and fights a bloody fight side by side with Wolverine and the other X-Men, killing and smashing all those bad mutants.

Other characters work simply as cutouts in the film. Juggernaut smashes through walls because Magneto says so. Colossus carries a large TV with one hand down the halls of the X-Men mansion. That's about the extent of their character development.

The love story in the film exists between Jean Grey, who has returned as the all powerful Dark Phoenix who now works with Magneto, and Wolverine. Wolverine knows Jean Grey is trapped in the evil mask and that it's a matter of getting through to her. At the end of the film, when Phoenix is disintegrating mutants and humans and buildings with her power, Wolverine approaches her despite the possibility of being disintegrated, and tries to level with her, convince her to stop the destruction. She says, you would die for them? He says, no, I would die for you. And Wolverine kills her with his adamantium claws. The saying, love conquers all, comes to mind. Wolverine's love over humanity conquers the love for a woman. No comment.

One thing this film does successfully is entertain. There is constant action and even suspense. As an early summer blockbuster this film hits its marks more or less. Maybe it did so even better than I can grasp. Near the end of the film, when the good have won, and the bad are defeated (this shouldn't count as a spoiler) I looked over at my buddy sitting next to me, and to my surprise, he was fighting back tears. I though maybe it's because of allergy season, or he was chocking on popcorn. I was concerned. Later he told me it was an epic ending, so powerful. I guess this is what entertainment is about.

So for what it is, I'll give it a 7 out of 10. Why not.

A lots been written about this film. It's controversial. It's pretentious. It's the best American film ever. It is art. It's an ad by and for V. Gallo, himself and his cock. And in terms of film, according to what I am learning at film school, this is a disastrous film. It has little to no conflict between characters. Little telling dialogue. Long shots of nothing, and ears, and hair, and bathroom stalls. Its out of focus at times. And on and on.

But lets not get caught up with what others have done, the conventions of film, and what defines film for most people today when viewing this film. This film stands alone. It is an ode to loneliness and longing done in a very personal way. It is slow and subtle. At times there is no music and only the view of roads approaching through a dirty windshield. In these times I feel like I am in a car with friends, something so common, driving somewhere, stuck in my thoughts, as the scenery moves by me. The experience is no longer about watching a film... it turns into a subconscious self exploration from the view of Gallo, something closer to an emotional voyage. Other times music is playing and we see Gallos face, all sad and tormented. These shots last a long time. Sometimes very long. The person who must be grounded in established film conventions, afraid to let go of learned and programmed biases about film and art and life, at this point of the film will have trouble letting go of those things and just going along with this unusual experience. They will say this is ridiculous, this is weird, nothing is happening, the more intellectual ones they will mention how unmotivated these shots are, this dialogue and how minimal it is. But those kinds of people are stuck looking backward, still amazed by the invention of the wheel, still looking for the deeper imaginary meaning of things.

The film Brown Bunny is an expressions of freedom, an ode to art, devoid of any acknowledgment and references to things already done. It is visionary. It is new and fresh and shocking and unexpected. But people like Gallo, making films like Brown Bunny, unfortunately cannot be appreciated by everyone. It is just not possible due the the norms and guidelines and status quo set by the majority and followed by most. It is simply too difficult to go against conventions so deeply rooted in society, and it is too difficult to just go out and do whatever you want and then be appreciated for it.

But Gallo does it with this film. This is what real artists do. They go against everything to say what they want to say. People fear these kinds of things, they cringe at the thought, they scratch their knuckles with unease. With Brown Bunny, Gallo abandons norms and is not hindered by todays film conventions - he is an artist telling a poetic and personal story called Brown Bunny.

Having seen this film I'm uplifted with a sense of intrigue and awe, and hope that things like this are made. I recommend everyone see this film, even if you are scared to accept such shocking and new and unfamiliar things, at least you will see what it means to be free thinking and unconcerned with norms. 10 out of 10, easy. Keep them coming, Gallo.

Old boy is not a realistic film. Its characters are cut outs from some hyper thriller genre. Its plot twists are obvious devices to move the story along. And if these things mentioned are not important to you than it is likely you will be entertained by everything else; the camera trickery, the shocking torture scenes, and the comic book inspired story.

Old boy is a film made in a Hollywood vein. It is more sensational than anything else. In order to move the characters along Park has placed devices (deus ex machina) with the use of planted cell phones, surprises in boxes, uncovering things the viewer nor the main character, Oh Dae-su, had known. Is this a bad device? No. Its a common device used in many films. Could the story work without these devices? No. And because of this Oldboy works in the thriller genre. Yet Oldboy doesn't surpass any kind of film conventions in this in this genre to receive special praise.

The torture scenes are used more to shock than to tell anything new in the story. An example of a film where torture, very graphic torture, is not some cliché shock device but more so a comment on human relationships, pain, societal indifference, is Takashi Miike's film, Audition.

Lets not be so hasty in disregarding this film as bad, because bad it is not. It has moments. The opening is definitely an attention grabber - a guy holding a poodle being held by his tie from a building rooftop by some dark faced figure, Oh Dae-su's pleading, after finding out the biggest secret (plot twist), where he performs a disturbing masochistic act, and of course the one long take of the fight scene where Dae-su beats up some forty people. All that is cool. And the film throughout was cool, maybe mostly cool for cool's sake, until the end.

So if you're looking for entertainment with torture, blood, sex, fighting, topped with a comic like story of revenge, this film will definitely work for you. And if you are profoundly moved by the genius of this film, I'll be very suspicious. ALl in all, 7 out of 10.

Ors mother is a recovering drug user and whore. Or takes care of herself and her mother, goes to school, washes dishes at a restaurant, recycles. Or is obsessed with cleaning. Ors mother is not good at cleaning. In fact Or worked out a house cleaning job for her mother but her mother can't hack it and would rather sneak out to work the streets. Eventually johns from the past even visit Ors mother at home. Or deals with her mothers condition at first optimistically, helping her out of her need for self deprivation, but after a while, or can't take it and stops going to school, meets more and more boys who take advantage of her inability to say no, denys the one kid who might have genuinely like her, until finally she too falls into a self destructive cycle.

This is an amazing film about the destructive life of a mother and her daughter who tries to help her but in the end cannot bare the weight of such burdensome obligations. Its hopeless and grim. All the technical aspects compliment the mood of the film. The camera takes an objective view by being completely still and having actions happen even if on the boarder of the frame. The naturalistic sound, with no music, increases a kind of uneasiness in the viewer. Furthermore, the long silences, scenes with just a few words and gestures, natural lighting, sometimes under lit, great spaces and scenery surrounding characters on screen work in a way to create a very unique world with a dense psychological complexity. We are simply viewing this world from the window director Keren Yadaya has given us.

When this film ended I was left feeling that people are parts of whole systems working continuously but constantly wearing down as time goes on. Where everything is connected, the newer and less worn parts work more efficiently for a short time, taking the work load of those in its proximity. But in the end, every part is eventually going to be overworked, and will become faulty.

Yet, despite it's rather dark message this film, and others like it, (mostly, I'm thinking Requiem for a Dream) are not meant to depress people or lead to thoughts of suicide in the dark existence we inhabit. Not at all. Instead, I think films like this are meant to show people how bad things can get, they objectively separate us as viewers from worlds where real people like the ones portrayed might exist, and as viewers we are suppose to more consciously understand the complexity of life and the characters in it. So this being the case, films like these, are odes to life, messages to insight in us living for goodness, away from darkness which the films most immediate layers transmit.

This film is not entertainment, it is art at its highest form. I'm glad I have discovered (thanks to a friend) the work of Keren Yedaya. Its artists like this who constantly reform cinema as not just mindless entertainment but truly as a powerful medium for commenting and critiquing the world around us. For that, an 8 out of 10.

This Spike Lee Joint like all Spike Lee joints cuts away at the layers of a society where things are not right. Its a detective and small time crooks story but its also got more. The story itself, based on a Richard Price novel, Clockers, is a raw portrayal of young drug dealers, aka clockers, caught in the cyclical grit of the New York streets with little hope of escaping this life. One of these young clockers is killed and a detective tries to get down to the facts. His two main suspects are brothers: one is a clocker, the other is trying to make it by being legit. Thats the basic story. And it works.

What else works is Spike's depiction of the desperation and workings of the cycle of drug dealing and how it is passed down from old to young - the mechanism of ghetto life is fueled and kept going by its inner workings. A kid is obsessed with a gangster video game, similar to GTA. Other kids are more interested in looking hip then making something of themselves - all typical things in ghetto life - to give the idea of prestige via bling bling, clothes and such. Characters in the film, Rodney, Spike, Shorty, all want or wanted to get involved in the street happenings to gain maybe notoriety or credit or a sense of importance and in the end they must pay for this.

My problems with the film are these: At times the film gets instructional. For instance there are a few monologues that preach the negative effects of crack as if the film is a public service announcement to all the crack users. Another monologue, the one in the barber shop about buying useless things could be more subtle instead of some blatant anti consumerist agenda speech. Its clear Spike feels strongly about these issues and in general the hopelessness of ghetto life. But too often I got the feeling he's trying to talk you out of it, rather than simply objectively show it. And this was my problem with this. Its got moral message that might as well have been preceded with 5 seconds of black frame with white letters saying, "this is the message of the film so listen carefully." In this case, all those writing and film teachers who told me many times over to show and not tell, I now noticed were hitting on something important, something Spike should have taken into account. Otherwise, why not he start making commercial service announcements about social issues and state propositions which so and so political figure is fighting to change for the better.

Or maybe the reason I give it a seven out of ten has something to do with the eyeball reflection shot where Detective (Kietel) is seen reflected, as if stuck in the eyeball of the suspected killer. Does this mean he is innocent? Or is it all subjective? You decide.