thetragicfigure Reviews

Nostradamus (2015)

Intellectually Taut; Densely Plotted; At Times Difficult - But JUST WAIT FOR IT

[8/10 · 28 December 2015]

I found NOSTRADAMUS to be an interesting, challenging work, and one that sometimes requires an almost provocative level of focused attention from the viewer (which is actually to the film's credit--more on that later), yet it's also happily a film that really pays off at the end with the satisfying release of some ENORMOUS plot tension.

(But before getting to all of that: I want to note that Amy Sloan did a wonderful acting job throughout the film of evoking "innocently sweet", "suspiciously serious", and then finally, "almost scary" sentiments without ever having to barely change her facial expressions or the tones of her voice. (I guess it's all in the eyes.) It's the unexpected presence of her character that provides the most immediate tension in the film, yet Austin Nichols' reaction to her sudden appearance -- almost as the "straight man" in a double act -- is a performance that should also be appreciated.)

NOSTRADAMUS has a plot where you need to pay attention as the details subtly increase, so I won't get into any of those specific story details. I'll just say this: with a short film, one expects a stand-alone piece. Something that's complete and finished when it's over. It's done when it's done. It's an ordinary, reliable lunch on a Tuesday you spend at your favorite diner. You eat your burger, you pay your bill -- no surprises in the end.

But what surprised and impressed me in the end about this film is that when it reached its conclusion -- and when everything was resolved and it became satisfying "a stand-alone piece" -- I was found wanting more. Almost as if I'd just watched a pilot to a new television series.

This film may get a lot of favorable TWILIGHT ZONE or ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS comparisons, but in a lot of ways, this film reminded me most of various excellent episodes from the lovably-frustrating ABC show LOST: of episodes where you can feel in your body the tension rising desperately, and you have to try very hard to keep up with the rapidly surprising details, and it's almost starting to anger you until, BOOM! And then you go, "OHHHHH.... Yeah, that was pretty cool! Um, can we get some more now? I need the next chapter with these people!" It's a fascinating contradiction. Plot-wise, the film is COMPLETELY self-contained and fulfilling as a taut story with a beginning, middle, end. Yet still I'm utterly interested in knowing what happens after the tension release at the end. And I know that I'll never know, which heightens the effect in a positive way. A both closed- and open- ending that -- at least to me -- was very satisfying.

So, anyway: NOSTRADAMUS is very well made, very surprisingly plotted, and VERY WELL SHOT (beautiful, expansive desert views at the beginning, contrasted with a cramped diner that mirrors the tension of the plot. Gorgeously shot work that I'm sure was done on a shoestring budget, which makes it more impressive).

Check it out. It's very much worth your time, attention, and thought.

Battle Royale (2000)

Nothing sublime, but worth viewing

[8/10 · 23 March 2004]

What's most amazing about this film to me is the sort of unconscious hype that it seems to generate on its own. The idea is so compelling that it sort of makes the film better than it actually is.

A friend -- not having seen the film yet herself -- told me about this film after reading a plot summary: "9th graders forced to battle to the death over 3 days!" I was certainly intrigued beyond myself, and I put it on my to-watch list. Surprisingly though, after watching the film two months later, I found that all the hype exhausted itself rather quickly. It was all very entertaining to watch, but I found that my only sincere reaction was to imagine myself in the same circumstances as these 9th graders and to wonder how I might approach the game. And the answer came immediately: I'd simply be a suicide and refuse to play (I'm not one for murder). Having made that decision immediately, the film became merely an exciting kind of action flick. And that's not to be discounted (I love Bergman, Welles, and Lynch, but DIE HARD is also one of my favorite flicks); for me, the next hour and a half was merely just fun to watch. But in the end, t'was nothing too deep, no mining of the depths to which to modern society has sunken in its idolatry of the individual and his personal survival at the cost of his peers, blah blah blah....

But it IS a pretty good action flick with a valuably untouched idea -- and that's worth something, I think.

Just barely 8 out of 10.

Mulholland Drive (2001)

Comments for Lynchophiles....

[10/10 · 7 October 2001]

If you have eyes and ears for Lynch's films, if you have the subtlety for his unique art, you should find this film to be his most completely realized to date.

If you have none of these, you might find this film to be just plain confusing. (But don't let that get you down: for you guys (or gals) this film has all kinds of eye candy.)

MULHOLLAND DRIVE admits of no just analysis within a window of 1,000 words, so I'll say only this: this film reaches peaks of sublimity to which Lynch has never before had the maturity to ascend.

10 out of 10.

Storytelling (2001)

A fair review, people...really, it is....

[8/10 · 30 September 2001]

Trenchant stuff here...the first portion of the movie, at the very least; the second part works itself out perhaps a bit more subtly than is comfortable.

If you're unaware, Solondz's film is in two parts: "Fiction" and "Non-fiction". In my opinion, the first story is a complete knockout, rife with all kinds of unsettling and -- equally -- interesting ideas to be drawn out from a most well-crafted narrative. On the other hand, I found "Non-fiction" taking quite a while longer to find its legs: unlike the straightforward and often deliciously clever self-referential nature of the story in "Fiction", the film's second part is not so easy to handle. Whereas, watching "Fiction", I found myself in the clear midst of an intelligent social exploration, grasping keenly the import of what was going on before my very eyes -- and all the while constantly surprised at turns in the plot; simply wonderful storytelling here -- "Non-fiction" simply confounded me at times, leading me to suspect -- wrongly, it turned out -- that clearly here was Solondz's much weaker writing. The film's last shot was most revealing to me, then, in the sense of elucidating all the slipperiness preceding it.

Apart from that, the film as a whole is entirely entertaining, perhaps with the second part being even more so than the first. The acting is up to par, but the real beauty of Solandz here is in his strong writing.

That said, I liked it. 8 out of a possible 10.

Orphans of the Storm (1921)

A masterpiece from one of the great innovators of early cinema

[8/10 · 27 September 2000]

First of all, I find it desperately necessary to remind the viewer of silent movies of the danger of analyzing these pieces under the lens of the modern cinemagoer. The aesthetic values of silent cinema are incommensurable with the values of modern cinema. Aside from the obvious difference that one relies purely on image while the other has the benefit of sound, we must also not forget that the cinema of the silent era is cinema in its infancy, in a constant state of the most early self-discovery (which is not to say that cinema has necessarily "grown up" or "progressed" into our modern era; our cinema today is only different than the cinema of the silent era, neither better nor worse.) Basically, we should check ourselves before we ridicule these films on the basis of irising, masking, et cetera and ESPECIALLY the exaggerated emotion and overblown gesturing of the actors. The conventions of the art of acting have, of course, their basis in that of the theatre, which preceded film, and where emphatic gesturing and stressed emotion was conventional in conveying story even to those seated in the back row.

All editorializing aside, Griffith's _Orphans of the Storm_ is a shining example of the director's masterful grasp of narrative cinema. The story is almost Dickensian in its feel, from its very beginning alternating between no less than five separate subplots, all of which become inextricably intertwined before the backdrop of the larger plot of the impending revolution in France. The acting performances are not, in fact, excessively overplayed, but are actually quite subtle and touching, especially those of the two orphans, the Gish sisters.

The visuals are stunning: the costumes and decor are lush and the recreation of late 18th century Paris is excellent. Most impressive to me is Griffith's expert command of montage, primarily through intercutting, in creating a engrossing story that, while complex in structure, is easily grasped. The film starts out on wobbly legs, but soon breaks into a steady gallop, raging through the glorious revolution to an admittedly predictable, yet satisfying conclusion. A grand achievement for one of the titans of early cinema: I give it a 9/10.