La Chinoise
Jean-Luc Godard 1967 France (1st time; DVD)
A group of Parisian students discuss Art, Marxism-Leninism, and play with the idea of a Maoist revolt.
Obscure, often inaccessible work, furiously political but fascinating all the same, because Godard never neglects his art. Engrossing, extended lectures substitute narrative, with the director, as ever, constantly making apparent of how artificial his medium is: while conversations take place between his young students, he cuts to shots of clapper boards from the beginning of the actual take. And there's a moment a la Le mépris' opening credits, early on, when Jean-Pierre Léaud talks to someone off camera, as if in an interview; the questions are hardly audible, and not subtitled, so his answers form an extended monologue. The theatrical barriers of the scene are destroyed when he mentions the camera and crew in front of him - and we cut to a reverse shot of the camera filming Léaud...or, with recurring questions throughout regarding the reflection of reality, is he filming us?

Paradise Now ** 1/2
(First Viewing)

A good and interesting movie about 2 friends who are recruited to do a suicide mission. The first 30-45 minutes of the movie were the most impressive but then it turned into a different movie until the end. The ending was nice but overall it was not a great movie.

I really dig that last zoom in on the bus

Yeah, I liked it too DSC

Silent Hill * 1/2
(First Viewing)

Wow, what a piece of shit. Too far out there to care and too slow moving. Whatever you do, AVOID this one on Tuesday

Scoop **
Woody Allen movie, supposed to be a romantic comedy. It was neither quite romantic, nor was it much of a comedy. Woody Allen acts really well though, while Scarlet Johanson manages to look cute all the while.

The Illusionist
Directed by Neil Burger
2006

Neil Burger's The Illusionist poses some interesting questions in one of it's early scenes. There are boundaries that govern our existence on this earth; space and time, life and death, fate and chance. "What does it take to manipulate and control these boundaries?" we're asked. And when we're confronted with what seems to be clear manipulation, can we trust our own eyes? Or is everything perhaps, as the title of the film suggests, just an illusion?

Our story takes us to turn-of-century Vienna, where the bureaucracy and the peasants alike marvel at the work of Edward Eisenheim, a clever, likable magician with seemingly supernatural powers. When the Crown Prince and his wife-to-be attend a performance of Eisenheim's, and a potential romantic connection is revealed between the magician and the fiancee, the Prince is infuriated, and assigns his chief inspector to observe him.

Director Burger utilizes a period-appropriate sepia toned cinematography, many shots having the feel of actual footage from the early 1900's. His choices in music, set-construction, and costume design are also in perfect taste, adding to the film as a whole. The actors as well; Edward Norton succeeding in one of his first period-piece roles, Paul Giamatti bringing depth to what otherwise could've been a cardboard role, a surprising Jessica Biel holding her own among the film veterans, and perhaps the real star of the film, Rufus Sewell, turning in an absolutely electric performance complete with the piercing eyes, the volatile bellow, and the intimidating physical presence that projects much more about his character onto the screen than is expressed in his dialogue.

Burger's direction shines as well. Nothing too radical, just some really solid stuff; finding some interesting angles here and there, some smooth tracking shots, which all actually works to add to the old-world, traditional feel of the film. While some of Eisenheim's tricks look particularly unspectacular in the early going because of the CGI, this is ultimately not overly distracting, and his later work looks realistic enough.

Edward Norton's performance must also be mentioned. He starts off the film with an ever-present clever smile on his face, whether plotting with his money-hungry manager (Eddie Marsan, who by the way, is great, I knew him from Gangster No. 1), or subliminally romancing the princess to be. But after tragedy strikes, Norton's character is thrown into a world of sadness, and he succeeds in shifting gears beautifully. Now we see Norton tired, weary, bags under his eyes, shoulders sunken. It's almost as if we're now watching a completely different character. In fact, the transformation is so dramatic, Norton has almost no dialogue for at least twenty minutes in the third quarter of the film. This gives credit to not only Burger's graceful writing skills, but also Norton's vast acting talent.

Overall, despite all the positive aspects of this film, I found myself pretty much deciding on a two star rating as we neared the conclusion, that spark of a great film just seemingly not there. But when Burger reveals one of the best and biggest twists in recent film history (Shyamalan who?}, this was most definitely secured a three-star rating. Highly recommended, one of the best of the year so far. This is some true cinema magic, and it's not just an illusion.

I tell yeah, THE ILLUSIONIST will get fucked in theaters for two reasons:

(1) Lousy trailer. Right Hagen?
(2) The fact that there is another magician Hollywood project with more buzz, that in Christopher Nolan's THE PRESTIGE. Fair or not, thats the situation.

Anyway, thanks for the review Hagen. Certainly another review of that film from a good source of mine saw it, and liked it as a decent picture.

Yeah I did realize that about The Prestige. I was kind of surprised to see a trailer for another Truman Capote movie as well, Infamous. This one has more star power but looks vastly less interesting. I don't know how you expect to tell what looks like nearly the same exact story less than a year after Hoffman wins the Oscar for it.

I just rewatched the trailer for Illusionist. What'd you dislike about it?

Détective
Jean-Luc Godard 1985 France (1st time; DVD)
The lives of several people intertwine in a Parisian hotel, the house detective, a boxing promoter, an assassin and his adulterous wife among them.
What appears to be clumsy is deceptive: Godard films scenes as if the camera was simply set up to face anywhere (it opens with an unflinching shot from a surveillance cam), with characters sometimes filling the frame but also often walking out of it, so that they become a sort of dispensable prop caught in an otherwise void space; the result is fragmented, difficult and claustrophobic. Visual gags are tremendous, including the boxer who is constantly shadow-sparring in the background of shots - even when on a bed with a beautiful, naked woman, all he can do is gently punch her loose breasts as if they were punch bags.

As for the complaints I read about the APOCALYPSE NOW DVD:

(1) HEARTS OF DARKNESS isn't on the DVD because of rights issues with the Showtime cable network. Maybe a solo release in the future...

(2) Why both edits of APOCALYPSE NOW were released on DVD on both discs? Look at the gorgeous transfers of both cuts. Imagine either of them being compressed like a mother fucker if they had to be self-contained on one disc.

(3) The only feature on the DVD that's worth a damn for sure is Coppola's great commentary. While he doesn't go as much into detail of the infamous production hell or his madness, but its still good stuff.

Sometimes I'm glad I don't have a thing for special features. I'm never tempted to buy these new, big price rerelease packages. Just give me the film for christ sakes.

I was just wondering what people think of "Eternal Sunshine of the spotless Mind" i watch it last week and thought it was a good movie.

I think it's one of the most intelligent, creative and inventive films I've seen.

Hagen, making trailers is like those that make films. It's a talent that one either has or doesn't.

Notice that with the PRESTIGE trailer, it actually builds up in the viewer a sense of mystery and actual curiosity, until the climax occurs, which is....Go See it. That is the mark of a good trailer.

The problem with the ILLUSIONIST trailer is one that many recent trailers have. Imagine an action movie where you have the conventional car chases, gun fights, punching, and other shit expected in an action movie, except no matter what's thrown on the screen, the viewer simply doesn't care.

The same tricks used in ILLUSIONIST were used in PRESTIGE's trailer. For exampel, You have constant fade-outs, except perhaps with the trailer for ILLUSIONIST, the fade-outs had no editorial or narrative flow magic with the trailer itself.

Again, judging movies by trailers is really a waste of time. Trailers at best are manipulated clips of footage. Who knows, maybe ILLUSIONIST is a better film than PRESTIGE, or the PRESTIGE is a better movie(my current gut instinct as I write this), or simply both are good fucking pictures...who knows.

Of course, asking my friends why they all had more anticipation for PRESTIGE than ILLUSIONIST. I think both look promising good, but I had to ask them "why?" Their reasons?

(1) The cast. This is bizarre, considering ILLUSIONIST has Giammatti and Edward Norton, two great actors of our day. Nevermind the always underrated Rufus Sewell. Though the PRESTIGE has a nice well-rounded all-star cast itself of Bale, Jackman, Johansen, Caine, and David Fucking Bowie. Yes, "Fucking" is his middle name.

(2) Nolan. Neil Burger, the director of THE ILLUSIONIST, showed some promise with his INTERVIEW WITH THE ASSASSIN. However, how can he compete right now with Nolan, hot property in Hollywood and with movie buffs?

Again, we'll see how both movies are. Because certainly, this thread would become simply IMDB chatter until we know how both pictures fare.

P.S. - Hagen, why so negative already on that other Capote biopic? Sure after CAPOTE, why bother, right? But let me give you a story of 1992.

As you might or might not remember, that was the 500th anniversary of Chris Columbus' discovery of America(which led to massive genocide against the Natives, but us Western European-descent folks ignored this little fact) and you had the Salkinds, the producers of the SUPERMAN and MUSKATEER franchises, banking big bucks on their project, which would be CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS: THE DISCOVERY, a very lousy and shitty picture.

Then you had Sir Ridley Scott, a director that some think is a master visualist, while others think he's more style over substance. Either way, he still made ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER. So he helmed his own big-budget Columbus epic in 1492: CONQUEST OF PARADISE.

THE DISCOVERY got into theaters first, and actually grossed slightly better than 1492. However, 1492 is actually a decent, if flawed, picture with some intriging ideas with tons of money behind it. Either way, its at least a competent picture, while DISCOVERY....wasn't(what you expect from the same producers of SANTA CLAUS: THE MOVIE???)

LETHAL WEAPON 4

United States, 1998
U.S. Release Date: 7/10/1998
Runtime: 127 min.
MPAA Classification: R
Theatrical Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Cast: Mel Gibson, Danny Glover, Joe Pesci, Rene Russo, Jet Li, Darlene Love, Traci Wolfe, Damon Hines, Chris Rock

Director: Richard Donner
Screenplay: Jonathan Lemkin and Alfred Gough & Miles Millar & Channing Gibson
Cinematography: Andrzej Bartkowiak
Original Score: Eric Clapton, Michael Kamen, David Sanborn
Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures

The first film was pretty entertaining. The sequel was superior. The third film was average, and unfortunately for us, the last picture of this franchise is outright mediocre.

Usually, when people complain about movies being produced by Hollywood to simply make money, I roll my eyes. It’s an industry based on capitalism. What, you think they get kicks from making movies that lose money? Unless a picture is slated to be an Oscar-bait contender, then a Hollywood film is produced with the intention of making a good profit so the studio executives and producers can pay their coke and whore tabs.

However, this movie absolutely was made by everyone involved simply to make a good buck. I say that because that is the only creative motivation I see driving this film.

So why am I giving this movie a sub-par rating? The actual fun-element that marked this franchise memorable is now MIA like Danny Glover’s career. The chemistry between Glover and Gibson is noticeably tardy. The elaborate and assumingly very expensive action sequences, much like the series’ 3rd installment, feel like déjà vu.

The plot has something to do with our two protagonists whining about being old as they have to battle the Chinese Mob, led by the rather quiet Jet Li, in a fight over slave-workers from China. Anyway that stuff is insignificant.

Everything in this film feels like a blown opportunity, and maybe the biggest of them all is how Pesci (simply brought along for no logical reason) and new addition Chris Rock fail to possibly create chemistry with each other. I mean, “Goodfellas” and “New Jack City,” right? Instead, it feels convoluted and trite. Both of their frantic, rapid-fire mouths instead make me yearn for the spin-doctors of the current Presidential administration. At least they made me laugh.

The only person unscathed is Jet Li, who used this vehicle as his stepping-stone into Hollywood. As one of the top global martial artist movie stars of our generation, he makes his few minutes onscreen worth watching. The downside is that he’s so flashy, how can anyone take seriously the idea that Mel Gibson could defeat him?

By the finale, I didn’t care if the heroes lived or died. This is quite a downturn from when I certainly cared several sequels ago. But now, I’m like everyone on this movie. I’m too old for this shit.

Final Film Rating - **

13 (Tzameti)
Géla Babluani 2005 France/Georgia (1st time; DVD)
A young man in a dead-end job follows up on a letter he finds to his current employer; he ends up way in over his head.
Impressive concept delivered without much conviction; existential to the point of an utter absence of psychology in its protagonist, so that if we are interested in the situation he has found himself in, we care little for the character himself.

Saboteur
Alfred Hitchcock 1942 US (1st time; TV)
A planes factory worker is framed for a fire in which his best friend was killed; he assumes the identity of the real villain, and tries to expose him, with the cops on his back.
Overlong and lacking the attraction of stars, as well as distracting in its patriotic overtones, though blessed with well-handled set-pieces: an encounter between its innocent hero, his suspecting romance-to-be, and a travelling circus; the tense, seemingly deadend situation at a ball; and the amazing climax atop the Statue of Liberty.

Torn Curtain
Alfred Hitchcock 1966 US (1st time; VHS)
An American physicist 'defects' to East Berlin with the intention of double-playing the enemy and taking back atomic secrets to the West.
Generally overlooked spy hokum, essential viewing due to the dazzling use of colour and the succession of set-pieces throughout: the elongated struggle between Newman and a German spy in a farm barn, culminating in an overhead shot of the latter dying with his head in an oven; the introduction of Newman's counterpart and quarry, with the editing making full use of the frame - Newman is shot in close-up, while the other is seen only in the distance, in a rather empty-looking lecture theatre; an unconventionally tense bus ride from Liepzig to Berlin; and a frantic finish in a crowded theatre hall, the exit from which echoes Cary Grant's escape from the auction in North by Northwest.

Suspicion
Alfred Hitchcock 1941 US (1st time; DVD)
A well-to-do woman marries a charming, habitual gambler, and comes to suspect he intends to kill her, to inherit insurance and pay off debts.
Rambling and clunky if certainly watchable thriller; there is something minor about Hithcock's domestic thrillers, and if this is well-constructed as regards a mountingly suspenseful narrative, it lacks the visual touch of his other work.

Scary Movie 4 **
(Second Viewing)

Not as bad the 2nd time around but still not Wayne's brother material

Poseidon ***
(First Viewing)

Definitely not as bad as I thought it would be, considering director Wolfgang Petersen's latest film prior to this (Troy). Kurt Russell, Josh Lucas and even Emmy Rossum put together enjoyable performances. Possbily worth buying on Tuesday.

Josh Lucas...has he starred in a movie that hasn't flopped?

I remember watching this film just about every christmas,when i was growing up-Classic

A Beautiful Mind or American Psycho ronnie

You mean POSEIDON ADVENTURE?

Anyway, interestingly, I checked the figures at the NATO website. No, not the military alliance. The North American Theatre Organization. The most accurate tally of box-office receipts I know of, fucking boxofficemojo.com right in the ass.

Biggest flop so far of 2006?

POSEIDON, followed by LADY IN THE WATER

I never saw the original version DE NIRO, but this remake was pretty good

De Niro, you're probably thinking of The Poseidon Adventure (1972), the original with Gene Hackman, of which Poseidon (2005) is a remake.

Opps Sorry My Mistake ,Still Not seen the remake probley rent it when it's out on DVD

A Scanner Darkly
Richard Linklater 2006 US (1st time; big screen)
California seven years from now: an undercover cop becomes addicted to a brain-altering drug while unwittingly spying on a friend…
An always-interesting work with strong visual interest. It comes as no surprise that Gilliam tried to get a version of this off the ground in the '90s, because this feels at times like Fear and Loathing, with throwaway, episodic scenes comprising an unsatisfactory plot; these scenes, involving hallucinations and drug trips, have self-contained humour but seem to add little to the overall impact of the film, and you must still question if the animation enhances or distracts. The scramble suits are simply annoying.

BACK TO THE FUTURE PART II (1989) - ***

“Back To The Future” was the #1 movie in 1985 at the box-office, even whipping then Reagan-America poster boy Rambo by good measure. With Zemeckis and Gale back, along with the rest of the cast and crew (save for a major exception), they decided to shoot their two sequels simultaneously.

Before the “Matrix” and “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchises, this concept was rather radical in Hollywood at the time. With #2 set for Thanksgiving 1989, and #3 for summer 1990, it potentially seemed like two chicken dinner winners for Universal within almost 6 months of each other. Right?

With Fox and Lloyd back as our time travelers from 1985, they drive off to 2015, where they have to prevent a major catastrophe for one of Fox’s future offspring. While in the future, Fox buys a sports almanac, with the intent of getting the edge on sports betting in the future. It falls into the hands of “Biff” (Wilson), who proceeds to steal the De Lorean time machine back to 1955, making for a quite lousy-looking alternative reality of 1985. The duo must correct this situation, or a paradox of fatalistic implications for the universe will occur.

Skipping the nostalgic, emotional humor of the first film, this is an adventure picture with a decent first act, a really good second act, and a third act that’s brilliant on paper, but somehow lacks something definitive in the end.

First off, the future of 2015 is like every other Hollywood take on what the “future” is. That is, radical urban and transportation metamorphosis within 20-30 years that is just unrealistic. As I write this review, nine years from a future of flying cars, hover board skateboards, and very gay-looking fashion, I’m still stuck having to drive a fossil fuel-guzzling vehicle. Still, unlike other films, this picture at least attempts to poke fun at such a future. Though the insanely silly retro-love for the 1980s was prophesized in this picture by almost two decades.

But it’s the second act that’s the best thing about this movie. The first film was about some Californian punk kid that screwed up time, fixed it up to “better” condition, and returned to a “better” reality where his pops wasn’t a puss, his family wasn’t poor, and had a friggin BMW in the driveway. Now with the sequel, the altered world of 1985 is one where the high school burned to the ground, armed militias in tanks run the streets, and Biff runs the city as a despot. It’s like the cynical European art house version of “It’s a Wonderful Life”.

Though really, the fact that the baddie made a sky rise of a hotel/casino out of a courthouse will always have street cred in my book.

The third act itself is conflicting. Zemeckis and Gale decided that instead of basically rehashing the first movie’s tempo, why not simply go back to the first film, seeing scenes from it in different angles and actually witnessing it? Certainly a stroke of genre-ingenuity, but there is a downside to this concept. There is Déjà vu, pun not intended, from watching it, to which my care for the story slowly drained away from the film.

I enjoyed the film, but some things just bugged me to which explains for my score rating. Crispin Glover’s absence, with the film being written around this fact, is sorely lacking. The fact that Zemeckis was editing this film while shooting “Back to the Future Part III” does explain the inconsistent editing narrative in the film (and which even Zemeckis admits as much).

Never mind that you had this girlfriend character of Fox’s character that is so useless, one wonders if Zemeckis and Gale couldn’t simply find a way to use her more interestingly instead of being such a dead-end trail.

Should have gave the part to Sofia Copplla(SP)

Great Film Though

Just My Luck * 1/2
(First Viewing)

Lindsay Lohan is hot, this movie is not. As ronnie said, "has she starred in a movie that hasn't flopped?"

Tender Mercies
Directed by Bruce Beresford
1983

Bruce Beresford’s 1983 Oscar-winning drama, Tender Mercies, tells the story of fictional country-western singer, Mac Sledge, played by Robert Duvall in what has so far proved to be the only academy-award winning performance among his six nominations over a forty-year career. Mac battles troubles in and out of the music business, having trouble with his record companies and manager, as well as his continuously escalating alcoholism and the persistent troubles of his broken family. We begin our film with Mac waking up after a night of heavy drinking, passed out in a small motel room in the middle of nowhere, abandoned by his manager and with his life passing him by. It is here that we are first introduced to Beresford’s silent transitions and consistently stoic camera and direction choices. They instantly succeed in setting the mundane, mid-western mood for the entire piece. Rather than jump back on the troubled path to fame, Mac decides to stay at the small motel and gas station, run by a young attractive widow, Rosa Lee, and her young son, Sonny. He starts off serving simply as a helping hand around the station, contemplating to himself, eating silent dinners with the family at night, and finding his place in the world.

Duvall’s performance here is first-class throughout. It really attests to his talent that he’s able to express such power and emotion in a PG rated film, completely devoid of any curse-laden outbursts or scenes of violence. It’s amazing to watch him instill such complexity in a simple, soft-spoken character. We watch Mac intently, knowing little about his past, but sensing his many years of pain and frustration, partly due to his ex-wife, Dixie, a country singing star, and his 18 year old daughter, Sue Anne, whom Dixie has forbidden him from seeing. Duvall’s Oscar was definitely well-deserved, and it’s nice to see he was able to equal up to the early 80’s work of his co-stars in The Godfather films, made nearly a decade earlier. His performance here ranks right up there with James Caan’s work in Thief, as well as Al Pacino’s performance in Scarface, all strong portrayals of morally-conflicted men in character-driven dramas. Duvall’s turn as Mac Sledge was also tremendously more effective than his other Oscar-nominated performance of the decade, that of Lieutenant Colonel Bull Meechum in 1980’s The Great Santini.

As time passes, Mac and Rosa Lee’s relationship morphs from simple employer-employee friendship, to mutual attraction, and eventually marriage. In the film, this all seems to happen rather quickly, with little indication of the amount of the time passing at all. These sometimes jarring and unexpected chronology changes actually work well in the end, helping to express the timelessness of the characters and setting. Throughout it all, director Beresford resists the temptation to go into clichéd relapses for Mac and simply show several temptations and near-misses. The fact that Mac never really falls back into his old afflictions indicate his perseverance and determination, and his love for his new family. We see none of the glitz and glamour of Mac’s former life, just the dusty familiarity of his new, small-town existence out of the spotlight. In this manner, this film serves as a nice companion piece to Robert Altman’s Nashville, here showcasing the lesser side of the county-music industry, it’s characters, and it’s setting. It’s interesting also to note that despite the fact that our main character is a musician, we wait the majority of the film to hear him play any music, a technique reminiscent of Gus Van Sant’s Last Days.

There’s a number of stand-out scenes here for both Duvall and Beresford. Shortly after Mac’s daughter comes back into his life, we watch him one afternoon, staring out the window thinking to himself, and he breaks into a somber song. Beresford chooses to shoot the whole scene in one take, looking at Duvall from behind, telling so much about his thoughts of his former life and his feelings for his daughter. Later on, we see Mac finally get baptized, on the same day his step-son Sonny experiences the same rite of passage. The set-up of this scene strikes up parallels between the young and naïve Sonny, a boy with new beginnings in life, and the old, relatively naïve Mac, the middle aged man with similarly renewed opportunities. Later, after tragedy hits Mac and his family when his daughter is killed in a car accident, Mac goes to visit his ex-wife Dixie, and in one of her only scenes in the film, she cries and unknowingly showcases her ultimate selfishness to Mac. She sees her daughter’s death only as God punishing her, and barely thinks of her daughter or the pain Mac is going through. This is followed by a powerful Duvall monologue in a garden, where he reveals his reluctance to embrace normalcy and peace with Rosa Lee, his reluctance to embrace happiness. Again, Beresford has the directing savvy to know the scene holds the most dramatic weight when filmed in a single take, and here he adds in a graceful, semi-circular pan around Mac as he chokes out his words to Rosa Lee between tears.

As the film draws to a close, the side-plot line of the young Sonny finding out things about his own life comes to a climax as he confronts his mother in their house and asks her about the father he never knew. Immediately after, he goes and plays football with Mac in the fields during sunset in the film’s final moments. The juxtaposition of these two scenes provides for closure on both Mac and Sonny’s storylines, as Sonny has finally expressed his full embracement of Mac as his real father figure, and Mac has, at least to some extent, finally found happiness, security, and mental peace in his life. Through all of his trials and tribulations, and the many ups and downs of his years, he has ultimately found bliss in the simple, and tender mercies.