Change Your Image
Monellifilms
Reviews
Gerry (2002)
5/10 to 8/10
Gus Van Sant's "Gerry" is something more (or less) than a film. Any reaction to this film is a correct reaction. Gerry spends 100 minutes testing our patience. It is clearly not a conventional movie in any sense of the word.
During my viewing experience (and it is an experience) of this movie I found myself at times saying "wow this is interesting." The composition and the landscapes were beautiful. The subtle acting was engaging. The scene with Gerry stuck on top of the big boulder was hypnotic and they sat there discussing how to get him down.
Then, the next second I would find myself saying "this is such an arrogant film." Shots would last for several minutes and would be of them just walking. After a minute I would be interested and say "this feels like we are lost with them." Then after another minute I would be like "how could Van Sant be this arrogant and think we will look at this same god d*mn shot STILL."
Thus was my battle with Gerry. After digesting it for a moment, I came to the conclusion that I would never watch it again, but I am glad I experienced this. It is a very peaceful film. It is perfect to put on as you are falling asleep, and that is meant as a compliment.
The ending was moving. It reminded me of a Twilight Zone episode ("I Shot an Arrow into the Air"). He killed his friend but then found rescue. I was part relieved, part sad when it was over.
Gerry will no doubt find a limited audience, but one should not look at this as a movie, but rather an objective experience.
Ong-Bak (2003)
Forget Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, or Jet Li
Ong-Bak is the movie that put Tony Jaa on the map. You may be asking "who is Tony Jaa?" It is unfortunate more people do not know his name, as he should be a household action star by now.
Ong-Bak is pure visual entertainment. There is a story sprinkled throughout about Jaa's character attempting to retrieve a stolen statue from his village that has much value to his people. Thus begins Jaa's jaw-dropping acrobatic fight scenes and chases.
The best part of this movie is the street chase of Tony Jaa. He runs through a crowded city from several bad guys and numerous obstacles standing in his way like an episode of American Gladiators. Jaa does some of the most insane and thrilling maneuvers I have ever seen. He jumps through thick hoops of barb wire. He slides under moving cars. He backflips and front flips up and down wooden boards. In between all this he must fight off several bad guys.
The villain in this movie is a joke. It is an older man in a wheelchair with a voicebox like he has been smoking for thirty years. The dialogue is even funnier, "I am God" proclaims the villain in his voicebox voice. But none of this matters because Tony Jaa's flipping, knee strikes, fight choreography and relentless ass-kicking action more than makes up for it. Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan don't hold a candle.
Tom yum goong (2005)
Tony Jaa does it again
The Protector is Tony Jaa's followup to Ong-Bak. Jaa is the most impressive and unknown martial artist of today. The Protector is simply a vehicle for him to showcase his miraculous physical ability.
The story of The Protector is laughable at best. Someone kidnaps Tony Jaa's elephant and he must find him before he becomes killed off by an evil gang. Very simple and silly but it doesn't matter. Jaa's physical performance ups the ante from Ong-Bak and attempts to be even more ambitious.
The most impressive part of the film was probably the shot following Jaa up an entire staircase in a hotel where he easily goes through bodyguard after bodyguard to get to the main villain. It is done in all one shot and lasts for several minutes. The choreography of the fighting is top notch and original. Jaa uses his knees as a weapon more than anyone other martial artist I've seen.
Jaa once again does not use stunt doubles or wires to achieve his unbelievable stunts. I firmly believe he is much more entertaining than Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee. His choreography is much more intricate, ambitious, and aggressive. He kicked out a street light by jumping from just underneath it. He jumped off a building and knocked someone off a helicopter. He slides under moving cars.
I would take any Tony Jaa flick over any Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan movie any day.
Being John Malkovich (1999)
Original.
Being John Malkovich is one of the most original movies ever made. Charlie Kaufman takes risk after risk with his screenplay and completely ignores any and all screen writing protocol.
The beauty of this movie is that it doesn't try to hammer home a point like Godard or Haneke's movies, rather it is an objective exploration of themes that all resonate with us at some point or another.
The self-esteem of Craig is a major theme. He feels awkward as himself, but when he becomes John Malkovich he feels he can achieve anything. The feeling of wanting to be someone else, especially that of a celebrity is something we all have gone through at some point. Everyone wishes that. The film doesn't seem to suggest that is right or wrong, but it explores what happens if it really did.
Kaufman's bizarre script has some very imaginative ideas it seems like a fairy tale. His visual ideas are unfiltered. It seems as if Kaufman allows everything from his brain to be put onto paper. Strange fantasies and hopes and ideas that most keep hidden in the back of their mind, Kaufman lets us know we are not alone. Many people have confusion over their sexuality, and Lotte (Craig's wife) is a clear example of that. She falls in love with another woman through being John Malkovich.
The film is a great achievement at showing us relationships in a different package. We have seen the typical marriage problems in film over and over again, but Being John Malkovich shows us an odd but fresh new marriage with problems of wanting to be other people, and with other people.
Oldeuboi (2003)
Overrated but good
Oldboy is an entertaining film, but highly overrated.
The story is interesting. Oh Dae-Su being imprisoned by mysterious people for fifteen years and teaching himself how to fight inside his zoo-like habitat is an interesting mystery and one that I wanted to find out. The plot reminded me of The Count of Monte Cristo early on, and when the movie referenced Monte Cristo then I realized it would go off in a different direction, and it did.
The movie and mystery dragged a bit when Oh Dae-Su was back out in the real world. There are hardly any clues given throughout the film. A mystery is supposed to unravel piece by piece, and this movie was set up, then ninety minutes of the same questions not being answered, then everything gets wrapped up in ten minutes at the end.
I liked the twist at the end of Oh Dae-Su falling in love with his young daughter, but the way it was kept secret and explained was silly. The villain went through so much trouble, care, and effort to set it all up. When he is explaining the twist to Oh Dae-Su it seems so convoluted and complicated that it loses its impact. There is just too much explanation at the end, done with cheesy flashbacks of the villain and his sister. The idea of the twist is good, but there was just too much to explain. The reason the twist in the Sixth Sense worked was because it took one a second to tell, and then we are SHOWN some previous shots in the film that help support the twist. It lasts about a minute.
Oldboy seems to be a film that people like because of the ending, that is why I am so critical of it. Overall, I was entertained and enjoyed the movie, but it is certainly not one of the best movies ever made, as many suggest.
Clerks (1994)
Great indie film
Clerks is the first film by writer/director Kevin Smith, who would go on to rehash his original characters time and time again, but never capturing the magic as he did here. Clerks is by far Smith's best film, and one of the best low budget flicks of all time.
The script is not so much what works here, but it's the dialogue that does. There is no real A- B-C plot. We follow two twenty-something guys working at register jobs they hate in New Jersey as they take in a day's worth of ignorant and annoying customers. The genius of this movie is Smith's razor sharp dialogue, like something out of Ben Hecht's mind. The dialogue goes back and forth with such enthusiasm and explicit timing that we feel like we are watching a 1940's screwball comedy, only this time Cary Grant was allowed to say "all holes filled with hard c*ck."
The film truly encapsulates what it was like to be a youth in the early 90's. It defined a generation. Kids are disrespectful and lazy and this film rocks that notion. Everyone has had a job they hate, and helped customers they despise. The beauty of this film is we can all relate to being in their position at one time or another. There are several "oh I totally agree" moments (i.e. when the guy asks Randal at the video store if he has that movie with that guy who was in that movie that was out last year?").
Clerks is a social commentary whether it wants to be or not. It satirizes how dumb the average citizen is and how lazy the average twenty year old is. Every customer in this movie does something foolish to get the "clerks" to make fun of them somehow (i.e. "the milk maids" or the women who keep looking through the milk for that later expiration date, even though it will never be there).
Don't expect beautiful cinematography or thunderous direction here. Expect to see a profile of what it is like to be a youth in this country, long monologues of witty but pointless dialogue (i.e. construction workers on the death star, everyone's favorite), and one of the best low/no budget movies you will ever see.
Pi (1998)
Original and cool
Pi is the first film by Darren Aronofsky. The low budget black and white film about numbers and the Jewish religion is an interesting and intelligent movie with a unique look.
The look of Pi is definitely one of its best attributes. For a feature film made for $60,000, Aronofsky achieves an impressive look that many Hollywood films never achieve. The fuzzy and grainy black and white is surprisingly very pleasing to look at. Several shots are even overexposed but it adds to the religious theme of the movie. The overexposed glow at times seems heavenly. The snorricam is also adds to the strange visual feel of the film. The camera is mounted on the main character and pointed at him so it seems like he is floating through time and space in a majestic manner.
The story is equally well done. It has themes of obsession (for the number itself) and religion (the source and meaning of the number). The plot centers around a man who looks for patterns within the stock market, as it is said that everything has numerical patterns. That is something we all wish we could know and manipulate. The obsession then centers around pi, or the number 3.14... The main character is one of many who try to figure out the mystery of the number and why it has no end. Any math geek's dream.
There are no explosions or special effects (or even color for that matter) in this movie, but its unique story and accuracy of scientific information make it a must see for any fan of film-making.
Funny Games (2007)
Amazing
The U.S. version of Funny Games is an amazing work of suspense, awkwardness, and storytelling. The most impressive aspect of this movie is how slowly and methodically it escalates.
The two killers, Peter and Paul, are so subtle and awkward in their actions that you can't believe how the movie got to where it got. Haneke once again delivers a film devoid of movie clichés and creates his own new set of rules. Had this film been made by anyone else, Peter and Paul would have been more threatening early on. It was Haneke's direction that made this film work. Instead of having them immediately tie the family up and hold them hostage with a gun, they slowly and carefully build to it. Peter and Paul become more awkward and polite with every scene. We see just how easy this could all happen to anyone of us, and that is very terrifying.
Haneke pokes fun at the audience several times during the film. First, when Peter and Paul are asked why they are holding the family hostage, they respond with the typical clichéd reasons from other movies killers (i.e. troubled youth, drug addicts, etc.). They rattle them all off, leaving the viewer just as confused. Haneke knows the truth, that it is much more interesting and terrifying when there is no reason or motive. Explaining why the two boys are doing this would take away from their impact on the audience. It makes us realize they can be anyone from anywhere.
The most notable jab at the audience is when the character's break the fourth wall. After Peter is shot, which is the satisfying moment of the film for many viewers, Haneke has Paul rewind the film and fix the situation to their advantage.
Bottle Rocket (1996)
Great first feature
Bottle Rocket is Wes Anderson's first feature, and a remake of a short film he made with Owen Wilson as well. It bears all of the hallmarks of a Wes Anderson film (quirky characters, dry humor, precise and orchestrated cinematography, and a story about finding something beautiful in the flaws of the main characters, especially Dignan (Owen Wilson).
The film has a simple story, three friends attempting to commit a robbery and go on the run, but like Wes Anderson movies it is not straightforward. The movie is not about the heist, rather the relationships between the main characters and their flaws. The best of which is Owen Wilson's 75 year plan he created for himself and Luke Wilson's character, describing when they would get married, etc.
Dignan's 75 year plan and his heist plan are themes Wes Anderson carries throughout his movies. A main character is always trying to accomplish something well beyond their means and capacity (i.e. Bill Murray in Life Aquatic, Max in Rushmore, Owen Wilson in Darjeeling). They are always planning and scheming something greater than they can obviously achieve.
This movie blends humor, and drama very well. It reminds me of Fargo with its dry and occasionally dark humor. The film ends as a tragedy (the tragedy of Dignan), which makes us feel bad for him. But you almost feel like he will be okay. His personality makes this bad turn of fortune not seem so bad.
Bottle Rocket is one of Anderson's better movies and if you enjoy any and all of his later flicks then check this one out.
Cidade de Deus (2002)
Intense
City of God is like Shakespeare. A powerful movie that takes us through the world of drugs in Rio de Janeiro. The film is full of rich characters, and an even richer story (or stories). Fate and chance occur throughout the film, letting you decide what is it really.
The editing of the movie is done very choppy at times and like that of the ridiculous Jason Bourne movies, but this movie makes it work. It needs that choppy editing to keep the viewer on their feet. By no means is the storytelling here slow or lacking. The film has an energy from the beginning to the end. The editing works too because the shots are not overly shaky. We can see what is going on so the quick editing at times works because of that.
The film is a morality tale. Each character is tested and tempted by the villain, Li'l Ze (a metaphor for pure evil). Rocket, the main character, is tempted but ends up the only real survivor at the end. Everyone else succumbs to the pressures of the dark side. Knockout Ned, a noble man, is out for revenge on the shooting of his family by Li'l Ze's gang. He ultimately joins a rival gang and kills an innocent person (purposefully). His lust for revenge turns him into a killer, which ultimately gets him killed.
Benny is the opposite. He is a thug, and good friend of Li'l Ze, but decides the life of drugs and crime are no longer for him. He wants out. At his own "goodbye" party he gets shot accidentally. Was he being punished by God for his previous sins, or was it just a freak accident?
The intertwining of characters and events in this movie are that of a Seinfeld episode. Everyone is connected in the city of god. And everyone has a choice. Kill or be killed.
Caché (2005)
Not for fans of Transformers
Cache is a film that attempts to go against the norm to create a suspenseful and mysterious story that takes its time and ignores plot structure rules. Michael Haneke seems to do things differently at times just to be different. While that is a poor way to make movies in my opinion, Haneke makes it work.
From putting the opening credits all on one title card to having the film's final resolution take place in a wide shot amongst a crowd of people, Cache requires you to have an open mind and disregard the "rules" of film-making.
Haneke lets scenes play out in masters with simple composition. The scene in the bedroom near the end between Georges and his wife is an example. The lighting here is poor. You can't see much really, except for vague outlines of Georges. But it makes you uneasy and forces you to pay attention to every second.
The film never tells us who actually sent the tapes; another Haneke move that may confuse mainstream audiences. He allows us to form our own opinions and unravel the mystery ourselves. Our viewing experience and view of life will determine who we think sent the tapes. However, the film is not about who sent the tapes. It is about Georges and his troubled past, which is a metaphor for France.
Cache is a one way street. You must meet it in the middle to get anything out of it. Watching it and going on with your life will not work. Don't even waste your time if you don't plan on putting the amount of thought into it that Haneke has himself. The film is very different from most movies today but that's what it takes to get the film industry to move forward and beyond.
His Girl Friday (1940)
Better Than Most Comedies Today
His Girl Friday is a classic that still holds water today. Howard Hawks delivers an adaptation of Ben Hecht's play, The Front Page, that is funnier and more fine tuned than most comedies today. This film's influence is still felt today with movies like Clerks and Pulp Fiction with their quick and witty dialogue.
From the beginning, this film will hypnotize you with its ultra fast dialogue. The exchanges seems so meticulously rehearsed and prepared. Characters hit their lines with complete perfection and air-tight pace. There is probably ten seconds in the whole film where nothing is being said. This masterful use of dialogue can easily be credited to director Hawks, but it is the performance of Cary Grant that drives this film.
He plays a corrupt, immoral, and unethical newspaper editor who forces us to like him. The entire film shows us how evil a newspaper can be but it shows us from their point of view. This enables us to empathize with Cary Grant and his staff. They lie to and set up Bruce Baldwin. That should make us dislike them and position them as the villains of the film. However, Cary Grant's performance is so engaging that we end up admiring the level of power he has and the intelligence he displays. He takes what would be a villain in most movies and makes him likable. He almost acts as a lawyer or politician with how slick he is. His upbeat delivery of lines and dry humor show the dialogue in another light, from his point of view. His intentions are to serve his newspaper and his ex-wife, Hildy.
This film should be re-released today so people can see what real comedy is. Not just some random and pointless comment that makes no sense we can't help but laugh. That seems to be what comedy is today (Family Guy, Dane Cook, Seth Rogen, etc.). His Girl Friday is a smart comedy with relevant jokes that build character.
Go see it.
Hitman Hart: Wrestling with Shadows (1998)
Shakespeare meets Pro Wrestling
Good guys. Bad guys. Betrayal. Tragedy. Men in tights.
Hit-man Hart: Wrestling With Shadows is a documentary focusing on the legendary Bret "Hitman" Hart and his last year with the WWE (1997). The veil of professional wrestling is removed and we get a behind the scenes glimpse of what it was like to be a wrestler in the WWE. What makes this documentary great is that it is about how "fake" wrestling is, while showing us how "real" it can be.
Bret Hart narrates, as well as leads us through, his hectic life as WWE champion. The film's main narrative is his battle with WWE owner, Vince McMahon. Their relationship drives most of the documentary and ultimately becomes that of a Shakespearian tragedy. Once great friends and co-workers, these two men eventually clash over several things which leads to Bret considering a departure from the WWE. What Vince McMahon does to Bret Hart at the end is utterly heartbreaking (no pun intended).
The camera crew did a superb job of capturing the raw moments backstage and in Bret's own home. Characters in the film act as if there is no camera around most of the time. Director Paul Jay is virtually non-existent in this documentary. He lets Bret take center stage. The point of view is obviously from Bret's corner, but the filmmakers lay everything out like a crime scene investigation and allow the viewer to form their own opinion as to the film's main ethical dilemma (Bret and McMahon's personal decisions at the end). Bret Hart speaks candidly about his decisions and his belief in them, and we see clips of Vince McMahon sharing his point of view as well.
This film does not require you to be a fan of professional wrestling, but it would not hurt either. Bret explains the intricacies of wrestling and how things work in a very simplistic manner which will make anyone knowledgeable in the world of wrestling and able to enjoy this classic morality tale.
Bret Hart comes off as extremely likable and noble. I find it hard to believe anyone not admiring his honesty, courage, and belief in himself. He believes in heroes, and doing what is right. He has loyalty and that loyalty is betrayed. This ultimately ends up becoming what the movie is about. Is Bret Hart a hero? Is Vince McMahon a villain? Is there right and wrong?
This documentary is a must see, and not just for wrestling fans.