Change Your Image
satishnaidu2000003
Reviews
14 Homicides (2015)
14 Homicides, or 14 locations hostages to their milieu.
Mr. Gerlach's 14 Homicides settles down at the intersection of geography, of society, of language, of statistics, of memory, of journalism, and in my case media – or new media, I was watching the film and googling its events, which I would suggest is probably inadvisable – and suggests how history and maybe even rhetoric could be give some sort of shape. 14 Homicides feels like an alternate way of narrativizing a haunted place, and come to think of it what is the difference between a haunted and a historical place after all? Maybe the latter is a document of change, while the former has an event stamped on its very identity forever, and if we were to extend that logic, will be entering the area of difference between history and rhetoric, between memory and ideology? Mr. Gerlach presents 14 locations by way of static shots, all places with terrific immersive quality to them so much so that I would love to live in some of those and be around the others – suburban houses, superstores, apartment complexes – and the fact that haunted locations are more often than not spaces where domestic bliss has been overturned is not entirely lost.
There's these static shots, and there's a calm voice-over reading text (a lot of which I was able to find verbatim from different news sites) that intends to be a factual narrative of the events that occurred, all of them involving accidental cop shootings. These shots do not linger too long after the voice-over, linking the facts to the space thereby affecting their identities, and when the spaces start piling up with respect to the months of 2014, we enter the not-so-apolitical zone of statistics. Spaces where you or I could live a lovely little life almost seem to become hostage to a stream of events that feel more like an epidemic, contextualized and re-contextualized, by the time around them and the geography around them (all of them occur in Utah), and a clear enough rhetoric emerges even without the depiction or staging of an event. There are no people, just spaces and facts, and the grey areas that the initial text around the law governing a peace officer's usage of deadly force merely alludes to is opened so wide these spaces seem to exist wholly and solely within them. Experts often refer to the disposition of any man-made structure – societies, SEZs etc. – and by the end of the year, these localities seem to assume a similar sort of disposition Mr. Lynch was not so subtle about in Blue Velvet. Mr. James Benning sure does come to mind, but while his landscapes are variables of time, Mr. Gerlach seems to suggest domestic places as hostages of their milieu.
Note: As I said, dear reader, if you happen to watch this film on your laptop rather than at a screening it might be advisable to refrain from seeking further context and information than is being already formulated, for it only adds to the rhetoric.
Transformers: The Premake (2014)
The year's most product-of-its-times movie
In its form it is the year's most product-of-its-times movie, not least because of the manner in which it tries to arrange itself so as to find a meaning from the numerous videos on Youtube, which themselves are arranged without a central narrative and follow the logic of database – of tags, of users, of titles, of searching and search results. It is a film that is not merely content to be a product of its times, and that it finds a way of aligning the very spaces that Mr. Michael Bay used for his film to find an altogether different meaning, alliances, politics, and ideology guiding our world is touching in its sincerity. Its raw-material/medium/unit is a database of videos, creating a trail of "hyperlinks" that could have been arranged or picked differently, to find a new narrative, and in that I feel it is, at least for now, the ultimate digital film of the year. What's more, Mr. Lee uploaded it onto Youtube, thus merging the creation of content (culture) into the representation of content (culture) as an essential democratic feature of the medium it is operating in, rendering the restless curiosity of its gaze and the volatility of its experience as another passive entry in Youtube's huge repository (what Lev Manovich calls the new cultural algorithm: reality-> media->data- >database). Until, someone, you or I, open it, view it, and make it talk again. To our tune.
Izgnanie (2007)
Love is God, but is God really love
There is a vast difference between being emotionally inert and being emotionally hollow. As much as Vozvrashcheniye (The Return, 2003) was intense, Andrei Zvyagintsev sophomore feature Izgnanie (The Banishment) is hollow. An emotional hollowness that engulfs us, holding us captive along with these tragic characters. I say captive because I so desperately wanted them to make things up, but our nature and the choices it sometimes leads us to make often renders the tragedy inevitable. There is a great deal of silence in the film; most of these moments between the husband Alexander (Konstantin Lavronenko) and the wife Vera (Maria Bonnevie). As long as a relationship is having constant arguments of any kind, I believe, it is still far from the rocky paths. But once silence creeps in it usually will signal the point of no return. Izgnanie starts off with a great shot of a car running along a picturesque landscape of the Russian country. Mark (Aleksandr Baluyev) drives to his brother Alexander's home in the middle of the night where he has his upper-arm suffering from a gun shot wound fixed, and the bullet taken out. The very next day, Alex and his family, relocate to their countryside home amidst the breathtaking serenity of the scenery. Yet, these people are banished from country (Garden of Eden) for there's no peace in their lives. Silence yes, and a hell of a lot of it. But peace none at all. The urban world and its rush might conceal that silence, but the country has its own to offer. Vera reveals to Alex that she's pregnant, and the child is not his. Perhaps the external silence is too much for her to bear. Alexander is a great character and it is a great performance from Lavronenko. A classic case who has been influenced during his growing days and now is himself influential. Perhaps we all are, in varying degrees. In a lesser film he would have been a stoic binary individual, one of those standard-etched characters that respond in only two ways. But what Alex achieves here is to capture an individual who has added layers and layers to conceal himself, to conceal his vulnerability. As against popular conception, the layer addition is somewhat of an involuntary task. The wife has so desperately tried to penetrate those layers and to truly know her husband all her married life. And now the vacuum is too much for her to bear. Not because she is feeling lonely, but she can foresee where her son is being led to. Where her children are being led to. This is an extremely complex portrayal of parenting. Most films that intend to showcase negative parenting are loud and usually exaggerate the effects compressing them into a rather small time frame. This understands what happens and how the nature of a parent, good or bad, is gradually impressed upon the child. An impression that is infinitely complex than being just plain good or bad. Taare Zameen Par is juvenile in its portrayal of the parent; just as no boy is bad I bet there're few parents who are bad. A father is a child's hero, always. I can never overestimate the profound influence my father's persona has had on me. Vera discloses the secret herself in hope of a final attempt at breaking that shell. But it is impenetrable, that shell. It is transparent, but it is impenetrable. Then there's the other silence. The one that exist between the two brothers Mark and Alexander. It is the silence that prospers between two individuals who're essentially one, the kind who understand the other's every little action every little word and every little moment. These are two individuals who've been together and stayed together every step of the rocky road. And when one experiences a tragedy, it is the other that suffers. It is a great study, the bond between the brothers. As much as I felt captive within the vacuum of the marriage, I would want to be company to these two brothers as they grew up. I would want to know if they share the same secret of brotherly love-respect-hate. Outside of Tarkovsky's cinema, I have never experienced such a great blend of serenity and silence. Zvyagintsev is a master, who pulls of every trick of his with mathematical precision. He's ably accompanied by the cinematography of Mikhail Krichman, his comrade from his debut film, and they create a profound location out of the otherwise ordinary countryside. This is the Garden of Eden, and with a budget that I suspect is as low as the first one (it was under $500,000). But what the results they achieve is worth billions, the landscape here is a character on its own. The camera is essentially still, and even during the occasional instances when it moves, the results are essentially still. This is an extremely beautiful film to look at, and that it is about such painful characters inhabiting a tragic family is all the more ironic. The secret of the breathtaking prowess of the film's effectiveness, and its screenplay is that it doesn't go for plot markers. It takes its time, and makes us privy to the drama as it unfolds, almost in real time. Love is God, it is said. And God is love. And yet, these people who are incapable of overcoming their shortcomings to achieve love for one another is horrifying, to a certain degree. For if God is love, why doesn't he himself overcome his shortcomings and help these people out of their vacuum. One of the great films of this year.
The Man from Earth (2007)
A film that reminds me of Stalker
In Tarkovsky's Stalker, the Room is a place where only the innermost wishes are fulfilled, wishes you might not even fully realize you had. The world that Tarkovsky portrays in that film is bleak and glum, but I believe that man, even in those grim circumstances, would wish for humanity's strongest desire, immortality. I have often wondered if the stalker is actually immortal, and if the Room is nothing but a scientific instrument to provide immortality, the stalker being an obvious product of that. John Oldman is a history professor, leaving his job and his friends of 10 years, to move over to a new place. It is a time for a final goodbye. As it turns out, its time for a shocking revelation Oldman is a caveman who has survived the past 14,000 years. And as events follow, the scholars around him consisting of fellow academics who seem to have pretty much arrived at 'final conclusions' as far as their respective fields are concerned, have their thoughts truly provoked like never before.
There's a clever observation the film makes early in the film. Dan, an archaeologist, asks John that the seemingly authentic burin in his home is one of those artifacts he has kept with and for himself as a well, memento. Dan replies that it is indeed from a thrift shop. Our primary instinct as audience is that he's obviously lying. Yet, seldom is it do we keep mementoes of our present. If we go back in time, we might treasure it then via mementoes and relics, for we're living in a time frame significantly different than us. But, if we're living in the present, all the time, it is a whole different ballgame. Put in front of an immortal, we would shoot questions that would primarily have to do with a lot of historical events. And, even for a man living in those times, he never would know everything about it. We seldom learn and know the present; most usually, and this is a solemn truth of humanity, we tend to learn about the present by realizing about it once it is past. Most often we experience that realization by means of books and art when the brilliant elite of humanity show us the way.
It is this knack of consistently keeping us engaged in the discussion after having captured our imagination that makes TMFE as riveting a drama as it is a thriller. Often we find ourselves part of the discussion when one of the characters raises our questions, and often we revel in the journey the scholastic discussion is taking us through. Courtesy the script an equally adept direction and most importantly good performances, we know these characters, we realize their biases, we realize how their arguments are a result of their inner selves and the shock their intellect has received. Brilliantly blending conventional editing under a tent that is essentially an extended sequence, the film, in many ways, plays out like an extended sequence in an adapted for mainstream Tarkovsky film. I was reminded of the brilliant third act of Stalker, its ability to keep us intellectually alert without keeping the human aspects of it at an arm's length. As a minimalist science fiction it is gripping, but as an intellectual discussion it is that rare film that is stimulating. The color of the film is essentially brown, even the under-lit sequences having a brownish tinge to the proceedings. Amongst the woods, the film manages a nice little setting, enacting the kind of settings our protagonist usually likes. Or would like, since I guess brown is nature's most common color after green. The visual flair reminded me, yet again, of the serenity of Stalker. By means of close intense shots and its low-key lighting, the film grippingly creates a cozy environment of thought provoking discussion we feel home at. It reminded me of those nights in college, few friends wrapped under blankets, as we discussed the mysteries of life and world. There were a few arbitrary grainy shots, but I guess working on such a low budget is bound to have its effects. Or was it my copy? Part of the brilliance of the script, and it is one of the most stimulating of recent times, is its conviction in what it stands for. TMFE is essentially a film whose intellect thrives on issues of faith. To my great relief, this one believes in its stand, often taking strength from its protagonist's assured belief. It is a film that through a scenario of immortality, which we would like to exist, tries to disturb long-standing beliefs. It is never what the film believes that matters, it all boils down to how much of it we can believe and how much of it we can, well, consider as mere "interesting discussion".
Why did John feel the need to reveal his secret? It is a question as puzzling. He claims a lot, some of it feels like the bragging part of a very true claim. He could be a man in the laboratory of time, a product of an aberration of time like the one suggested in Stephen Baxter's Time's Eye. Does his psychology work the same way as us? There're few films Solaris, 2001, Stalker that I felt should never end. This film made me feel that. That it has achieved it without a single special effect is all the more wondrous. It is very interesting for what could be a greater achievement for a film on immortality than making us want to run it forever, and ever. I wonder what made them name the film TMFE. I guess they see him as a prospect to explore outer space. Man from earth would be just about perfect for those species to address him. And if the species by an outside chance happen to know English, John Oldman wouldn't be bad either. Probably they'll appreciate the sense of humor.
Ocean's Thirteen (2007)
Guys, please pay attention to story next time around
The latest OCEAN movie isn't exactly bad; in fact it is good. The OCEAN movies work on the basics i.e. character development, story telling stuff like that which never get outdated and are more often than not the surest way for a good movie. Add to that the talents of Clooney, Pitt and Damon helmed by Soderbergh and you have got more than what is necessary for a sure shot success formula. These movies work especially like one of those sitcoms where the charm of the characters makes even the silliest of jokes funny. Ditto here. Only that, the individual charm sure is intact but as a whole it is wearing thin.
******SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT********************************* The second one that was a party many felt uninvited to would be particularly satisfied as this one returns back to the formula of the first.Reuben decides to go straight in the casino business and in the process is deceived with his land and money by Vegas casino man Rudy Bank (Al Pacino). Reuben, losing all his money suffers an all but fatal heart attack. Rudy Bank was one of the people who shook hands with Frank Sinatra and now by duping Reuben has broken the code. Ocean and his crew gather around Reuben's death bed and decide to avenge him. How they do it and what are the odds to get even is OCEAN'S THIRTEEN. The performances are what drive a movie like this. George Clooney is right back after his rather uninspired turn in THE GOOD German. And back is the good old charm. One thing that always amazes me about Clooney is the impassive expression he so effortlessly draws out; every time he does that I just can't help laughing. And his chemistry with Pitt is as good as ever. Pitt is sleepwalking too, although neither the role nor his performance is as remarkable as the earlier two. Damon is as good as ever. The supporting members of the Ocean family all have their moments, especially Carl Reiner. As for Pacino, he is okay. Loud as he is nowadays, there isn't anything special about it. One interesting thing, Scott Caan gets to act in a movie alongside Pacino and his father James Caan was Sonny in THE GODFATHER. It is the premise that is the weak link in the chain. One was a decent caper, a self mocking one that knew where to be smart and where to be funny. The second one was just something else. But the third here lacks the smartness of the original and doesn't improve even half a notch in the fun aspect. I know it is supposed to be silly; in fact I like it for that. Caper movies that come across as serious are most often stupid. Movies like ENTRAPMENT are an insult to the intelligence of even the lowest common denominator among the audience. But here the silliness gets a bit too far. The radio controlled dice to rig the craps table is fine; I was okay with sending the Malloy brothers to Mexico. But what is with that earthquake machine. And I was most disappointed with how they decide to go for the actual diamonds on the rooftop. I mean, this is all they could come up with. Or are they taking their audiences for granted? This sure is not smart silliness, this is bordering on laziness. I know that Soderbergh and Clooney are running this franchisee for the sole purpose of bankrolling their artistic endeavors; THE GOOD German, SOLARIS. And make no mistake, I respect that, rather I support that. But don't take these audiences for granted. Next thing you know, the OCEAN movies are dead and buried. The fun aspect is right up there. This franchisee, being for the lowest commonest denominator among the audiences, is so funny its silliness might just be overlooked. Be it Clooney's expressions, impassive ones sometimes, be it Pitt eating and unleashing his charm, or Damon with his nose. I like how they called the nose "Adrian"; guess you guys know who it referred to. And Reiner's shooting at Pacino was real funny, "Hey, you're being conned out of everything and you just look at us like a fool." ***********SPOILER END SPOILER END******************************* But still, there rings a feeling of disappointment. OCEAN'S THIRTEEN is no SPDIERMAN 3 or SHREK THE THIRD to fall flat on its face. Neither is AT WORLD'S END to be a fitting finale. It is like one of those sitcoms, say FRIENDS. The best seasons are funny and smart and that is what you would recommend to a first timer. But some of the stupidest seasons are the ones you would be less exuberant about. You would love them for sure; how could you not? You cannot hate them, but you know that deep down that it is being trash that is being served out. OCEAN'S THIRTEEN isn't trash; oh boy, it is very good. But I love the OCEAN movies and I love Danny, Rusty and Linus. But I am a wee bit less excited after watching this movie. Brad Pitt in an interview has said that they are gunning for the maximum sequels, with same stars; movies like ROCKY. Well Bernie Mac has an interesting line here that goes, "You don't repeat the gag, you make a new one." I guess they forgot to implement it this time around. If they intend to keep financing their artistic interests, please pay a lot more attention on the plot. And if you don't, please don't make a new one. Kills the life out of the other movies. I honestly say this, as a avid fan of Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Garcia, Soderbergh and the OCEAN movies; had it been any other movie with any other members, I sure would have shredded it to pieces. That says a lot about my two-faced fanboy integrity there.
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
With great money and publicity comes great responsibility
With great money and publicity comes great responsibility, responsibility to entertain and not to take the audiences for granted. To say that I was overexcited, to say that the only thing on my mind for the past two days was Spider Man would be an understatement. I am a huge fan of the earlier two movies; I saw the first one four times when it was released in the theatric and have lost count on how many times on DVD. Ditto for the second. The third installment is ten times the spectacle of its two predecessors; in fact it dwarfs the first installment. The romantic angle is much deeper than the second one; I guess these are the main reasons why most of us loved the first two movies. Well, I had a third, I loved the mythology. The two movies were an intelligent mixture of being funny and serious, but the superhero status of the character was always maintained, a superhero who would go to any lengths for the benefit of others, and of course for no selfish reasons. SPIDERMAN 2 got that spectacularly well and my personal favorite among all the superhero movies ever made, BATMAN BEGINS got that the best. But here, to my utter disappointment, every damn thing is personal. Spiderman here is not the superhero we know of, he is just a guy doing everything for his own self. I hate to admit that I hated it, absolutely hated it and that was the last thing I expected the movie to falter on. Watching the movie, I was reminded of two other movies, STAR WARS: RETURN OF THE JEDI and THE GODFATHER III. When compared to other superhero franchisees excluding of course BATMAN BEGINS (one of the greatest movies ever seen by your's truly, at least a 100 times), SPIDERMAN 3 stands head and shoulders above. But we never were comparing it to other movies, were we? THE GODFATHER III ought to be compared to its two illustrious predecessors and although it is a solid motion picture, it comes across as considerably weak against them. I guess the same would stand for SPIDERMAN 3. And as for watching it again, I am not exactly over the moon right now.
*******SPOILER ALERT: THE BELOW PASSAGE MIGHT CONTAIN SPOILERS***** Well, my first grudge is the romantic angle. It needlessly drags the movie; the love story actually seems forced. I for one thought that the romantic angle has been done away with and it is now for bigger things, one less thing for Spiderman to worry about. But SPIDERMAN 3 is all about the romantic angle between MJ and Peter and believe it or not, it is a love quadrangle.
As a result of that, the pacing and the psychology of the movie are as inconsistent bas they get. At times, SPIDERMAN 3 is pure magic, especially the sequences involving Spiderman/Peter Parker and Eddie Brock. Topher Grace is just fantastically wonderful and his is the best performance of the movie. The actions sequences, the ingredients that have the responsibility to give Sony its huge sum back are wonderful, to say the least. I wouldn't divulge anything about it but the last fight, Spiderman and three villains- Goblin, Sandman and Venom is one of the finest moments in superhero movie history and that includes the climax of BATMAN BEGINS. It is arguably the closest thing to comic books fun ever put on celluloid. The three-villain strategy could so easily have gone into BATMAN AND ROBIN territory (arguably the worst movie of all time), but Sam Raimi does a fantastic job to make it the movie's strongest moment.
The biggest problem is the script. Everything seemed so real in SPIDERMAN and SPIDERMAN 2. Here it is all silly and the characters are thinner than paper; Venom and Sandman are instruments to bring effects into the movie and have no business in the movie other than that. That is a shame from a franchisee where Green Goblin was so strongly characterized and Doc Ock was simply out of the park. All this when Venom is such a strong character. SPDIERMAN 3 feels more like your usual summer action blockbuster, watch it for action and get the hell out of there, it isn't worth your attention. One thing that SPIDERMAN 2 and BATMAN BEGINS taught the superhero franchisee is that there's no compromise on weak characters. SUPERMAN RETURNS failed because everything was so black and white. SPDIERMAN 3 is exactly like SUPERMAN RETURNS, dull, bloated but interspersed with absolute moments of magic.
What were Bryce Dallas Howard and James Cromwell doing there by the way? Absolutely wasted, both of them.
The ending is a pathetic, to put it best. I just don't get it as to why everybody concerned is considering this as a trilogy when it is supposed to be a franchisee. I mean, there is deliberate winding up done at the end, a la LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING. It absolutely bets the hell out of any hope that the movie would end on a high note. A point to be noted for all people out there making a series; end it on a high note. When MJ says, "Go get'em Tiger in SPIDERMAN 2, it brought a million goose bumps on me. When Gordon shows the deck of cards to Batman in BATMAN BEGINS there were whistles all round the theater. And when Gordon says," I never said
Thank you" and Batman turns and replies," And you never will have to" and Hans Zimmer's score goes into a crescendo, everyone got up and clapped. That is what is going to put bums on the seat the next time around. But Sam Raimi doesn't seem to be too keen on extending the franchisee, well to hell with that. Sony would find a new director, who could do a better job. I just hated the way they ended it.