aedine35 Reviews

Life on Mars (2008–2009)

Typical U.S. Trash Recycled from Something Great

[25 August 2011]

Keitel cannot save this awful remake of an excellent Brit series. How dumbed down are we going to go, folks? This is like taking a great novel and turning it into a Reader's Digest Condensed Book. Gone from this American version are: 1. THE MUSIC: the BBC version serves up actual smash hits from the era, many made right in the UK, while the US version largely serves up a cheesy soundtrack trying to mimic the authentic sound of the times. 2. ACTING. Period. 3. GOOD DIRECTING. Compare the time travel scene in episode 1 in both versions. The Brit version gets it right as the camera crescendos perfectly in time with the crescendo of Bowie's "Life on Mars." The U.S. version reduces that drama to a flattening camera angle change. 4. MANCHESTER, ENGLAND IN THE EARLY 70S - a much more unique canvas for the anachronisms to follow.

Oy! Watch the BBC version and skip this crap, unless you are only watching it for 1) Keitel or, 2) because you really like soap operas

You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger (2010)

Terrible JEJUNOSITY!

[6/10 · 10 March 2011]

I am a huge fan of Woody's 70s and 80s films, but I laughed not once here, and this is not a serious drama a la September. The plot is pure Woody, but not connected to larger themes of history/philosophy/art etc in any way, thus we get more of this insipid postmodern drudgery with none of the levity or gravitas of, say, the masterpiece that is Annie Hall. Agree with Boston reviewer who said Woody hasn't made a good film since Manhattan Murder Mystery, and there have been so many horrible, unfunny, unwatchable films by him since then. It's horrible to see one's hero fail so voluminously! I gave this a 6 only b/c watchable due to the calibre of the acting, and one wonders how long it will take for such top shelf actors to begin turning down such roles. Embarrassment all around.

Again and again I watch the latest of his oeuvre hoping he has recaptured his spark, but again and again I am disappointed. It's time for Woody to retire. Or perhaps i'm just one of those aging characters totally out of touch with the Woody Allen fans of today (those of you who enjoyed his films of the last 2 decades: please enlighten me - I just don't get it).

Precious (II) (2009)

Groundbreaking Work of High Art

[9/10 · 30 May 2010]

Now that I have reviewed The Blind Side I cannot ignore this other Oscar-garnering film from 2009: here, all the sugar-coated realities of the Blind Side's populist pap come in one whopping, bitter, and hugely important pill. Kudos to everyone involved in this groundbreaking film of the decade. I believe it is long overdue love medicine for African Americans, and pure catharsis for anyone touched by the violence begat by violence.

And the violence here - even toned down from that of the book - was difficult for me to watch, but I'm so glad that I did because I would otherwise have missed witnessing something truly special and brilliant. It pains me to know that anyone associated with this film had to share the same red carpet with the makers of the Blind Side! Unlike that other, purportedly "feel-good" crap, Precious really did inspire me and even - unlike the B.S. - made me laugh. Rarely do films with important social messages come in packages of high art, but here Precious blows away the competition in both style and content.

The acting performances are all breathtakingly good: Gabourey Sibide richly deserved the Oscar that instead went to Sandra Bullock. I was stunned to later discover that Ms. Sibide is not actually this quiet, slow, mumbling and scowling hulk, but rather a bubbly, fast-talking actress who sounds just like many other young women her age. What a performance! Equally deserving was Mo'Nique's raw and terrifying portrayal of Precious's mother (thank you, Academy, for getting this one right). Even Mariah Carey's performance - maligned by some here - impressed me. And who are these talented women playing Precious's classmates at Each One Teach One?! Their performances all helped to drive this film - some scenes were so fresh that they reminded me of the film Entres Les Murs (which was a work of fiction made entirely with actual students and even the actual teacher).

In a year when two films full of black stereotypes go to the Oscars, it's patently clear that there's a dearth of stories with average black American protagonists. But the message here - that violence and incest are a problem that can no longer be swept under the carpet or prayed away - lends value and purpose to what some might view as contrived extremities. It is precisely these extremities, masterfully portrayed, and Precious's bittersweet triumph over them, that have made the film enter my world to evoke a new consciousness about the humanity underlying the stereotype. This is a message with far-reaching consequences that has, thankfully, obliterated - in all its weighty, fleshy, in-your-face fury - the wan and watered down "message" of The Blind Side. For me, and "for girls everywhere," thank you.

Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)

Tragicomic Genius! Possibly His Best Yet

[10/10 · 11 May 2010]

I don't think anyone watches a Michael Moore film to be informed so much as entertained and agitated to discover truths on their own (he is after all a documentary filmmaker, not a faux news reporter). I view Moore as the ultimate conspiracy theorist, but instead of theories he is connecting (selected)dots of documentary evidence (facts from history that cannot be refuted after all unless one believes most of history is a gross conspiracy). He then masterfully weaves them into pure satire that to me is 10 times funnier than all the supposedly funny pundits on television. Compared to their single sycophantic riff notes you've got an entire symphony of bipartisan hilarity! And indeed,I enjoyed many a deep belly laugh with this film - some parts were so funny I immediately watched them a second time. Truth can at times be much funnier than fiction.

What I don't like so much about Moore's films is the tragedic half, when he follows or interviews real people and it's obvious that there's a whole lot more to the individual's story – but we only see snippets of their lives. It feels like a manipulative emotional effect. But of course that is the purpose of propaganda, which I believe is the role Moore plays with these films: the People's Propagandist. Some of his allegations may seem stretched, but that only (hopefully) inspires people to learn more for themselves. And any discomfort one feels in viewing another's misery is intended, bluntly so.

This film was different from all his other films in that he interviewed his Dad and showed a lot of footage from his own young life – I think this is one of his best partly for that reason. It helps to make the film work in the way that Ross McElwee's film Sherman's March worked so well, because it included more of this personal element. Moore's choice of music, editing - and, as ever, his knack for boldly asking precisely those same questions many of us have in our minds at just the moment when we want answers - make this documentary a 10 in my book. It made me want to watch all his films all over again. And this is what art should do.

The Blind Side (2009)

White Savior Rides Again

[1/10 · 11 May 2010]

Only a public that has been spoon-fed sugar-coated realities for many years could possibly find anything of merit in this incredibly insipid Disney tale for (white) adults. The horror, the horror, indeed (to quote a previous reviewer, who I believe was quoting a far better film).

I usually tend to review here only when I feel compelled to warn others of the pitfall into which I have fallen, or to cast my vote on a site I frequently use for its prognostic value. This was never truer than with this film (as of this review, 7.7 stars?!?!) I confess that I watched this pap even despite grave misgivings, and I can assure you that all my worst doubts were quickly confirmed!

I happen to love underdog sports films - a plentiful genre - so I had to see why this one had become so popular - what hidden nuggets of wisdom were missing from the previews? The answer: no nuggets, no history lesson, no novelty, no great acting (in fact, rather bad acting on the part of the husband and son), no insight - just the most insanely offensive and nauseating drivel I have seen in a very long time. And somehow people love it and call it "feel-good!" I call it feel-bad, because I felt very uncomfortable, and my discomfort was not temporarily relieved with the distraction of great action sequences, such as with the similarly white-savior themed Avatar (as if seeing a soldier betray and kill his own species in his own unit was not disturbing enough).

So what is so great about The Blind Side? Are there deeper meanings I am not understanding? If you want to truly understand how the legacy of slavery still plays out in the lives of modern day black Americans, get to know one! Or to better understand race relations in the U.S., read Obama's book "Dreams of My Father." Sure, it's nice that this lady and her family were so generous to a strange black kid, but why make a movie out of it? (Or even a book?) I hazard to say that this kind of story has countless permutations in the black community, where father-less or mother-less kids get taken in by an often equally disadvantaged family that does not happen to live in a mansion and purchase all their meals pre-cooked because they are too busy out shopping for the perfect window valance. So what makes this story so special? Because it resulted in a college scholarship? Or because it was a white family that adopted Big John?

For me the only truly poignant moment in the whole film is the scene with John's biological mother - a central moment in the film that is, sadly, all too brief. Here we see a woman who has survived unknown myriad personal and societal obstacles, but who can still show the strength and grace enough to be polite to this unfriendly, pushy white woman sitting in her living room and demanding answers. Other than this scene I cringed and groaned the whole way through - something that I'd probably do while viewing any schmalz of this type, but there's something more egregious about this particular schmalz being sold. Maybe I just can't stand having my intelligence insulted by cute one-liners and happy endings about what are really important and serious issues our nation should confront. Maybe Hollywood is dumbing down movies more than ever to reach the widest possible audience and bring in more revenue - I don't know, but whatever the reason for its creation or success, this film has no social value in my view whatsoever.

So if you are a fan of good films and good film-making, you'll no doubt already have known better and avoided this film - despite the bizarre accolades from the Academy and the public. Likewise, if you understand that racism and addiction, poverty and capitalism are all pieces of the same puzzle, you'll definitely want to steer clear of this. I would personally prefer to watch Brian's Song (maybe even the remake of Brian's Song) a thousand times over.

Burn After Reading (2008)

DUDE: do NOT abide this

[1/10 · 29 December 2008]

I give this film a 1 for "awful!" I am a longtime Coen brothers fan ever since Blood Simple, and the funniest movie i have ever seen is - hands down - The Big Lebowski. I was thus expecting to be amused by a cast of quirky characters in a masterfully woven plot that entertains but also says something deeper about life. The cast here is classic Coen; the characters are classic Coen, but somehow all this potential did not add up to equal FUNNY. I really don't know enough about film-making to posit why this is the case.

Perhaps it's because there is no universal moral to this story (other than that the CIA has too much power). And unlike the brilliant Lebowski, there are no likable characters here - none of them seem human enough and thus I felt deprived of a good belly laugh over those recognizable (and laughable) human foibles which I found so endearing in the cast of the Big Lebowski. Maybe they just needed more depth. For whatever reason, unlike with the Dude, Larry and Donnie, I didn't care very much about what happened to these miserable people. I only expected that all their vapid and sordid machinations would come to fruition in the end in some kind of brilliantly intertwined crescendo (at least this is what i was expecting after such a disappointingly unsatisfying setup). But no - the film ends abruptly and falls flat - i found myself bursting out loudly upon seeing the credits roll with a disgruntled "THAT'S ALL?!" To be honest, I did laugh once, at Brad Pitt, whose character was unfortunately killed off soon thereafter. And I also had a mild chuckle at John Malkovich's outfits, and at George Clooney's rakish behavior. But this was nowhere near the kind of gobstoppping guffaw i had in the first 5 minutes of BL.

Thankfully, i saw this film for free from my local library and so these 2 chuckles and laugh cost me very little.

Married Life (2007)

Is this really noir?

[6/10 · 15 October 2008]

I give this movie 6 stars. Art-wise it started out very exciting. When faced with the burden of choosing from a stack of about 15 DVDs last night, this film leaped out at me at once because i really like just about any period piece unless it's very poorly done or very dull. This one was neither, but still somewhat lackluster.

Pierce Brosnan does seem out of place as one reviewer pointed out. Not sure the right haircut would have helped. Moreover, i did not get a sense that any of the characters, with the exception of Rachel McAdams, were of the era. Maybe that's because i'm too young to think anyone talked normally in 1948 but rather, behaved according to my celluloid-biased impression which means more formally, or stiffly, like McAdam's character seems to do. Also, that' what i was expecting with a noir film set in 1948 and what - i think - might have been the intention here. or maybe not.

Most egregiously in my mind: we are not led to understand why such a gorgeous, still quite young Rachel McAdams would go for either of the 2 dessicated old jerks preying upon her. Were all the good younger men killed in the war!? ? Both these men could be her father.

I found the suspense to be pretty good toward the end but then found the ending anticlimactic, since - as previously mentioned - i was expecting more of a classic noir ending replete with a more thrilling ending. Too bad.

Reprise (2006)

boring and pretentious

[6/10 · 10 October 2008]

This film - especially toward the beginning - contains intermittent 3rd person narrative a la Amelie, but with none of the quirkiness or art. Moreover, these lighthearted voice-over segments seemed rather out of place with the seriousness of the subject matter. Maybe this was an homage to Bergman or some other cinematic reference but the result is i found it purely pretentious. i don't recommend this film, which i found boring apart from glimpses of Norway and Norwegians and the sideline about the reclusive writer stalked by the 2 main characters (i did find the scene on the bench pretty amusing but somehow the beauty and humor of these 2 writing geeks going to such lengths to capture proof of their prey just fell flat). Finally, like others commenting here, i found it difficult to keep track of what was going on or what had happened.