Broken Embraces

Harry Caine, a blind writer and ex-director, recalls a tragic love affair after a mysterious character from his past re-enters his life.  His story, which takes place 14 years earlier during the production of one of his films, is told in flashbacks, mixing past and present and creating a sort of film within a film.

“Broken Embraces” was written and directed by Pedro Almodovar, who is arguably the best and most successful Spanish director.  He specializes in colorful, artsy soap operas, and this one is no different.  Honestly, as melodramatic as it is, I ate up every minute of it.  Almodovar always creates the most wonderful characters, and I can’t help but fall for them every time.  Even though I wouldn’t place this among his very best (“Bad Education,” “Talk to Her”), it easily deserves a watch.  Pedro and Penelope are officially one of the best active director/actor duos.  Oh, and she’s fantastic as always in this.  Thumbs up.

RATING:  8.5/10

Quick “2012″ review

I still can’t stand Roland Emmerich (didn’t one of his characters outrun freezing air in one his films?  WTF?), but I have to admit that this was a guilty pleasure for me.  It wasn’t great by any means, but some of the sequences were genuinely thrilling and this time around none of the sentimental or preachy scenes made me want to vomit (thank you, John Cusack).  It did what it set out to do.  Whether it’s worth $10 and over two hours of your time is debatable, though.

RATING:  7/10

The White Ribbon

Michael Haneke finally won the Palme d’Or at Cannes this year (I think he should have won for “Cache” in 2005) for this unsettling drama set in a remote German village just a few years before WWI, where mysterious and violent crimes are shaking up the townsfolk.  Haneke, who’s officially a master of allegory, touches on all kinds of bleak subjects such as patriarchy, crime, revenge, and of course death.  He’s a barrel of laughs, this guy. 

As expected, Haneke explores the dark side of human nature as only Haneke can, and it’s all the more disturbing being that the focus is mainly on the children.  Maliciously neglectful parenting has an obvious impact on the children, and in a way you get a glimpse at the origin of the Nazi party, or at least the origin of extremism with pre-Nazi Germany as the example.

 I also wanted to say that this whole film is absolutely beautiful to look at (it turns out that it was originally filmed in color and then changed to black and white in post-production) and that if it weren’t for Lars Von Trier’s “Antichrist,” it would deserve to win every annual cinematography award there is (sadly both films are probably too controversial to win anything outside of the festivals). 

RATING:  9/10

Precious

    

This is without doubt one of the most acclaimed films of the year.  It’s got a score of 91% at Rotten Tomatoes, it won the top prize at Sundance and it’s on track for multiple Oscar nominations.  However, it didn’t quite resonate the same way with me, and despite it being an undeniably moving and important story, I still think this is one of the most overrated films of the year so far.  It falls into the same trap as most other inspirational/against all odds stories by resorting to tired cliches and generally just feeling contrived.

Precious, played by Gabourey Sidibe, is an abused, obese, illiterate teenager who is pregnant with her second child after being raped by her monstrous father.  When she is expelled from school, she enrolls in an alternative program where she meets Mrs. Rain, a progressive, inspirational teacher a la Michelle Pfeiffer in “Dangerous Minds” or Hillary Swank in “Freedom Writers.”  Clearly director Lee Daniels wants nothing to do with subtlety, and I was a little turned off by how excessively he reaches for the audiences’ sympathy.  Had he made “Precious” a grim and gritty indie as opposed to an over-stylized drama I think it would have been more effective.

RATING:  7/10

 

Daybreakers trailer

The Last Station trailer

The Twilight Saga: New Moon

New Moon, the second installment of the Twilight movies.  Where to begin?

I would like to preface this review with a few things.  First off, I have read all four of the Twilight books.  Secondly: although I think that Stephanie Meyers technically can’t write for shit, I think that her ideas in Twilight have the potential for something that could be both hugely entertaining and actually a good story.  Thirdly, I think that the directors responsible for the reincarnation of her story into these movies could take advantage of said potential and make Twilight great.  Lastly, any movie that can do as well as New Moon did in the box office while not aiming for the preteen/teenage boy demographic (the largest in Hollywood) is quite alright by me.

The movie New Moon is worlds better than the first Twilight film but therefore does not maintain some of that b-movie quality that I learned to love about the first installment.  That being said, here are the reasons why I think it is better than the first movie:  visually it is cleaner and more convincing.  The makeup for the vampires is more believable and the CG for the werewolves is actually quite good.  Whereas the first movie followed the book faithfully and stuck to one shittily filmed action sequence, New Moon upped the number of action sequences (most of which did not go down in the book) and made them actually look good.  The increased budget as a result of the first movie’s success is the reason behind both these things, and also (I think) a more critical eye from the director (Chris Weitz).  Following in the footsteps of its predecessor, New Moon has an excellent soundtrack made up of such artists as Thom Yorke of Radiohead, Grizzly Bear, Bon Iver, and St. Vincent.  Its music had a lot to do with the quality of the movie, especially during a certain werewolf/vampire chase sequence.  Finally, the acting.  Despite the fact that in the broad scheme of things the acting in New Moon is by far not great, to me the most important comparison to make is to the first movie (because let’s face it, if you couldn’t sit through the first one you’re not going to sit through the second one).  Compared to the first movie,  New Moon should be in the Oscars: in that case, Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner both deserve lead acting awards, and Robert Pattinson and Anna Kendrick should win for supporting roles.

Beyond all of the technical aspects there is a love/hate relationship that I have with Twilight and simply can’t escape, which absolutely has everything to do with its content that I find myself simultaneously tickled by and filled with loathing for.  With filming for the third movie already completed and its release just around the corner, I am very excited and I believe that my enthusiasm will last through the fourth and final movie.  I’m guilty of being invested in these movies, and I’m sure that if you gave it a chance you would be too. 

My rating: 5/10*

*This rating fluxuates.  On my good days it shoots to 8 and on my bad days drops to 2.

Rachel Getting Married (2008)

When I hear the name Anne Hathaway my mind drifts to sappy romantic comedies and titles like Princess Diaries, Devil Wears Prada, and Bride Wars.  Basically, I think of movies that are low on impact and have little to no weight after their initial viewing.  Rachel Getting Married is an enormous departure from these movies for Anne Hathaway in content, and I am happy to say that her acting lived up to the expectations appropriate to such a drama.   

Rachel Getting Married, directed by Jonathan Demme,  follows Kym (Anne Hathaway) who is a young woman just leaving a rehabilitation center and reentering her homelife that is currently in a frenzy of new people and faces as her older sister Rachel (Rosemarie DeWitt) prepares for her impending wedding.  The narrative unfolds slowly with the details behind family tension and Kym’s rehab experience revealing themselves naturally in the dialogue captured by the homemovie-like camera from the ensemble cast.  Punctuated by live music played by characters in the film, Demme casts away the usual recipe for family dramas by exposing tensions and character flaws/complexities from the first scene rather than crafting an upright and happy family that is gradually broken down.  The entire cast acts impeccably, making the story all the more believable.  Altogether his choices make for an intense and visceral experience, one that feels almost too close to reality for comfort at times (which is emphasized by the presence of a handheld camera throughout the film, the soundtrack that is embedded in real time, and the pacing that is slow at times but rich with what feel like real family experiences).  I give the movie an 8/10.

On DVD: The Limits of Control

Mangold’s review:

As a Jim Jarmusch fan, this was a huge let down for me.  In the past I’ve loved the long takes, the little dialogue, and the overall slow pace of his films, but he takes it to a whole new level on this one.  It’s borderline unwatchable, completely pretentious and indulgent, and even the philosophical musings on the power of imagination aren’t that interesting, let alone worthy of their own feature film.  Having said that, it does have its share of ups, notably the score by the Japanese rock trio Boris, which is one of the best I’ve heard this year.  The cinematography is also beautiful, but that doesn’t make up for the fact that this movie has no soul and contains mostly just pseudo-intellectual ramblings.  BOO.

RATING:  5.5/10

Anastasya’s review:

While I understand the frustration people have with the pacing and content of The Limits of Control, I enjoyed it quite a bit.  Perhaps it is because it came across as more of an installation — an exploration of space and time — rather than a narrative film.  The cinematography and pacing of the film create a purely aesthetic experience.  The carefully crafted, beautiful, lengthy shots create a sort of meditative atmosphere, which the score adds to, and the repetitive visual elements (hotel room, cafe, two espresso, match box) give you patterns to follow throughout the film.  If anything I would argue that the film would be better without a plot at all (there is barely one as it is), but I can see how the, as Mangold puts it, “pseudo-intellectual ramblings” add to the meditative, contemplative nature of the film, even if they are a little pretentious.

**Spoilers**

Having seen nearly all of Jarmusch’s films, I found this an interesting development of his style.  Most of his films are made up of a repetition of scenes, shots, situations and objects, and while most of them use this to further the plot, The Limits of Control developed it into a purely aesthetic experience.  Vagueness is a major component of his characters and story lines, and the characters in The Limits of Control epitomize this sort of ambiguity.  While it may have frustrated many people, the ending was one of my favorite parts of the film.  Jarmusch frequently leaves out important plot points — disrupting the narrative flow (namely Down By Law, in which he skips over the entire prison break, which would have been the climactic event of the film).  In The Limits of Control Jarmusch entirely omits the climax of the film — the entire film he has been getting clues for his mission, and when he finally gets within reach of the final goal, it jumps to the end, without any explanation whatsoever of how he got inside of the building.

Throughout his career Jarmusch (with apparent influence of the No Wave Cinema movement) has attempted to subvert many narrative film traditions, and like many filmmakers (I could draw many comparisons to Kiarostami), he seems to be moving into the art world.  While this film had its weak points (mainly narrative and dialogue), there were many strong aspects, and I am interested to see if he moves further into the art world, or if he goes back to narrative filmmaking.

RATING: 9/10

The Cat Piano

This is getting Oscar buzz for best animated short.  It also happens to be narrated by musician Nick Cave (one of the coolest people on earth).  It’s pretty awesome, give it a look: