Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Roma (2018)
9/10
The mural and the close-up: Mexico City in the 1970s
8 December 2018
I did not know what to expect going into this movie. I came out thoroughly overwhelmed by the emotional impact of the protagonist Cleo's story. But what really gets you is the sense you have, while watching, that Cleo and the other main characters are deeply implicated in an entire larger world, a world re-created for a film but that is so detailed, complex, and vibrant that it feels startlingly real. As such, the dense energy of an entire society seems to be conveyed to us through the quiet and unassuming figure of a lowly maid, the type of person until recently rarely chosen as the center of such an epic look at a time and place, but who emerges as epitomizing the best that society has to offer.

As a result, the film is a sort of bourgeois family-saga told through the margins. The story may have an allegorical significance for Mexican society at large. A white family is almost destroyed as its patriarch gives up and takes off, abandoning his wife, four children, the two maids and dog. As everyone is let down by his betrayal, it is Cleo, the indigenous maid, who holds everyone together, through the quiet strength of her loyalty and stability.

The film's plot, though, has garnered much less interest than its visuals, of which much has already been made. They are indeed stunning, and do seem to be modeled after the great Mexican tradition of muralism, a consciously social and political art form that portrays moments of great upheaval and change through a panoramic, long-view of Mexican society.

However, for me the great success of the film is precisely its success in shifting between the small and the big: it imbeds the close-up, fine-grained story of Cleo and her employer's family within the greater tapestry of the larger world of Mexico City in the 1970s. Throughout the film, the turmoil of the latter increasingly encroaches upon the world of the family's house. In the end, it was the back-and-forth between the intimacy we begin to feel with the characters, the emotional impact of their story and their search for a new equilibrium, and the greater sense we have of an outside world similarly roiled by instability and unforeseeable changes.
31 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The Jungle Book for the Anthropocene Age
8 December 2018
Reading the reviews, I did not expect a serious film. But we love the story, so we put it on anyways. Halfway through, we turn to each other, having realized that it was amazing! Much more interesting take on the material than any of the previous iterations: instead of a goofy sing-a-long with some cool visuals, the film turns out to be a veritable meditation on the fragile barrier between the natural world and the human world, and the turmoil that results when that boundary is broken. Our hero Mowgli is the wild boy caught between the two.

Chaos from the tumultuous modern world has spilled over into the 'jungle,' a savage but ordered environment whose 'law' is destabilized by man's transgressions. Shere Khan the tiger has killed two humans, Mowgli's parents, leaving the orphan child in the jungle. Mowgli is found and cared for by Akera the wolf; however, the continued presence in the jungle of a human defies its fragile stability.

Against this backdrop Serkin really immerses you in this universe, which is notably much more complex and fleshed-out than that of previous versions. Hints of colonialism and modernization throw new light on the sources of upheaval in the jungle. In the end, we are left to think about Mowgli's position, navigating between men and nature, and his role in finding a new way for them to coexist. In order to make peace between two domains, one must understand both.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Faust (III) (2011)
9/10
Horrifying vision of today's 'Faust'
21 November 2018
"Wohin?" "Dahin" The movie opens with the Herr Doktor cutting open a rotting corpse, declaring that he has looked for man's soul and has found that there is none. The scene is a microcosm of the film's despairing vision of modern man's immorality, descended into seeing all as mere material. In this world, the old moral code remains only in debased form: good does not exist but evil does. The film's aesthetic is ruled by filth, and everyone's body seems either decaying or malformed (bodies are all they are). And so too has Faust's famous bargain with the devil been seriously downgraded. Goethe's Faust was foolish but noble: he signed his soul away for knowledge, a mirage of human perfectibility. Sokurov's Faust signs his off without so much as a second thought - and for what? So little! A bit of money and a bit of ass. All here is only bestial (and fleeting) pleasure. There is no longer even a dream of something better. All are selfish, mean and disgusting, loving no one, not even themselves. The film is a nightmarish verdict on modern man: he has given up the better part of himself to live like an animal, and in the end does not even realize what he has done. We the viewer are left to wonder whether there ever was a 'better part' of us at all. However, the one character who seems to recognize the fallen state of things is Faust's father, perhaps an indication that the old generation could still see the devil for what he is. Hardly hopeful, but maybe a sign that modern man's crass materialism and selfishness is not the whole story.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Anna Karenina (1967)
4/10
Beautiful film ruined by star
1 May 2016
Whoever cast Tatyana Samojlova as Anna has some explaining to do. This film would be beautiful if it weren't for the star, who completely ruins every scene she's in. She is a terrible actress and her unattractiveness is a serious problem, as we are supposed to love Anna's grace and beauty. This is why her character is so tragic: this great beauty married to an old bore - we're supposed to understand why she follows her heart and goes for Vronsky, and even sort of root for her, believing she deserves her 'grand amour.' None of this comes through as you just hate Anna and her gigantic head. The film is ruined. Nepotistic casting at its most pernicious!
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Crimes remembered and forgotten
18 March 2015
This documentary opens pointedly with a montage of 80s Americana, to the tune of even more nostalgic music. The opening is representative of the mix of familiarity and the forbidden that marks the way the film delves into the private side of a very public scandal - the arrest of the pedophile Arnold Friedman and his son Jesse.

As many have said, we are not presented with a clear argument as to the pair's guilt or innocence. Rather, we are shown that what lies on the other side of the unspeakable in many ways is almost shockingly banal. The Friedman's home videos seemed to me at once familiar - their house, the decor, the old computers and camcorders, the intense family dynamics - a lot of it reminded me of my own childhood in the 80s. It is the added element of crime and shame which provokes the Friedmans' spiral from dysfunctional but ordinary suburban family to societal pariahs.

At the same time, that very element emerged from all this banalia. This is partly due to the nature of the crime: pedophilia usually occurs within families, in the home. It is committed by people you may know and love. It provokes horror in us because it is a perversion of the places and people with whom we are supposed to feel most safe. And because we are really only shown the Friedman's side of the story, we are forced to identify with them, and wonder if such a catastrophe could befall our own family.

It is probably for this reason that I also came away wondering about the nature of memory, especially childhood memories. The only person who really knew 'the truth' about the abuse was probably Arnold. The children who claimed to be victims may or may not have been manipulated by the police, and Jesse, even if he was involved in some sort of inappropriate activity with his father, has definitely convinced himself of his own innocence. Now there seems to be no truth we can really grab ahold of, only obscure memories reflected through years of trauma and denial.

At one point in the film, the eldest brother David asks of old photographs, "do you remember being there when the photo was taken, or do you remember seeing the picture hanging on the wall?" Based on the evidence presented in the film, nothing really seems to make too much sense - neither the accusations nor the denials. Whatever did happen back in the 80s is now long buried under mountains of fantastical mental creation. The Friedman's obsessive video recording seems to both anchor the memories in reality, at the same time as it suggests that at some point the images of the past, real or imagined, take on a life of their own.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After Hours (I) (1985)
2/10
not good at all
17 December 2009
I don't know what type of kool-aid everyone else has been drinking, but this movie was a total disappointment. Brilliant? Huh? Are we watching the same movie? Because the movie I saw had a fairly odious protagonist, a supporting cast that existed solely to be ridiculed, a series of 'crazy' events befalling our 'hapless' protagonist that exist nowhere on the reality continuum, and seemed to have been invented by a corp committee composed of former frat 'dudes' pitching ideas for 'worst night ever' that aren't funny and mostly don't even make sense. Most (all?) of the 'crazy' people whom whatever the guys name is meets in his 'romp' thru nyc are women, who proceed to beguile him with their alluring sex appeal (with the exception of poor Teri Garr, who for some reason is made out to be some pathetic spinster... or something...) only to send him running once they reveal their true 'scary' woman-personalities. Isn't that always the way of it?? This movie is sexist, stupid, unlikeable, unfunny and makes little to no sense. Madcap is one thing. This is more like nocap. I've always thought Scorcese was overrated, especially considering all of the movies he's made in the past ten years have sucked besides the Departed, and that honestly wasn't even that great. Don't even bother with the trailer for this one
45 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed