Change Your Image
trochesset
Reviews
Rêves de poussière (2006)
Doesn't go deep enough
Alright, Dreams of Dust.
SPoilers ahead
I must say that I was less satisfied with Dreams of Dust than I was with Yeelen or Waiting for Happiness.
Its about a man running from his past. He comes to Mali to mine Gold. He was a farmer in Niger, but he had to leave after his daughter dies of Malaria. I think that the film implies that his wife and other children have already died, but its not made perfectly clear.
The film opens with a beautiful shot of a landscape covered in dust, and as the wind blows a dust cloud along, the characters and setting of the film are revealed, like the pulling back of a curtain. A great wordless opening.
You have Moctar, the main character, Thiam, who acts as his father figure, and Coumba and her daughter Marianne who function as the central characetrs. There are 2 or 3 other minor characters who speak a few words, but aren't central to the story, other than serving as a means for the director to convey a few more thing to the audience about the main character.
Moctar takes a liking to Coumba, whose husband died mining a few years prior to his arrival.
One day Moctar hurts himself while watching Coumba, and has to visit the doctor. I didn't really see the relevance in this scene, other than to have the doctor explain to us that blue- blues is alcohol mixed with amphetamines.
Moctar befriends Coumba and her daughter, and Coumba tells him of her desire to send her daughter away to Paris to get an education. After finding a nugget of gold, Moctar gives them the money they need for the both of them to leave for Paris.
At the end we see him mixing up some blue-blues, and then he sees Marianne running through the street. He follows her out of the village, and into the desert. I don't know if this was a hallucination, or a symbolic image. Is he going to follow her and her mother to Paris, or is he going to wander out into the desert and die?
This is a very dry description of a film, that does contain more life than this, but the telling of the story carries no kind of dramatic weight. We don't really see much of the thought put into any of Moctar's decisions, we only watch him meditate on them after he has made them.
The film has a plot, but not a very strong one. Let me make this clear, this is not the kind of film that does not have a plot, or is built of only vignettes. This is not "The Mirror" or even "Waiting for Happiness". There is a traditional story here. In "Waiting for Happiness", there is the story of the main character wanting to leave, but he is but a small player in that film. The other characters in Waiting for Happiness are more fully developed than those in "Dreams of Dust", and the existence of a plot makes me wish that if the characters are not going to be more fully developed, that I could at least get be treated to an interesting plot.
For me, I wish that the film would have gone one way or the other, traditional plot of vignettes about the ensemble cast. Also, for me, a film must have memorable moments, and while there is some fine cinematography here, aside from the opening sequence of wind driven dust, there are not many magical moments in the film. One might say that the last scene was magical, but for me, it was too confusing, at least upon this initial viewing, for me to consider the final scene satisfying.
4/8
Brat (1997)
Do not waste your time
Let me start with the few positives for the film....Well, you get to see a gritty side of St. Petersburg, Russia-or 'Peter' as Danila's brother calls it. And I suppose you could say that the violence in the film is more realistic rather than stylised that one might find in a 'hollywood' film. But that doesn't save this film.
From a technical stand point, the film is bad. There parts of the film that have no place, such as Dani's running in and out of music shops. Some of the sequences make you wonder if they should have been cut out, and the the fade outs of all the scenes look very amateur. There are a few sequences that could have been nice with better editing, like where Danil is making weapons, but ultimately they fall flat. The music was absolutely terrible. Worst music ever used in a movie. Some of the characters were interesting, though we don't spend enough time with most of them, and our main character is a dimwit, and possibly a sociopath.
Why make a movie in which no character is worth sympathizing with, and score it with terrible music? Who knows? don't watch this.
Hancock (2008)
In a slow Summer of movies, its worth a viewing.
I rate Hancock 2.5 out of 5 stars, or 5 out of 10 for IMDb.
May contain some minor SPOILERS.
Not a completely horrible film, though just above what I would normally recommend people avoid all together, the flaws in Hancock show us why films like Transformers are good. The film begins with a lot of poor attempts at humor that just aren't delivered correctly, its missing the proper timing that make jokes work, and this is in tandem with rushed kind of pacing and editing that limit the possibilities of most scenes. It seems to me that if they let each scene run just 20 seconds longer that it would take much better for the viewer, and only add 5 or at most 10 minutes to the running time, which shouldn't eliminate a showing on the schedule.
Most of the films action moments are fairly ridiculous, not just in the way they portray Hancock, because I can understand that he may not know any better, but in the way that they show police handling certain situations are so lacking in their portrayal that it makes you roll your eyes.
The film starts off pretty poorly, and as opposed to what a previous poster has said, I felt that Will Smith's presence was not very electric, and that the film did not actually take off until the prison sequence.
There is a very nice twist and around the 3/5 mark in which we see some real story development, but its all too rushed to achieve what it really could have. The film ended on a fairly satisfying note, and with the possibility that there may be a sequel, which I wouldn't mind at all, and there is much room to expound on who Hancock really is and there are really limitless directions that they could go with it, and be successful.
So on a final note, I won't try to stop anyone from seeing Hancock, but I do wish that the film had a better director and that the studio wouldn't have made it so short in an attempt to recoup all of their money on opening weekend. I would say wait for the director's cut, but its not that serious or important.
Mickey One (1965)
1 star for Mickey One
I saw this film today, on a copy that a friend had made from AMC back when they still had commercial free programing. I must rank this film among the worst films ever made, and to qualify that on the grounds that it was directed by a major director, stars a major actor, and was produced by a major studio.
Warren Beatty is absolutely terrible in this, though he was never a great actor; but the blame for this failure rests squarely on the shoulders of Penn. Not only did Penn cast Beaty, he shot the movie as well. The only redeeming quality that the film has is its visuals. There is some wonderful photography in this film, though I have to wonder how those craftsmen were able to continue to do good work when the stuff they were lighting and shooting was such utter rubbish, and it makes me wonder how the editor was ever able to finish cutting the film.
The movie begins with a completely ludicrous montage that seems to be mocking Fellini's 8 1/2 and la Dolce Vita. In fact the whole movie seems to be a poor imitation or jealous mockery of Fellini's superior films. But other than that there is no point to anything that happens in "Mickey One", and hardly any of the ludicrous events or characters represent anything of any substance. Its too long and dull to be a dream sequence, and its the only time you laugh is at how silly and bad this film is, so I don't think it can qualify as a satire either.
Also, the sound in the film is mixed terribly. Worst sound mix ever. The music is nice, but the sound mix is horrible and the characters speak their dialog without caring whether or not the audience hears it, not that the dialog needs to be heard either, because its as bad as the rest of the movie.
And Warren Beatty. Beatty is bad in this. his facial expressions are something that you would expect from an amateur and his imitation of Brando is less than admirable.
Its as if everyone working on the film-except the photographers-were actively trying to make the worst, most asinine film possible. The film is terrible and pretentious in every way, right down to the choice of using black and white, as if it were superior to color, when America had access to color film stock freely and cheaply for at least 15 years prior(it was expensive oversees, that is why it was not used in Europe and Japan).
A nominee for worst film ever, in competition with some of Tarantino's low-lights.
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
No Classic
SPOILERS
I've heard some people call it boring, and they were railed on for being young and stupid- always a nice way to show you are an adult, attacking a young film-lovers age. As for my self, I don't know if I would call it boring, it did hold my attention, I did not fall asleep, even though I only slept 3 or 4 hours the night before, but I do think that the film is a failure on many fronts. I would rate it a 6 out of 10, and I'll tell you why.
First the film is slow, one of the very slowest films of that I have ever seen. There is no pacing, it never picks up at all, except at the end where it goes into second gear. The film is slow in every aspect, from the pacing to the camera movements and worst of all, is that this only hurts the film in times when it is supposed to be a moment of reflection in the movie- like Nicholson's speech on the bridge- but you hardly notice because it just continues the same pace as the rest of the movie. The action does pick up at the very, very end; but still not even at a level that John Ford would move at. Its just slow, and for no real reason. So much time is wasted in this film on nothing, and there is never any anticipation, except at the very very end, and it does not have nearly as dramatic an effect as it could have.
Secondly, in this movie, that runs at close to 3 hours, there are only 4 real characters in the movie. Nicholson, who only develops enough to come to a point where he wonders about his legacy. Saeto who becomes softer, though still undoubtedly a bad man. Shears, who becomes less of a whiner, and almost courageous at the end-at least enough to get himself killed. And of course Wardon, whose only change is physical-he'll probably end up losing his foot.
Not that a movie must have characters who grow to make it a good film, but if it doesn't have that than it better have other things. The photography was outstanding, but I am sorry to say that there was no cinematography in this film. The camera seemed like it never moved, and there seemed to be less than five tracking shots in the whole picture. I can watch this with Ozu, but not in an adventure/epic. Though I understand that the colors have become drained over time, I didn't see much there other than green, so I can't imagine the film being all that lush even on opening night, 1957.
It is plain to see that Lean did learn a few things from this film, and put those lessons to good use in the much better "Lawrence of Arabia". It still is a very long movie, with only one real character, whose development is rather vague, but at least it is sumptuous and colorful, and the supporting cast has personality and more talent. And LoA had action to pick the movie up a bit, though neither film contained much humor.
I must say that I haven't been this disappointed in a film in a long while. "The Bridge on the Rived Kwai" is a film that never once moved me in any real or even 'artificial' way. I never felt anything...oh except for the end, when something perhaps could have been resolved, but all we get is Nicholson Accidentally fainting and falling on the plunger. What kind of ending is that? The main character doesn't make a decision to blow the bridge or not, NO, he is given a pass, a scape goat and it is an accident, maybe if he would have blown it up or NOT the audience would have been forced to feel something-David Lean obviously did not want that.
Voyna i mir (1965)
Voyna i Mir
War and Peace is a tremendous film, and an undertaking which will never be rivaled. Bondarchuk secures a spot for all time in adapting, directing, and acting in this giant spectacle. Its in my top 50 greatest films of all time, perhaps top 25, and I have had the privilege of seeing many masterpieces.
It is a film though, not with out its flaws. I think that War and Peace is a film that any filmmaker should watch and use as a guideline of what to do...and what not to do. First, the flaws: Bondarchuk lingers too much, much of the film is poetry, but one can only take so many shots of trees and the sky, and the battle that is part III is just far too long, when its intention is to show us the chaos of war, as viewed by Pierre-so there is no real development to the battle, its just random chaos carried over the course of 78 minutes-and that equals far too many overhead shots and shots of the legs of horses. The scene is spectacular, but for what it is trying to convey, it could have been done just as effectively in 40. I have no problem with the overall length of the movie, I just wish that more of the length was used to expand on existing characters or add other ones left out from the novel; rather than all of these aerial shots and shots of trees, and people looking off into space.
Like Cy Young, even with all of its flaws, this film has twice as many shinning victories. It gets better as it goes on, and parts III and IV are definitely the best and most spectacular parts of the film. The battle from part II is nothing compared to the one in part III, and the burning of Moscow is a candidate for the most spectacular scene ever filmed. Bondarchuk does so much right in this film, I don't know where to start, but one thing I will note is that this is no boring by the letters film. While Bondarchuk would have benefited from a Hollywood cameraman, what he achieves here is simply amazing, and I must thank him for being so experimental. Sure, a lot of the experiments don't work all that well, and have aged a bit, but the ones that work, work marvelously, and it keeps the film fresh. This film would have been much poorer if it were made like "Gettysburg", or in the manner of your standard movie, because with a running time of nearly 7 hours, this film demands innovation and freshness.
In the end this film is a monument of the medium. Not the most perfect film, but undeniably one of the greatest, and a must see for every movie lover.
Bacheha-Ye aseman (1997)
Very good and sometimes moving
I've just finished watching "Children of Heaven" for the first time, and in fact I think I can say that this is the first Iranian film that I have ever seen. Coming into the film I had not clue of what it was about other than the fact that it had something to do with shoes.
All around this was a good film, although there are things that keep it from greatness. Every aspect of the film was adequate, but I think that every aspect was missing something. The actors were good but at times, Ali revealed that he was acting to a camera and not living through the character, though I thought that the actress who played Zahra did very good. I felt that the camera work in the film was simply adequate, it didn't move enough and the compositions were not exceptional enough to make me forget about the camera's lack of movement. Of course there were exceptions in the film, moments of magic, but most of the time it lacked that certain spark. Also the plotting of the film, and some of the montage sequences don't work very well. The sequence where Ali goes with his father on a side job is one. I don't mind that this entire sequence, including the bad-luck ending, really had nothing to do with anything else that would seem to happen in the story; but the way it was put together just made it seem uninteresting most of the time, especially when Ali and the other boy are supposed to be 'playing' and having fun with each other, it just seemed so stale. I require more from my films.
A good film with good moments, but not great.
SPOILERS:
Also, I'm not really sure what this film says to me. Ali, the main character lies throughout the film, and he never really suffers because of it-even when he was sent home he never gets in trouble and we never see if he has to bring his father to school with him, so he is never really confronted with having to tell the truth or accept a real punishment or beating for being late all of the time and being sent home. He is afraid to tell the truth for fear of punishment, and or hurting his own pride. Instead he cries and gets off easy.
Another thing, I know that this film was not made for a western audience, but some things are hard to understand fully. I wish I could have at least had a subtitle for the song being sung in the mosque while the father was making tea and began to weep. I want to better understand why he is weeping, is he full of joy in the power of God, or is he thinking about how bad his life is and is sad? I know that Iran is a very religious country, so I guess it is just understood that he would be very religious, but I wish that I could have seen more of that aspect of their lives.
Also, one last complaint/question. I have no clue how the school systems work in Iran, but I did not understand how Zahra could go to school for a while, and then come home and trade off shoes with Ali, and then when he came home it still seemed like it was the middle of the day. How long/short is a school day in Iran? Do different grades go in the morning while other grades go i the afternoon(even though he was in third grade, and she was in 4th or 5th-pretty close grades to be splitting like that). That part didn't make sense to me, and it was an integral part of the story, and it just confuses me to how this would work.
Il gattopardo (1963)
Eulogy for an era
I can still feel the sense of loss and mournfulness in the words of the Prince of Salina. His time is passing him by, but even he knows that it is not only his loss, but also the people's loss for they are only receiving a new ruling class in exchange for the old one. The sweat is real, and so are the tears, and the dust. The colors are still vibrant and the music is beautiful.
* I give this film an 8 out of 10. It is great and beautiful and full, but it does have one tremendous flaw. The 2 ball sequences near the end of the film. Back to back ball sequences lasting for 45 minutes (about 1/4 of the film's total length). These sequences are beautiful and the music is too, but do we really need 45 minutes of it? NO. What makes it worse, is if you watch the American version, which was cut by 24 minutes but had the 45 minutes of ballroom dancing left intact. Incredible. If they would have cut the 24 minutes from the ball sequence instead of the plot, the American version may have been a better film, instead of a hack job. Makes no sense at all.
Hachigatsu no rapusodî (1991)
Kurosawa's worst film, destroyed by bad writing and miss-casting
The casting and dressing of the children. Not only are all of them horrible little actors, but their constumes are hideous, and the writing for them makes me cringe. If they weren't the main characters and the ones carrying the story along, then I may be able to overlook these flaws, but these are no minor flaws.
The best parts of the film involve the grandma, be it her at the temple, her during the lightning storm at the house, or her running off in the rain, these were all well acted, all well shot, but not enough to save this production.
Of the 19 Kurosawa films I have seen, this is easily the worst.
3/10