Saturday, August 10, 2013
The Hunt / Jagten 3.5/4
Seen in theater. Released 2013.
Directed by Thomas Vinterberg
Written by Tobias Lindholm, Thomas Vinterberg.
With Mads Mikkelsen, Thomas Bo Larsen, Annika Wedderkopp, Lasse Fogelstrøm, Susse Wold,
Anne Louise Hassing, Lars Ranthe
This is a very powerful film. It is a true nightmare for anyone who works with kids.
I kindergarten teacher, in the midst of trying to get his life together after a divorce, is accused of inappropriate behavior with one of his students. He is innocent (not a spoiler since it is clear from the beginning that he is) but ends up trying to defend himself while all his attempts at trying to get his life together again have fallen apart. The town treats him brutally.
One of the most interesting things about this movie is how the accusation came about. Basically, the adults took some foolish thing a 5 year old says and elevates it. Also the child says this "accusation" in a fit of temper and only says it because her older brother inadvertently showed her some pornography. But the adults believe that a child can only tell the truth. Definatlty food for thought. Any one that has a child knows that children will test the boundaries of truth and reality.
I can say the usual things that explain why I like the film so much; great acting, beautiful cinematography etc. It's all true. But the most outstanding thing about the film is how powerful it is, which bears repeating.
And it looks as it if there is a clip too! It's early in the film, so again, not a spoiler.
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Everyone Else / Alle Anderen 3/4
Released in 2009. Seen on DVD.
Directed and written by Maren Ade.
With Lars Eidinger, Birgit Minichmayr, Hans-Jochen Wagner, Nicole Marischka
A Young couple, Gitti and Chris are on vacation on the Italian island of Sardinia. It is basically a film about their relation and young love. The couple are seemingly mismatched. Chris is a little uptight, arrogant, intellectual and elusive. Gitti is a free spirit. She gets annoying and he get mean and huffy. Everything is fine when together by themselves, but then they meet an older more established couple and they start to compare themselves to this couple and it seems unfavorable, at least to them. The relationship starts to disintegrate.
I thought it was a real interesting study on relationships. I also like the acting and the setting. It is a 'talky' film, which is not to everyone's taste, but it had a lot of interesting themes being discussed and acted out.
.
Directed and written by Maren Ade.
With Lars Eidinger, Birgit Minichmayr, Hans-Jochen Wagner, Nicole Marischka
A Young couple, Gitti and Chris are on vacation on the Italian island of Sardinia. It is basically a film about their relation and young love. The couple are seemingly mismatched. Chris is a little uptight, arrogant, intellectual and elusive. Gitti is a free spirit. She gets annoying and he get mean and huffy. Everything is fine when together by themselves, but then they meet an older more established couple and they start to compare themselves to this couple and it seems unfavorable, at least to them. The relationship starts to disintegrate.
I thought it was a real interesting study on relationships. I also like the acting and the setting. It is a 'talky' film, which is not to everyone's taste, but it had a lot of interesting themes being discussed and acted out.
.
Saturday, August 3, 2013
Lady Windmere's Fan 3/4
Seen in Theater. Released 1925.
Directed Ernst Lubitsch.
Written by Oscar Wilde (based on play), Julien Josephson (adapted screen play).
With Ronald Colman, May McAvoy, Bert Lytell, Irene Rich, Edward Martindel, Carrie Daumery.
This is a pretty powerful film considering the limitations of the media of that day. Funny enough it is based on play, yet it is a silent movie. That means much of the dialogue has been cut down to its most basic bare bones. Imagine presenting a play with so few words. Yes there is titling, but you have to watch the characters move their mouths with out any 'translation'. It means a lot of watching body language and inferring what the characters are actually saying. With all those limitations, it is still a relatively powerful film. I wonder what seeing the play performed live would be like.
This is the story about a young wife, Lady Windmere who is being pursued from by a 'friend' of the husband. The husband finds out who the mother of his wife really is, but they decide to keep it a secret so as not to shock the young wife. But their is a social issue here. The mom has been ousted from high society and she wants to get back in, partly to pursue a Lord that she is interested in marrying. But the young wife thinks her husband has a relationship with the mom, and she considers running into the arms of her admirer out of jealousy. Her mother, tries to stop her from making this mistake. In so, making the ultimate sacrifice of her possible repositioning in high society that she has desired so much.
Released in 1925, this film has some interesting styles in clothes and hair. I also notice that there have been several remakes of the film.
I was not able to find a trailer, but the whole film as well as large portions of it are available on You Tube.
Directed Ernst Lubitsch.
Written by Oscar Wilde (based on play), Julien Josephson (adapted screen play).
With Ronald Colman, May McAvoy, Bert Lytell, Irene Rich, Edward Martindel, Carrie Daumery.
This is a pretty powerful film considering the limitations of the media of that day. Funny enough it is based on play, yet it is a silent movie. That means much of the dialogue has been cut down to its most basic bare bones. Imagine presenting a play with so few words. Yes there is titling, but you have to watch the characters move their mouths with out any 'translation'. It means a lot of watching body language and inferring what the characters are actually saying. With all those limitations, it is still a relatively powerful film. I wonder what seeing the play performed live would be like.
This is the story about a young wife, Lady Windmere who is being pursued from by a 'friend' of the husband. The husband finds out who the mother of his wife really is, but they decide to keep it a secret so as not to shock the young wife. But their is a social issue here. The mom has been ousted from high society and she wants to get back in, partly to pursue a Lord that she is interested in marrying. But the young wife thinks her husband has a relationship with the mom, and she considers running into the arms of her admirer out of jealousy. Her mother, tries to stop her from making this mistake. In so, making the ultimate sacrifice of her possible repositioning in high society that she has desired so much.
Released in 1925, this film has some interesting styles in clothes and hair. I also notice that there have been several remakes of the film.
I was not able to find a trailer, but the whole film as well as large portions of it are available on You Tube.
Friday, August 2, 2013
This is Martin Bonner 3.5/4
Seen in theater. Released in 2013.
Directed and written by Chad Hartigan.
With Paul Eenhoorn, Richmond Arquette, Sam Buchanan, Robert Longstreet, Demetrius Grosse.
An older gentleman has uprooted himself from the east coast to live and work in Nevada. He works for a Christian organization which tries to help released prisoner to rehabilitate. There's one ex-prisoner who seems especially awkward and socially inept that he takes under his wing. Along the way to rehabilitation, the ex con tries to reconnect with his teen/ 20 something daughter in a beautifully tender and awkward moment of the film which is the center piece of the film.
I highly recommend this film. My philosophy, after working with inner city 5th graders for the last
It's a very simple film. And it is very short. I was disappointed when it ended. I wanted more.
Directed and written by Chad Hartigan.
With Paul Eenhoorn, Richmond Arquette, Sam Buchanan, Robert Longstreet, Demetrius Grosse.
An older gentleman has uprooted himself from the east coast to live and work in Nevada. He works for a Christian organization which tries to help released prisoner to rehabilitate. There's one ex-prisoner who seems especially awkward and socially inept that he takes under his wing. Along the way to rehabilitation, the ex con tries to reconnect with his teen/ 20 something daughter in a beautifully tender and awkward moment of the film which is the center piece of the film.
I highly recommend this film. My philosophy, after working with inner city 5th graders for the last
It's a very simple film. And it is very short. I was disappointed when it ended. I wanted more.
This is the End - 2.5/4 Grownups 2 - .5/4
This is the End Seen in theater.
Released 2013.
Directed by Evan Goldberg, Seth Rogen.
Written by Evan Goldberg, Seth Rogen.
With james Franco, Seth Rogen, Yay Baruchel, Emma Watson, Danny McBride, Craig Robinson, Michael Cera
Grown Ups 2 Seen in Theater.
Released 2013.
Directed by Dennis Duagan.
Written by Fred Wolf, Adam Sandler, Tim Helrihy.
With Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock, David Spade, Salma Hayek, Maya Rudolph, Maria Bello, Nick Swardson, Steve Buscemi
I have never done two films at one time, bit when I was thinking about that horrible movie Grownups 2, I kept comparing it to a very similar movie called This is the End. So it seems to be the most appropriate thing to do. The most important similarity is that they comedies in which there are no sacred cows. All topics are considered fair game. In other words, they are both very offensive. And I have no problem with that. I like a good nasty film as much as the next red blooded male. I read one review that said that Grown-ups is very offensive to various groups, and I agree it is, but so is This is The End. So why is one film so much better than the other. Why is the offensiveness okay in This is the End and so miserable in Grownups 2?
Here are some of my ideas of wwhat makes one film better than the other one.
1) Grownups 2 is simply not very funny. I may have chuckled maybe 4 times. (those four chuckles kept it from being zero stars). While watching This is the End, I must have been grinning the whole time and laughed frequently. So basically, Grownups 2 is not very well written.
2) Believability is not something a viewer should be concerned about while watching these films. The events that happen are so outrageous. They are outrageous because they are attempting to be over the top. Both films reminded me of extended SNL shows, especially Grownups 2. (during those awful 90's years) It was just one bit after another bit. Plot was just a devise to advance to the next bit. But Grownups 2 kind of tried to be believable and outrageous at the same time. It even attempted to have a saccharine feel-good message at the end. So the dialogue was real stupid in Grownups 2.
In This is the End, there is no attempt to be realistic. It is about the biblical Apocalypse and how the characters are dealing with it. No real plot, just lots of excuses to ad lib and do bits. They were not at all trying to be realistic, so the viewer doesn't have to try to 'relate; to the characters.
3) I think that This is the End was so much better because, the actors played themselves. So while the jokes were infantile and in bad taste, they were mostly pretty much skewering themselves and the Hollywood lifestyle. The self referential aspect of the film was the best part of the film. Grownups 2 were directing its venom at innocent groups (gays, mental health etc).
Sigh, it was kind of hard to articulate my ideas. I hope some of this made sense.
Released 2013.
Directed by Evan Goldberg, Seth Rogen.
Written by Evan Goldberg, Seth Rogen.
With james Franco, Seth Rogen, Yay Baruchel, Emma Watson, Danny McBride, Craig Robinson, Michael Cera
Grown Ups 2 Seen in Theater.
Released 2013.
Directed by Dennis Duagan.
Written by Fred Wolf, Adam Sandler, Tim Helrihy.
With Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock, David Spade, Salma Hayek, Maya Rudolph, Maria Bello, Nick Swardson, Steve Buscemi
I have never done two films at one time, bit when I was thinking about that horrible movie Grownups 2, I kept comparing it to a very similar movie called This is the End. So it seems to be the most appropriate thing to do. The most important similarity is that they comedies in which there are no sacred cows. All topics are considered fair game. In other words, they are both very offensive. And I have no problem with that. I like a good nasty film as much as the next red blooded male. I read one review that said that Grown-ups is very offensive to various groups, and I agree it is, but so is This is The End. So why is one film so much better than the other. Why is the offensiveness okay in This is the End and so miserable in Grownups 2?
Here are some of my ideas of wwhat makes one film better than the other one.
1) Grownups 2 is simply not very funny. I may have chuckled maybe 4 times. (those four chuckles kept it from being zero stars). While watching This is the End, I must have been grinning the whole time and laughed frequently. So basically, Grownups 2 is not very well written.
2) Believability is not something a viewer should be concerned about while watching these films. The events that happen are so outrageous. They are outrageous because they are attempting to be over the top. Both films reminded me of extended SNL shows, especially Grownups 2. (during those awful 90's years) It was just one bit after another bit. Plot was just a devise to advance to the next bit. But Grownups 2 kind of tried to be believable and outrageous at the same time. It even attempted to have a saccharine feel-good message at the end. So the dialogue was real stupid in Grownups 2.
In This is the End, there is no attempt to be realistic. It is about the biblical Apocalypse and how the characters are dealing with it. No real plot, just lots of excuses to ad lib and do bits. They were not at all trying to be realistic, so the viewer doesn't have to try to 'relate; to the characters.
3) I think that This is the End was so much better because, the actors played themselves. So while the jokes were infantile and in bad taste, they were mostly pretty much skewering themselves and the Hollywood lifestyle. The self referential aspect of the film was the best part of the film. Grownups 2 were directing its venom at innocent groups (gays, mental health etc).
Sigh, it was kind of hard to articulate my ideas. I hope some of this made sense.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Bling Ring 2/4 Seen in Theater
Released 2013.
Direcected by Sofia Coppola.
Written by ofia Coppola and Jo Sales (from Vanity Fair "The Suspect Wore Louboutins".
With Katie Chang, Israel Broussard, Emma Watson, Claire Julien, Taissa Farmiga,
Georgia Rock
I saw this film to take my daughters to see it. I wanted them to see the wickedness of their ways.When my daughter asked why are you taking us - she didn't want to go - I told her she had to see it because it is the film of her generation. My daughter is obsessed with celebrities, and texting and photographing herself constantly. I guess I wanted her to know what she looks like from the outside. Of course there is more to her than this obsession and she is a kind gentle spirit, but it does worry me that she gets so wrapped up in this celebrity culture. I think she was a little peeved.
That said, it was better than I thought it would be, though I went in with low expectations. It was kind of funny.
It's based on a true story of a bunch of some L.A. kids who decided to steal from some of the celebrities they obsess over. The director does sort of metaphorically wag her finger at these kids, while at the same time admiring these kids. In one very minor scene, the girls are in the car singing along to a rap song, swear words and all. They are really trying hard to be cool. And what's not to like about these kids? They are young, beautiful, fashionable and full of vibrant energy. In some ways, this film is a celebration of youth, as well as a cautionary tale.
Some critics say the film makers were not critical enough. I think the results of their deeds is lesson enough... in part. It chastises the kids for the the felonies they committed but erhaps there should have been more criticism of the shallow, values that these kids extolled.
Direcected by Sofia Coppola.
Written by ofia Coppola and Jo Sales (from Vanity Fair "The Suspect Wore Louboutins".
With Katie Chang, Israel Broussard, Emma Watson, Claire Julien, Taissa Farmiga,
Georgia Rock
I saw this film to take my daughters to see it. I wanted them to see the wickedness of their ways.When my daughter asked why are you taking us - she didn't want to go - I told her she had to see it because it is the film of her generation. My daughter is obsessed with celebrities, and texting and photographing herself constantly. I guess I wanted her to know what she looks like from the outside. Of course there is more to her than this obsession and she is a kind gentle spirit, but it does worry me that she gets so wrapped up in this celebrity culture. I think she was a little peeved.
That said, it was better than I thought it would be, though I went in with low expectations. It was kind of funny.
It's based on a true story of a bunch of some L.A. kids who decided to steal from some of the celebrities they obsess over. The director does sort of metaphorically wag her finger at these kids, while at the same time admiring these kids. In one very minor scene, the girls are in the car singing along to a rap song, swear words and all. They are really trying hard to be cool. And what's not to like about these kids? They are young, beautiful, fashionable and full of vibrant energy. In some ways, this film is a celebration of youth, as well as a cautionary tale.
Some critics say the film makers were not critical enough. I think the results of their deeds is lesson enough... in part. It chastises the kids for the the felonies they committed but erhaps there should have been more criticism of the shallow, values that these kids extolled.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
neighboring Sounds 2.5/4
Seen on DVD. Released 2012.
Directed and written by Kleber Mendonça Filho,
With Irma Brown, Sebastião Formiga, Gustavo Jahn, Maeve Jinkings, Dida Maia, Irandhir Santos, W.J. Solha
Okay , so I was excited when I saw that this was available on Netflix. It was on the top of many critics' best of 2012 lists. From the title and the use of the word "sounds' I thought it might be edgy and slightly experimental. In fact, I was worried that it would be too experimental. (I'm not a big fan of straight out experimental films - I like to have some sort of narrative and character development). Well it wasn't TOO experimental. In fact, with the exceptions of a few interesting sonic offerings, it was kind of a normal film.
Briefly, the film takes place in a rich part of Brazil where most people have servants.Most of the neighborhood is own by "The Grandfather" and a couple of his grand children are living in the neighborhood. One has a new girlfriend and the other is always in trouble with law even though he is from a rich family. This latter character, does bring some edginess to the film. The town decides to hire a security firm because they are worried about the outside (poor, thieving folk from the favelas) getting into their nice neighborhood. There is also a woman who is obsessed with the dog barking next door who tries to think of ways to silence the dog. The movie starts with this character, so maybe that is where the title comes from, because otherwise, I don't see where the word "Sounds" comes from thematically in the film.
For those who like sequential narratives, it might be a difficult film, but basically the narrative is episodic and it is an ensemble piece. I enjoyed it - yes. There were some interesting characters and I got to see a side of Brazil that I haven't seen before (I'm accustomed to seeing the favelas when I ever I watch a Brazilian film).
It might sound like I hate it, but I didn't. I like it a lot. I just don't think it was one of the best 3 films of 2012. It just isn't special enough.
Directed and written by Kleber Mendonça Filho,
With Irma Brown, Sebastião Formiga, Gustavo Jahn, Maeve Jinkings, Dida Maia, Irandhir Santos, W.J. Solha
Okay , so I was excited when I saw that this was available on Netflix. It was on the top of many critics' best of 2012 lists. From the title and the use of the word "sounds' I thought it might be edgy and slightly experimental. In fact, I was worried that it would be too experimental. (I'm not a big fan of straight out experimental films - I like to have some sort of narrative and character development). Well it wasn't TOO experimental. In fact, with the exceptions of a few interesting sonic offerings, it was kind of a normal film.
Briefly, the film takes place in a rich part of Brazil where most people have servants.Most of the neighborhood is own by "The Grandfather" and a couple of his grand children are living in the neighborhood. One has a new girlfriend and the other is always in trouble with law even though he is from a rich family. This latter character, does bring some edginess to the film. The town decides to hire a security firm because they are worried about the outside (poor, thieving folk from the favelas) getting into their nice neighborhood. There is also a woman who is obsessed with the dog barking next door who tries to think of ways to silence the dog. The movie starts with this character, so maybe that is where the title comes from, because otherwise, I don't see where the word "Sounds" comes from thematically in the film.
For those who like sequential narratives, it might be a difficult film, but basically the narrative is episodic and it is an ensemble piece. I enjoyed it - yes. There were some interesting characters and I got to see a side of Brazil that I haven't seen before (I'm accustomed to seeing the favelas when I ever I watch a Brazilian film).
It might sound like I hate it, but I didn't. I like it a lot. I just don't think it was one of the best 3 films of 2012. It just isn't special enough.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
A Highjacking 3/4
Seen in Theater. Released in 2013
Written and directed by Tobias Lindholm.
With Pilou Asbæk, Søren Malling, Dar Salim, Roland Møller, Gary Skjoldmose Porter,
Abdihakin Asgar, Amalie Ihle Alstrup
A Danish ship is hijacked by Somali pirates. This is mostly the story of how the crew deals with being hostages and the negotiations that happen between the pirates and the company that owns the ship. The film has two basic settings; that of the claustrophobic and increasingly shabby ship and the clean, sparse cool office of the Danish company. It is a nice contrast in relation to the fact that the people are negotiating over the lives of real people. And that is the crux of the film.
Recommended if you can find it.
Written and directed by Tobias Lindholm.
With Pilou Asbæk, Søren Malling, Dar Salim, Roland Møller, Gary Skjoldmose Porter,
Abdihakin Asgar, Amalie Ihle Alstrup
A Danish ship is hijacked by Somali pirates. This is mostly the story of how the crew deals with being hostages and the negotiations that happen between the pirates and the company that owns the ship. The film has two basic settings; that of the claustrophobic and increasingly shabby ship and the clean, sparse cool office of the Danish company. It is a nice contrast in relation to the fact that the people are negotiating over the lives of real people. And that is the crux of the film.
Recommended if you can find it.
Monday, July 15, 2013
The Wall 3/4 stars
Seen in theater, released 2013.
Directed by Julian Pölsler
Written by:Marlen Haushofer (novel), Julian Pölsler (adaptation)With Wolfgang M. Bauer, Ulrike Beimpold, Martina Gedeck
This is a very beautiful film with lots of ideas floating around. In it, a woman (basically a one woman show) on holiday in the Austrian Alps finds her self walled in by an invisible barrier. So this is the story of how she and her animals survive (or not). The invisible barrier is not explained. It just is. But she is trapped for the few humans in her area are frozen (dead) standing in their places so the audience knows that she is alone.
The visual beauty comes from her surroundings as she is caged in a valley of the Alps. Of course, one could argue that there is beauty in the prose her character and some of the ideas that she expounds upon.
Some of the themes that are discussed are that of survival, responsibility to nature, loneliness, and the transcendence of natural beauty.
I would CAUTIOUSLY recommend this film. It is very beautiful and poetic. It is also a bit slow going. I seem to say this often, but I would recommend this film only to people who are capable of being patient and can appreciate the films relaxed, lingering pace.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
The Way, Way Back **1/2 out of 4
Seen in Theaters.
Released 2013.
With Steve Carell, Toni Collette, Allison Janney,
The Trailer;
Released 2013.
With Steve Carell, Toni Collette, Allison Janney,
| AnnaSophia Robb, Sam Rockwell, Maya Rudolph, Liam James, Rob Corddry, Amanda Peet | |||||||||||||||||||||
| I would recommended this movie. But "wait!" You might say. "You only gave it 2 and 1/2 stars. Why would you recommend this film?" First , 2 and a half stars means its a very good movie (# is great and 2 is good). So basically, that means I am stingy with stars. Second, While as entertaining and fun as the film is, it is not exactly earth shattering. And you wouldn't expect "earth shattering" from the4 makers of The Descendants. two and a half stars is about where I start recommending films. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| And here's the part about the believability of the film. Can a kid really be that geeky? Can a cute young hottie really go for such a geek. Can a kid so geeky, really change his personality around so much, (or learn to live with it so easily). Would an adult really take the time to take this kid under his wings. (even if he is practically an adolescent himself). Probably not, but suspend belief and you will be okay. If you can suspend disbelief for a zombie movie, you can do it for this one too. So go! Enjoy yourself.. There's even some food for thought, though its pretty subtle and not even worth going into here. You'll be glad that you went. |
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
World War Z ** out of 4
Seen in theater. Released June 2013.
To be sure this is a fun and fairly harrowing film. But in my opinion, it was nothing special. All the action scenes were of zombie attacks on the populace. They all started to look the same after a while. There was this constant low level soundtrack of groaning and growling off stage and I got tired of the stuttery herky, jerky movements and the expressive/non expressive facial expressions. Seen it all before, too many times.
One thing I liked about the zombies was the dedication in which they pursued their victims. They used their bodies as battering rams to smash though barriers and windshields in an all out effort to get their victims. I thought that it was kind of intense.
At the end, I was left wanting more, but not in a good way. Not in a way that made me think that was the most awesome film I have ever seen. It was more like "That's it?" More of a disappointment that there wasn't more. The film just seemed to speed through events, except for the (after a while) the mind numbing zombie attacks.
I understand that this film had issues in its production, and I wonder if a lot of detail was left on the cutting room floor. For example, this being a World War, there were scenes in 3 different parts of the world; South Korea, Jerusalem and some Southeastern European country whose name was mentioned quickly and that I was unable to catch. (Belarus? )
In South Korea, the film must have spent less than 10 minutes there (estimation) and it was taking place at the army base. Hardly any glimpse of the country itself. They got off the plane (attacked by zombies), talked, got back on the plane (again attacked by zombies).
In that southeastern European country, they spent the whole time (almost) in a health facility, It was a decent set piece but we saw very little of Belarus.
Only in Jerusalem was the any indication that they were actually in a foreign country. And it was probably the best set piece of the bunch. But even in that case, they spent about 5 minutes talking and the rest of the time they were being attacked by zombies through the street of Jerusalem. At least during that attack, you got a feeling of place.
I'm trying to keep these reviews shorter, but there was an interesting scene in Jerusalem where people were passing though the gates to get protection, behind walls. The zombies were on the outside trying to get in. Any messages or symbolism there? Me thinks perhaps.
I wouldn't recommend this film at a first run theater, but it would certainly be worth watching at the cheap theater or at home on your home theater system. On the other hand, why bother when there are so many great films available. Do we have enough time in our lives to watch the " just decent" films?
I have the feeling that there is a better possible film here, it is a shame that they couldn't make it. I does make me want to read the book, so I can at least imagine that better movie.
Here's a trailer.
Directed byMarc Forster.
Written by :
Matthew Michael Carnahan (screenplay),
Drew Goddard (screenplay),
Starring
Brad Pitt,
Mireille Enos,
Daniella KerteszTo be sure this is a fun and fairly harrowing film. But in my opinion, it was nothing special. All the action scenes were of zombie attacks on the populace. They all started to look the same after a while. There was this constant low level soundtrack of groaning and growling off stage and I got tired of the stuttery herky, jerky movements and the expressive/non expressive facial expressions. Seen it all before, too many times.
One thing I liked about the zombies was the dedication in which they pursued their victims. They used their bodies as battering rams to smash though barriers and windshields in an all out effort to get their victims. I thought that it was kind of intense.
At the end, I was left wanting more, but not in a good way. Not in a way that made me think that was the most awesome film I have ever seen. It was more like "That's it?" More of a disappointment that there wasn't more. The film just seemed to speed through events, except for the (after a while) the mind numbing zombie attacks.
I understand that this film had issues in its production, and I wonder if a lot of detail was left on the cutting room floor. For example, this being a World War, there were scenes in 3 different parts of the world; South Korea, Jerusalem and some Southeastern European country whose name was mentioned quickly and that I was unable to catch. (Belarus? )
In South Korea, the film must have spent less than 10 minutes there (estimation) and it was taking place at the army base. Hardly any glimpse of the country itself. They got off the plane (attacked by zombies), talked, got back on the plane (again attacked by zombies).
In that southeastern European country, they spent the whole time (almost) in a health facility, It was a decent set piece but we saw very little of Belarus.
Only in Jerusalem was the any indication that they were actually in a foreign country. And it was probably the best set piece of the bunch. But even in that case, they spent about 5 minutes talking and the rest of the time they were being attacked by zombies through the street of Jerusalem. At least during that attack, you got a feeling of place.
I'm trying to keep these reviews shorter, but there was an interesting scene in Jerusalem where people were passing though the gates to get protection, behind walls. The zombies were on the outside trying to get in. Any messages or symbolism there? Me thinks perhaps.
I wouldn't recommend this film at a first run theater, but it would certainly be worth watching at the cheap theater or at home on your home theater system. On the other hand, why bother when there are so many great films available. Do we have enough time in our lives to watch the " just decent" films?
I have the feeling that there is a better possible film here, it is a shame that they couldn't make it. I does make me want to read the book, so I can at least imagine that better movie.
Here's a trailer.
Saturday, July 6, 2013
The Life of Oharu ***1/2 out of 4
Seen in Theater.
Released 1952.
What is it about historical Japanese films (or society) that people, especially women, have to walk so slow? Is it the outfits that they are wearing - the Samurai culture? Everyone just shuffles around. This is the second Japanese film that I have seen where the movement of the actor is excruciating slow.
At first the film started slowly and then stuff started to happen. There's definitely some interesting themes to think about..
It is the mid 17th century in Japan, about an older (50 years old) reflects on her life and how she got to where she is now (in one long flashback). With out telling about every episode that happens, she starts as a lady in waiting at the royal court, but then fails in love with a man below her station. Their love affair is found out and she and her family are exiled from Kyoto. What follows is a series of events in which her problems get solved only to end in worse circumstances that she already was. . In one of the first episodes, she become concubine to an emperor and births the heir to the throne, but she is summarily dismissed after the baby is born and she sent back to live with her parents.
She seems to drift with the winds of fate. It appears she has no free will and that her fate is decided by men (or jealous wives). This is certainly a commentary on the freedom of women even in modern times. The fact that this film is set in the Samurai times makes me think that it is a metaphor for the freedom., or lack there of, of women in society. This film was made in 1952, a time when women had much less rights than they do now and also made in Japan, a country which has been more male dominated then most countries.
The film really grew on me as it continued on from the opening scene.
There's lots more that would be interesting to talk about, but I am trying to keep these short, otherwise I'll never be able to keep up.
Released 1952.
Directed by Kenji Mizoguchi
With:
Kinuyo Tanaka,
Tsukie Matsuura,
Ichirô SugaiWhat is it about historical Japanese films (or society) that people, especially women, have to walk so slow? Is it the outfits that they are wearing - the Samurai culture? Everyone just shuffles around. This is the second Japanese film that I have seen where the movement of the actor is excruciating slow.
At first the film started slowly and then stuff started to happen. There's definitely some interesting themes to think about..
It is the mid 17th century in Japan, about an older (50 years old) reflects on her life and how she got to where she is now (in one long flashback). With out telling about every episode that happens, she starts as a lady in waiting at the royal court, but then fails in love with a man below her station. Their love affair is found out and she and her family are exiled from Kyoto. What follows is a series of events in which her problems get solved only to end in worse circumstances that she already was. . In one of the first episodes, she become concubine to an emperor and births the heir to the throne, but she is summarily dismissed after the baby is born and she sent back to live with her parents.
She seems to drift with the winds of fate. It appears she has no free will and that her fate is decided by men (or jealous wives). This is certainly a commentary on the freedom of women even in modern times. The fact that this film is set in the Samurai times makes me think that it is a metaphor for the freedom., or lack there of, of women in society. This film was made in 1952, a time when women had much less rights than they do now and also made in Japan, a country which has been more male dominated then most countries.
The film really grew on me as it continued on from the opening scene.
There's lots more that would be interesting to talk about, but I am trying to keep these short, otherwise I'll never be able to keep up.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Reality **1/2 Seen in the theater
2012.
Directed by Matteo Garrone.
Written by Matteo Garrone, Massimo Gaudioso and others.
With Aniello Arena, Loredana Simioli, Nando Paone.
At first I thought this was kind of cute but silly little movie. Almost too much so. But then it started to grow on me.
The main character of the film, Luciano, is a well loved fish salesman who occasionally entertains friends at parties and weddings with a drag routine. , His friends and family adore him. I found his loonyness a bit overbearing and annoying, but I suppose it is the character trait that is necessary for the role he plays. He tries out for a Big Brother type reality TV show an comes away from the try out thinking the producers liked him and that he's going to get selected. The call he is awaiting is late in arriving and meanwhile he is starting to lose his sense of reality. He sees spies in every corner and he banks his whole life on the success he thinks will come from his televisions appearance.
At this point, the film takes a dark turn, and I really liked it.
here's the trailer.
Directed by Matteo Garrone.
Written by Matteo Garrone, Massimo Gaudioso and others.
With Aniello Arena, Loredana Simioli, Nando Paone.
At first I thought this was kind of cute but silly little movie. Almost too much so. But then it started to grow on me.
The main character of the film, Luciano, is a well loved fish salesman who occasionally entertains friends at parties and weddings with a drag routine. , His friends and family adore him. I found his loonyness a bit overbearing and annoying, but I suppose it is the character trait that is necessary for the role he plays. He tries out for a Big Brother type reality TV show an comes away from the try out thinking the producers liked him and that he's going to get selected. The call he is awaiting is late in arriving and meanwhile he is starting to lose his sense of reality. He sees spies in every corner and he banks his whole life on the success he thinks will come from his televisions appearance.
At this point, the film takes a dark turn, and I really liked it.
here's the trailer.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
The Ballad of Narayama ** (1957) seen on DVD
Directed by Keisuke Kinoshita.
Written by Shichirô Fukazawa (stories), Keisuke Kinoshita.
With Kinuyo Tanaka, Teiji Takahashi, Yûko Mochizuki.
There's plenty to complain about here as can be inferred by the 2 star rating I gave it. Though I would still recommend it under certain circumstances. 1) See the film in the theater. I watched on DVD on my flat screen TV and the dark portions were difficult were to differentiate. And a large percentage of the film happens in the dark. It's also worth seeing n the theater because it is beautiful. It is made on a sound stage, but I don't think that it was done to save money. The sound stage was meticulously designed. It was purposely unreal, and that non-reality gave the film eerie and beautiful tone. It almost looked like pages out of a children's picture book. The sky at night fall had an eerie purple/violet color. During the autumn scenes, the screen is filled with the gold of harvested rice and the pink of blooming flowers. At times, one part of the screen was yellowish, while a different part of the screen was greenish blue. I feel seeing this film on the big screen would add at least another half star to the rating. 2) Be prepared for little character development. This film is based on a novel which is based on a folk tale. Folktales have hierarchical characters. There is the kind grandmother, the insolent grandson and the bimbo grand-daughter in-law. The kind-hearted son and the gracious new recently widowed wife. In fact I really liked that wife. At first I though she would come into the family and try to tear it apart, as daughter-in-laws are wont to do, but no, she appreciated that the family took her in and is loyal and kind to her husband and mother-in-law. Another reason for the lack of character development is simply cultural. Japanese are not know (generalization here) for being individuals but to follow orders and customs. That is the case in this film. The characters do things that are inexplicable, but they do so because of tradition and custom. But I think at the end, the director tries to question unwavering loyalty to culture. A synopsis: In a small Japanese village, it is custom for the elderly , when they turn 70, to go to Mount Narayama to "visit the gods" - die. The grandma has no problem with this and eagerly awaits her 70th birthday. The son has other thoughts which is why I say perhaps the director is questioning this ritual. In fact that there is another elderly man in the village who isn't taking this ritual so well as counterpoint to the grandmother. 3) expect a slow narrative. It is pastoral setting and it has old people in it. One needs some patience for this film. Couldn't find English subtitles, but this will give you an idea of how it looks.
There's plenty to complain about here as can be inferred by the 2 star rating I gave it. Though I would still recommend it under certain circumstances. 1) See the film in the theater. I watched on DVD on my flat screen TV and the dark portions were difficult were to differentiate. And a large percentage of the film happens in the dark. It's also worth seeing n the theater because it is beautiful. It is made on a sound stage, but I don't think that it was done to save money. The sound stage was meticulously designed. It was purposely unreal, and that non-reality gave the film eerie and beautiful tone. It almost looked like pages out of a children's picture book. The sky at night fall had an eerie purple/violet color. During the autumn scenes, the screen is filled with the gold of harvested rice and the pink of blooming flowers. At times, one part of the screen was yellowish, while a different part of the screen was greenish blue. I feel seeing this film on the big screen would add at least another half star to the rating. 2) Be prepared for little character development. This film is based on a novel which is based on a folk tale. Folktales have hierarchical characters. There is the kind grandmother, the insolent grandson and the bimbo grand-daughter in-law. The kind-hearted son and the gracious new recently widowed wife. In fact I really liked that wife. At first I though she would come into the family and try to tear it apart, as daughter-in-laws are wont to do, but no, she appreciated that the family took her in and is loyal and kind to her husband and mother-in-law. Another reason for the lack of character development is simply cultural. Japanese are not know (generalization here) for being individuals but to follow orders and customs. That is the case in this film. The characters do things that are inexplicable, but they do so because of tradition and custom. But I think at the end, the director tries to question unwavering loyalty to culture. A synopsis: In a small Japanese village, it is custom for the elderly , when they turn 70, to go to Mount Narayama to "visit the gods" - die. The grandma has no problem with this and eagerly awaits her 70th birthday. The son has other thoughts which is why I say perhaps the director is questioning this ritual. In fact that there is another elderly man in the village who isn't taking this ritual so well as counterpoint to the grandmother. 3) expect a slow narrative. It is pastoral setting and it has old people in it. One needs some patience for this film. Couldn't find English subtitles, but this will give you an idea of how it looks.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Argo *** (out 0f 4) seen in theater
2012
Directed by Ben Affleck.
Written by Chris Terrio (screenplay), Tony Mendez (book).
With Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman.
I saw the trailer for this way back when and thought "how silly". My favorite film reviewer (the staff of the Chicago Rreader) did not reccomend the film. So I waited. Meanwhile everyone else was loving it so I finally got around to seing it.
It is a good film! Though my assumption was correct that the part of the undercover Hollywood scouting team was pretty silly - though true. it's hard to believe the Iranians fell for it. Perhaps less emphasis on that aspect would have been better. The film seems pretty full of its self about how silly this is that it kind of annoys me.
And my daughters thought the soundtrack was pretty cheesy at the end when it is happily ever after. They might have been right, though I fell for the cheesiness. perhaps I understood more about what was at stake for these people.
here's the trailer, though I am sure most people saw it.
Directed by Ben Affleck.
Written by Chris Terrio (screenplay), Tony Mendez (book).
With Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman.
I saw the trailer for this way back when and thought "how silly". My favorite film reviewer (the staff of the Chicago Rreader) did not reccomend the film. So I waited. Meanwhile everyone else was loving it so I finally got around to seing it.
It is a good film! Though my assumption was correct that the part of the undercover Hollywood scouting team was pretty silly - though true. it's hard to believe the Iranians fell for it. Perhaps less emphasis on that aspect would have been better. The film seems pretty full of its self about how silly this is that it kind of annoys me.
And my daughters thought the soundtrack was pretty cheesy at the end when it is happily ever after. They might have been right, though I fell for the cheesiness. perhaps I understood more about what was at stake for these people.
here's the trailer, though I am sure most people saw it.
2046 **1/2 (out 0f 4) seen in Theater
2004
Directed and written by Kar Wai Wong.
With Tony Leung Chiu Wai, Ziyi Zhang, Faye Wong
2046 is the year that Hong Kong loses its economic and political independence. It is also the name of a science fiction novel that the main character Tony Leung is writing as well as the room number of many of the beautiful girls with whom he has liaisons with. Strangely enough, the majority of the story takes place in the 60's in the swinging city with it's night clubs and brothels. People go through sexual partners like we today go through coke cans. It's seedy and erotic. But one of the women from 2046, played by the beautiful Ziyi Zang, is able to maintain a relationship with Tony a bit longer, but of course the relationship is fatal and doomed in the end. At the end there is all remorse and regret. Perhaps a message about that kind off lifestyle?
There is a beautiful series of shots that really hit home with me because they reminded me of my own home movies that my parents and other parents across America took in those days. In these scenes, one of the girls from room 2046 will sit or stand near the hotel sign (60's style) in there 60's outfit staring off into the sky looking very melancholy. All this is shot in handheld, 8 mm film and has that shaky, grainy homemade look.
Oh, yeah and then there's that sci-fi theme which comes and goes and the sequence of the story is so convoluted that it is really difficult to make any kind of sense of it. The sci-fi portion I suppose is some sort of metaphor about memories. I really had trouble with that idea.
Recommended for those whose taste is patient and leans toward the avant-garde.
Directed and written by Kar Wai Wong.
With Tony Leung Chiu Wai, Ziyi Zhang, Faye Wong
2046 is the year that Hong Kong loses its economic and political independence. It is also the name of a science fiction novel that the main character Tony Leung is writing as well as the room number of many of the beautiful girls with whom he has liaisons with. Strangely enough, the majority of the story takes place in the 60's in the swinging city with it's night clubs and brothels. People go through sexual partners like we today go through coke cans. It's seedy and erotic. But one of the women from 2046, played by the beautiful Ziyi Zang, is able to maintain a relationship with Tony a bit longer, but of course the relationship is fatal and doomed in the end. At the end there is all remorse and regret. Perhaps a message about that kind off lifestyle?
There is a beautiful series of shots that really hit home with me because they reminded me of my own home movies that my parents and other parents across America took in those days. In these scenes, one of the girls from room 2046 will sit or stand near the hotel sign (60's style) in there 60's outfit staring off into the sky looking very melancholy. All this is shot in handheld, 8 mm film and has that shaky, grainy homemade look.
Oh, yeah and then there's that sci-fi theme which comes and goes and the sequence of the story is so convoluted that it is really difficult to make any kind of sense of it. The sci-fi portion I suppose is some sort of metaphor about memories. I really had trouble with that idea.
Recommended for those whose taste is patient and leans toward the avant-garde.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
All that Heaven Allows *** (of 4) (1955)
Seen in Theater.
Directed by Douglas Sirk.
With Jane Wyman, Rock Hudson, and Agnes Moorehead.
This is a story of a widower accustomed to country club life who fall s in love with the younger and hunky Rock Hudson. Of course all her peers are scandalized and the couple have to try to survive the outcry and scorn heaped upon them.
And this film has a lesson about the morality of individualism. Cary's (Wyman) crowd is quite different from Ron's (Hudson) crowd who happen to be naturists. The debutante crowd scoffs at this other crowd and it is more a story about accepting people's different outlook on life than finding love in a a May?September romance. The naturists are considered outsiders. This being 1955, that was probably the trendy thing for the hip kids, but the message still rings true today. There is much pressure on society for people to fit in, whether they are naturists, beatniks, hippies, punk rockers or communistic. The film criticizes those people (the elite) who look down on people different them. This is still a current theme today.
Here's the trailer;
A particularly good scene, though it might be hard to understand out of context.
Directed by Douglas Sirk.
With Jane Wyman, Rock Hudson, and Agnes Moorehead.
This is a story of a widower accustomed to country club life who fall s in love with the younger and hunky Rock Hudson. Of course all her peers are scandalized and the couple have to try to survive the outcry and scorn heaped upon them.
And this film has a lesson about the morality of individualism. Cary's (Wyman) crowd is quite different from Ron's (Hudson) crowd who happen to be naturists. The debutante crowd scoffs at this other crowd and it is more a story about accepting people's different outlook on life than finding love in a a May?September romance. The naturists are considered outsiders. This being 1955, that was probably the trendy thing for the hip kids, but the message still rings true today. There is much pressure on society for people to fit in, whether they are naturists, beatniks, hippies, punk rockers or communistic. The film criticizes those people (the elite) who look down on people different them. This is still a current theme today.
Here's the trailer;
A particularly good scene, though it might be hard to understand out of context.
Lore ***1/2 (out of 4) (2012) in Theater
Theatrical opening Feb. 2013
Directed by Cate Shortland. Written by Robin Mukhererjee.
With Saskia Rosendahl, Ursina Lardi, Nele Trebs, Kai Malina, Hans-Jochen Wagner, Mika Siedel.
I think the thing that stands out for me is the subtlety of the film. Like most films about WWII and the Holocaust, it has an anti - hate message as all are and all should righteously continue to be. But in this film, the audience is not hit over the head with the idea that this event was a bad thing. The story of the horror of WWII has been told from many viewpoints - the Jewish, the sympathetic German national, Nazi's who resisted etc. This one is told for a slightly different point of view than normal.
it is the story of a group of children who are forced out of their home because of the Nazi/SS past of their parents, who have disappeared, presumably captured or killed by the Ally troops. They must find their way to their grandmothers house on the other side of the nation with an infant in tow and no adult. Many lessons are learned, including the lessons of why their previous way of life (Nazism, etc) was wrong.
lessons are learned when in their travels they meet a Jewish traveler/refugee. The lead child, Rosendahl, has been trained/taught to hate Jews, yet he helps her and the kids out. Their relationship evolves and changes. Also they learn a lot about the real life just by wandering through the country side and seeing hoew the German people are and how tough life is. After all, being the children of Nazi officers, they were protected from the cruelties of life and war.
Directed by Cate Shortland. Written by Robin Mukhererjee.
With Saskia Rosendahl, Ursina Lardi, Nele Trebs, Kai Malina, Hans-Jochen Wagner, Mika Siedel.
I think the thing that stands out for me is the subtlety of the film. Like most films about WWII and the Holocaust, it has an anti - hate message as all are and all should righteously continue to be. But in this film, the audience is not hit over the head with the idea that this event was a bad thing. The story of the horror of WWII has been told from many viewpoints - the Jewish, the sympathetic German national, Nazi's who resisted etc. This one is told for a slightly different point of view than normal.
it is the story of a group of children who are forced out of their home because of the Nazi/SS past of their parents, who have disappeared, presumably captured or killed by the Ally troops. They must find their way to their grandmothers house on the other side of the nation with an infant in tow and no adult. Many lessons are learned, including the lessons of why their previous way of life (Nazism, etc) was wrong.
lessons are learned when in their travels they meet a Jewish traveler/refugee. The lead child, Rosendahl, has been trained/taught to hate Jews, yet he helps her and the kids out. Their relationship evolves and changes. Also they learn a lot about the real life just by wandering through the country side and seeing hoew the German people are and how tough life is. After all, being the children of Nazi officers, they were protected from the cruelties of life and war.
A new beginning and some films I have seen
A brand new start. I had given up for a while. Just not enough time. But I decided to revisit the blog for one reason only, and that's to make postings about films I have seen. Hopefully i can go back to doing full blown reviews of books and films, but right now I am looking for something that keeps track of my movie going and that I can share with the public.
So for now, this blog will mostly cover films. I had written about films here in the past, but I found that I was unable to keep up with it since one can consume a film in 2 hours more or less and it takes an hour (more or less)to write a review. So I decided to just focus on books since those take longer to consume and therefore I wouldn't have to write much, but even at that slower pace, I was not able to keep up. A difficult Fall and Spring are partially responsible.
So I found some satisfaction with my desire to share on Facebook where there is an AP that allows me to post books I have read. I don't write very much - just blurbs really, but at least I can keep track of what I read and share it, though I am not always convinced the AP is posting.
But there was no similar AP to post and share films I have seen, and I noticed people on Facebook like doing that. I started to post about films, but there was no real record being kept of what I have seen, so here I am back at the blog. The blog will keep track of all the movies I have seen and I can still share. For now I'll be keeping the he posts blurb-like, but I hope to one day being able to get more elaborate with my entries once again.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Winter's Bone ***1/2
By Daniel Woodrell.
Published by Bay Back Books - Little, Brown and Company.
Copyright 2006, 2007.
193 pages.
Lets start off by saying that I am a big fan of Woodrell. I was introduced to him by the movie of the same name as this book. I loved the movie. It had all the elements that I like - It is gritty, violent, profound and beautiful. (Don't worry, I'll get back to that - I won't take the lazy way out by simply listing a bunch of superlatives). I went out and looked for his books and read a bunch of them that can be found on this very blog and I can say that all his work, to a greater or lesser degree, has the above mentioned characteristics. I stayed away from this one even though I had just seen the movie because I was too familiar with the story and I wanted some time to pass and because it was simply unavailable at the library. The movie had made this book a popular requested selection.
All of Woodrell's books take place in the Ozarks where the people are poor and desperate. It's not the sweet, apple pie American country we are talking about. It is the dark underbelly of a depraved and desperate society. A theme that is gritty and appeals to me immensely.
A young girl of 16, Ree Dolly, is forced to take care of her two younger brothers and her mentally handicapped mother because the father is out running about and simply not around. She's on her own and struggling to put food on the table. The law visits her one day and informs her that her father, a crack cocaine cooker by occupation, has not shown up for court and that the house she lives in and as well as many generations of Dolly's before her, will be confiscated since he signed the house over for his bail and has not shown up for court. Ree has to find her father. It's a dangerous task since the father was most certainly caught up with drugs and violence and she will need to enter that world to find him. And the rest of the book is about her search for him.
The most important part of that search thematically is the idea of the community and family that is so important to the people of the Ozarks. That closed-knit community that always claims to take care of their own and keep the law out is also a very dangerous community to be in the midst of. In other words, the family that watches out for her also watches her to be sure that she doesn't meddle in their affairs.
One interesting passage that was not in the movie was that there is a discussion of an ancient religion. This ancient religion is based on the bloodlines of the families of the Ozarks. I don't really know if it exists or if it was something that the ancestors of these people brought with them from Europe or if it was simply made up for the sake of advancing the following the author's ideas. but there seems to be some some spiritual belief or customs that link this community. For example, all of the boys seem to have a regular name but also an ancient family name that Ree thinks is the reason the boys are doomed to their fate. Woodrell tries to put forth the thesis that the people are doomed to behave in the depraved and savage ways because it is their inheritance culturally as well as spiritually. The book is already profound in its portrayal of poverty and depravity, but I believe this excerpt adds even more levity to the themes of the book.
This book has almost no flagging portions and is a very fast and easy read. I think that the reason I hesitate to give it the full 4 stars is because of some previous biases I have. I so fell in love with the movie that the book didn't really surpass the film for me. Usually the book is always better then the film. In this case both are brilliant, but I am not sure that the book is that much better than the movie. That does say something for the film makers and their adaptation. It is a very faithful and well done adaptation of masterpiece book.
It looks like I never reviewed the film so I won't be duplicating this trailer. And Dickon Hinchcliffe of Tindersticks fame does the sound track - Amazing!
Published by Bay Back Books - Little, Brown and Company.
Copyright 2006, 2007.
193 pages.
Lets start off by saying that I am a big fan of Woodrell. I was introduced to him by the movie of the same name as this book. I loved the movie. It had all the elements that I like - It is gritty, violent, profound and beautiful. (Don't worry, I'll get back to that - I won't take the lazy way out by simply listing a bunch of superlatives). I went out and looked for his books and read a bunch of them that can be found on this very blog and I can say that all his work, to a greater or lesser degree, has the above mentioned characteristics. I stayed away from this one even though I had just seen the movie because I was too familiar with the story and I wanted some time to pass and because it was simply unavailable at the library. The movie had made this book a popular requested selection.
All of Woodrell's books take place in the Ozarks where the people are poor and desperate. It's not the sweet, apple pie American country we are talking about. It is the dark underbelly of a depraved and desperate society. A theme that is gritty and appeals to me immensely.
A young girl of 16, Ree Dolly, is forced to take care of her two younger brothers and her mentally handicapped mother because the father is out running about and simply not around. She's on her own and struggling to put food on the table. The law visits her one day and informs her that her father, a crack cocaine cooker by occupation, has not shown up for court and that the house she lives in and as well as many generations of Dolly's before her, will be confiscated since he signed the house over for his bail and has not shown up for court. Ree has to find her father. It's a dangerous task since the father was most certainly caught up with drugs and violence and she will need to enter that world to find him. And the rest of the book is about her search for him.
The most important part of that search thematically is the idea of the community and family that is so important to the people of the Ozarks. That closed-knit community that always claims to take care of their own and keep the law out is also a very dangerous community to be in the midst of. In other words, the family that watches out for her also watches her to be sure that she doesn't meddle in their affairs.
One interesting passage that was not in the movie was that there is a discussion of an ancient religion. This ancient religion is based on the bloodlines of the families of the Ozarks. I don't really know if it exists or if it was something that the ancestors of these people brought with them from Europe or if it was simply made up for the sake of advancing the following the author's ideas. but there seems to be some some spiritual belief or customs that link this community. For example, all of the boys seem to have a regular name but also an ancient family name that Ree thinks is the reason the boys are doomed to their fate. Woodrell tries to put forth the thesis that the people are doomed to behave in the depraved and savage ways because it is their inheritance culturally as well as spiritually. The book is already profound in its portrayal of poverty and depravity, but I believe this excerpt adds even more levity to the themes of the book.
This book has almost no flagging portions and is a very fast and easy read. I think that the reason I hesitate to give it the full 4 stars is because of some previous biases I have. I so fell in love with the movie that the book didn't really surpass the film for me. Usually the book is always better then the film. In this case both are brilliant, but I am not sure that the book is that much better than the movie. That does say something for the film makers and their adaptation. It is a very faithful and well done adaptation of masterpiece book.
It looks like I never reviewed the film so I won't be duplicating this trailer. And Dickon Hinchcliffe of Tindersticks fame does the sound track - Amazing!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
