Author Archive for Neville

Eastern Promises

Published
by
Neville
on November 6, 2007
in Crime, Drama, England, Graphic Violence, Investigation, Mob, Murder, Mystery, Russian, Thriller and Twist
. 1 Comment

I have a confession to make: director David Cronenburg is one of those critically acclaimed directors I just don’t get.

However, his last film “A History of Violence” was the first one I watched and felt its power. I felt there was something there, even if I wasn’t fully understanding just how complex it was.

Similar to “A History of Violence,” “Eastern Promises” stars the talented Viggo Mortensen and the underrated Naomi Watts in a crime drama revolving around babies, body parts and a sect of the Russian Mafia in London. Written by Stephen Knight, the screenwriter that gave us “Dirty Pretty Things,” another story more specifically about black market body parts, “Eastern Promises” begins with a jolt. True to Cronenburg’s form it seems, the violence in his films is often drawn out–shot without music or edited with stylized style–and it’s also visceral. So are the scenes in “Eastern Promises.” They touch on delicate subjects (underage prostitutes, abortion, homosexuality, pure human deception) and everything seems to be marked by the sins of these Mafia characters (similar to their iconic-like tatoos). The tagline for the film reads: “every sin leaves a mark.” And this is really what the movie is all about. It unpacks this idea through its visuals and asks its audience to be subjected to its darkness (make no mistake about it, it is dark). But can we bear it? Can we endure through it?

I think the film could’ve been more effective (or at least more accessible to mass audiences) if more music was in the film, but I’m quickly learning that this is not Cronenburg’s style. He seems to like revealing things, not as if it’s cinema but as if it’s real life, and this tension is felt continually throughout the film. Do I believe things like this go on? Absolutely. But can I ever see myself as one of them? Probably not.

It wasn’t until the film’s end until I sensed any kind of humanity in the “villian” characters of the film. What distinquishes people as people and people as monsters? This is another question the film asks.

Mortensen and Watts are both strong here and both give convincing performances with convincing accents. But so much darkness is here I wonder if Cronenburg would’ve been wise to have let a little more light in (into the scenes, into the colors, in the images/icons of the film). I know this is neo-film noir from a very experienced and artistic filmmaker but I still can wonder, right?

All in all, worth a rental, not quite worth the $10 cinema ticket price (unless you want to really really feel the violence–then maybe you should go to the cinema and watch it).

Notes On A Scandal

Published
by
Neville
on February 23, 2007
in Based on a novel, Drama, England and High School
. 0 Comments

What can’t Judi Dench do? She can play the Queen of England with a fierce, jewel-lined-smile in Shakespeare in Love. She can play the rambuctious, sexually free owner of a dying English theater in Mrs. Henderson Presents. And now she’s playing a sexually frustrated and lonely old school teacher (borderline crazy teacher at that) in Notes on a Scandal, another Oscar-nominated performance. So what can’t she do? Really?

Even though Notes on a Scandal feels like raw material for an ABC Sunday Night Special, Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett (also nominated in the Best Supporting Actress category) set this film high abovce that status. Told with conviction, a North-Country-meets-The-Talented-Mr.-Ripley-meets-Psycho-meets-What-Ever-Happened-To-Baby-Jane little schoolhouse drama/thriller that eventually creeps you out and makes you chuckle at Dench’s voice over at the same time. Clearly a great DVD rental, if not somewhat unsettling, this movie’s just one of the many in the long line of 2006 that could be called “good films.” And speaking of 2006. Top ten lists you three????

Me and You and Everyone We Know

Published
by
Neville
on August 16, 2005
in Comedy, Drama and Independent
. 0 Comments

Miranda July, the actor-writer-director behind “Me and You and Everyone We Know,” has made an independent film with an independent feel and several potentially unforgettable indy-esque moments (that will no doubt, surely inspire and conjure up the kind of creative blast many indy films are in dire need of). And all in all, I’m tempted to say I loved it…but I won’t just yet.

To see “Me and You and Everyone We Know” is a little like experiencing a taste of what could become a new genre of narrative cinema: basically, how one artist’s work can transcend the substance of film. On one hand, this is Miranda July…the visual, digital, self-involved artist. On the other hand, this is also the director, writer and visual eye behind the feature. But what happens when you mix fantasy and reality, fact and fiction, the real and the unreal together into such a seemingly harmless (yet surprisingly tough and bold and daring) little independent film? Some interesting things!

When I left the theater after seeing “Me and You and Everyone We Know,” I tried to grapple with what the movie was really about. Surely it wasn’t one major thing, as the way the story wove its characters in and out of the narrative mirrored July’s somewhat annoyance with traditional screenwriting. Meaning, rather than she be the heroine of the story (or anyone else really for that matter) what we have here are several minor characters with some major scenes. It is not “one person’s story though,” although 99% of most movies are; but rather, it is a student-film like snippet of so many people you come across in life—so many familiar faces.

However, having said that I think what most impressed me about the film was that it is the first film I’ve seen (to my knowledge) that specifically seemed to deal with the theme of a generation raised with technology and digital media and the internet at their fingertips. What does a group of people so disconnected with physical touch and human-to-human interaction look like? Go see this movie and you’ll get a pretty good visual I think. But this is not to say this isn’t about you or about me or about “everyone we know,” because in reality (and I know this is cheesy) it is! I know the 14-year-old guy who goes home everyday, lonely, and spends the rest of the evening holding hands with his online girlfriend. I know the girl who gets rejected and rejected, only to find that her own creative and intuitive and artistic talent is what keeps her going. I know the teeny bopper girl who is all dirty talk but little dirty substance. I know what that kind of fear looks like. These people live right next door to me. These people live in my home.

I know most people will not like this movie and say it made them feel (more often than not) way too uncomfortable. But to these I’d say “look again.” This is not merely about children’s loss of sexual innocence but it’s about how sexual attraction and interaction has become so ingrained in the media input we (as a society) swallow up, that it’s no wonder you have an 8-year-old boy want to pretend he’s a 30-year-old grown-up. No wonder we have children wanting to grow up too soon, losing what almost every adult seems to spend the last half of their life searching for: their childhood intuition. We all are in need of attention and being loved and feeling loved. I think this movie just made it all the more clear why.

Go see it. Now. Thank you.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Published
by
Neville
on July 15, 2005
in Adventure, Based on a book, Based on a novel, Comedy, Family, Fantasy and Remake
. 0 Comments

I’ve never read Roald Dahl’s book. I’ve only seen the 1971 Gene Wilder film, and acted as Charlie Bucket in a play version of this same story when I was nine back in South Carolina. And I must say, put me in Tim Burton’s world over the other one any day!

One of the most anticipated movies of the summer is a fairy tale, a whimsical, wacky mess-of-a-movie…yes…but what an organized mess indeed! “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” is fueled by smile-bringing visuals, quirky cookie-cutter characters and yes the wonderfully weird and demented Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka. I realize people have been talking about how Depp is going to re-create or re-do Gene Wilder’s fascinating work as Willy Wonka and skeptical of whether or not it should be even done….but it seems to me that Depp’s performance—not only is it very entertaining and hilarious in a Napoleon Dynamite sort of way—is so realized and simple and brazenly “it” that I can’t imagine Willy Wonka being anything but now. Think about it. A man that lives by himself in a chocolate factory with crazy little oompa-loompas running around all day long. And he’s obsessed with chocolate. And spends all day figuring out new ways to eat candy and experience euphoria in the taste buds. And he’s the son of a psycho dentist who never let him eat candy as a kid. Come on now! If normal with an edge is what you’re expecting, go far far away. A guy like this is (of course) going to be this bizarre…this socially awkward…this not-so-smooth-with-parents-or-children. After all, he is who he is, so why try and change him?

The more I thought about this throughout the film, the more I appreciated Depp and Burton’s direction. Willy Wonka shouldn’t be some flashy, oooo-and-aaaaa, mainstream entertainer (as Gene Wilder depicted him to be)…he should be almost exactly how Depp fashions him to be.

Gene Wilder purists are hating me right now but I don’t care. Even though I grew up watching the 1971 film again and again and love and admire it for other reasons, I still am so glad someone had the nerve to give this story a “go” again.

From the annoying yet oddly likable musical numbers to the Burton trademark set designs to the “new” oompa loompas that are oh-so-very-creepy and funny and hip and shocking and Beatles-esque and pop culture savvy….”Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” is probably one of the few movies of the summer that deserves to be seen on the big screen with a big audience (preferably with some children). Although it slips into almost science fiction fantasy in some moments (which is when it visually and emotionally becomes slightly disengaged and disconnected from the audience) it’s overall a sickly enjoyable treat. And a film Roald Dahl (knowing how and who he is and what he was like) I’m sure is very happy with.

P.S. Even though the perfection of Charlie was a bit too overdone, I still think this 2005 version brings out the satire in the story and tongue-and-cheek humor out of this messed up and imaginative work of childhood art much much more. The story is a fairy tale, yes, but it’s also a very bitingly funny satire. Burton takes advantage of this miracle from within the text, and allows it to critique and comment on the film and story and how it’s all being executed out on numerous occasions. And yes all, that is a very big compliment!

Mysterious Skin

Published
by
Neville
on May 31, 2005
in Based on a novel, Coming of age, Drama, Independent, Mystery and Prostitution
. 1 Comment

I really don’t know what to say about this one, so I’ll try and say very little.

If you wanna see the most disturbingly dead-on portrait of the harmful effects—physically, spiritually, and emotionally—of child sexual abuse, go see “Mysterious Skin.” Although in times it is a little too “indy” and has its cheesy acting moments, it still—in the end—gripped me tighter and pulled me more emotionally into its story than any other film of recent memory has. Its combination of extremely disturbing visuals juxtaposed with two very different approaches towards coping with sexual abuse makes for an intimate, harrowing, and unflinching film.

It could very well be the most emotionally affective movie of the year, but maybe that’s just me. All I know is, few other movies have brought me to tears while simultaneously causing me to turn my eyes away from the screen.

I think “Irreversible” was the last movie to make me seriously do that (minus the tears of course). Wow. Remember that one?

Okay, enough said.

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room

Published
by
Neville
on May 19, 2005
in Corporation and Documentary
. 0 Comments

“Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room” is the first great documentary of 2005, and it will no doubt be nominated and might very will next year’s Oscar. For someone who heard of Enron only after its dirty dealings, I was so grateful that the film attempted to show the before and after company; essentially, the company at the top of the slide and the company now in the bottom, wallowing in the mud.

“Enron” is not short on facts, which is helpful considering the array of complexities to be found in the scandal at large. But what I found to be most fascinating is how the filmmakers and editors and (in the end, the director) wanted to make the biggest corporate scandal of the century a spiritual matter. The film’s opening shot is of a church, with the words “JESUS SAVES” on top of it, placed in front of Enron’s tall, seemingly reflective skyscraper. The camera zooms out, and little is said but what is the point of such a shot? Why are the filmmakers making this comparison? For one obvious reason, could it be to say that corporate America is the new Christianity? Or possibly more simply put, corporate spirituality has replaced Christian spirituality? The initial shot is a powerful one but it doesn’t get explained (which is a good thing). Later on, toward the film’s end, a priest is interviewed concerning what happened with Enron and rightly so, he quotes Jesus in the book of Matthew concerning “gaining the world, and losing one’s soul.” If there were ever a more relevant movie to illustrate such a passage of Scripture, I’d love to see it…because “Enron” may very well be the best exegesis of this specific biblical text I’ve ever encountered. “Enron: THe Smartest Guys In The Room” makes its case in point, without being preachy or attaching itself to Christianity. It merely is showing you the scandal, showing you how it got so bad, showing you how people lied and cheated and stole from the middle and lower class of American citizens, and most importantly, showing you how perhaps the corporate criminals may be much worse than any gang member in L.A., or any kid’s school shooting in America.

By the film’s end, I was shocked, disappointed and moved—not to tears, but to frustration and feelings of injustice. And all I could see in my head was the picture of Enron’s CEO in a nice, sporty suit. Standing there, posing for the cover of a magazine, acting as if he has it all together and has the world figured out. What a sad truth and fate for him to find out that the ground he built is life upon was so fake, so phony and so terribly dishonest, that the entire state of California (and the rest of the world for that matter) would not be untouched by his harmful and ultimately self-centered life.

And remember, this can happen again. And more likely than not, it will sooner or later.

See this movie as soon as you can.

Crash

Published
by
Neville
on May 10, 2005
in Crime, Drama, Independent, Multiple story line, Racism and Social Commentary
. 0 Comments

“Crash,” Paul Haggis’ directorial debut (he wrote “Million Dollar Baby”) is as impressive as great films come. I’ve heard people talk about “Crash” and sigh because they think all it was about was racism. But it is about much much more than that. It’s about the goodness in people, and about the bad inside all of us. It’s about how people—especially in L.A.—suffer from a lack of human-to-human contact, and emphasizes the needful craving we all have for relationships. And of course, it’s about more drama and more coincidences than you can shake a stick at, but that’s all well and good in my opinion. It’s been compared to “Magnolia,” which I can see but feel that it’s somewhat of an unwarranted comparison. Just because a movie juggles a dozen characters wonderfully and complexly doesn’t mean they’re “Magnolia” or worthy to be compared to it. But “Crash” has some elements similar to it, and so, I can see why people are saying that. Although it’s not nearly as brutally honest or provocative or shockingly intimate as “Magnolia” was and is, “Crash” is wonderful in its own ways, one of which being in the way it manages to take a group of characters and make them multi-dimensional and multi-layered. I was fascinated by where they all were going and I was intrigued and entertained by them at the same time. And for a film so dark and naked in its portrayal of racial and ethnic stereotypes, it still manages to make you laugh and make you laugh at yourself.

Also, if there ever was a movie that showcased my favorite Madeleine L’Engle chapter entitled “What Are You Looking For?” (from “A Stone for a Pillow”) it would be “Crash.” It proves—in the first 10 minutes—how people see what they want to see, and how people will find whatever it is they are looking for. Be it bad, or good, or ugly, or racist—it’s all out there….waiting to be turned into something meaningful.

“Crash,” like “Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle,” sees America as it is today–particularly in terms of language differences and culture clashes. It is a gripping little imperfect piece of cinema, that will most likely garner a spot on my top ten list for 2005. Despite a few things I would’ve changed had I been the one making the movie (i.e., the end song that closes with the credits just does not fit—and ruined the mood of the film for me) and the final, ambiguous, yet, could-it-be-preaching-for-or-against-illegal-immigration shot—also felt out of place to some extent. However, this is a film you should definitely see, as long as you’re in the mood for some tough entertainment. Beautiful score, unforgettable moments, powerful movie…period.

Born Into Brothels

Published
by
Neville
on May 1, 2005
in Child Labor, Documentary, India and Photography
. 0 Comments

If only I would’ve waited until now to do my top ten list of 2004!!! But I guess some amendments can be made even now.

The 2004 winner for best documentary feature about children in the red light district of Calcutta is not only one of the best films of 2004, but it’s also one of the most original. Rarely do movies take the subject of art, and more specifically, photography, as serious as they do here in “Born Into Brothels.” Again and again throughout, the movie explodes with tiny snapshot treasures from a child’s eye view of the world. At times, it is both profound and heartbreaking, uplifting and devastating, while brilliant and colorful cinematography make the trashed streets of the red light district look like a colorful playground, just waiting to be captured and experienced and played in.

The movie, like most documentaries, doesn’t necessarily follow any three-act structure but rather feels like several short films tossed around together to make up what very well could be the most poignant documentary about children ever made (yes, even topping “In This World” and “Spellbound” and even the heartbreakingly subtle yet powerful Spike Lee Oscar-winning “4 Little Girls”). “Born Into Brothels” is about creativity and hope and about having the power to change your world no matter how dismal, but it’s also about reality, and about never undermining or minimalizing the painful world so many people outside of America experience.

While I do have my two little favorite kids (one boy and one girl) I’ll let you find your own favorites once you see the movie for yourself. No matter if you have to drive an hour to see it, please just go & see it. It’s not hitting DVD shelves until September and if you can see it before then on the big screen, you most definitely should.

Citizen Ruth

Published
by
Neville
on April 25, 2005
in Abortion, Comedy, Drama and Independent
. 3 Comments

Abortion. Another movie on abortion? I know what you’re thinking but let me explain.

This 1996 directorial debut of the brilliant Alexander Payne (”Sideways,” “Election,” and my definite favorite “About Schmidt”) is just as dark as his darkest movie (”Election” probably) and just as poignant as well (”About Schmidt”). Like with any one of Payne’s movies, the first and final five minutes of the film are the culmination of a great work of art—as it communicates the ideas and truths and feelings that are found throughout the rest of the film. In “Citizen Ruth,” Laura Dern gives a walloping, white-trash performance as a poor mother who huffs a lot, living in an America that only cares about causes–refusing to consider, even for a moment, the individual. This movie isn’t about advocating pro-choice or pro-life political agendas because really, it spends the whole movie making fun of both sides. It faults the psycho-evangelical-no-questions-asked-picketing-’Abortion-Kills-Children’ approach of the right while dishing out that the left is more concerned with winning then losing to a group of “religious folks.” Their are almost-equal attacks all around but really, the story is about Ruth–and about how no one really gives a rip about her needs and her life.

In one of the most poignant scenes from the film, Ruth is found in jail…crying out…praying out loud to God, curled up in the fetal position on the cold prison floor. She’s crying out for love, crying out for help, and the rest of the film is seemingly what she gets. But is it enough?

With Rolfe Kent’s beautiful and luminous score (again, the wonderful composer behind “About Schmidt” and Payne’s other films) closing the end film sequence that shows once again, just how powerful “showing” and not “telling” the story is when it comes to watching movies, Payne constructs (like he always does) an ending that is not only better than the sum of the film’s parts, but one that shows why he’s still around making good films, almost 10 years later.

After “Vera Drake,” check this one out for a way different perspective on the whole question of abortion. It doesn’t give answers, just raises questions—and points to what should be the force driving any social movement or cause here in America. But please, please…understand “Citizen Ruth” is a very, very dark comedy. More disturbing and sad than it is laugh-out-loud funny.

Vera Drake

Published
by
Neville
on April 17, 2005
in Abortion, Crime, Drama and England
. 5 Comments

Finally, a movie on abortion that treats it with respect and dignity and humanity. “Vera Drake,” is a movie most people need to see not because it is an amazing film, but because it has that sort of gentleness and tenderness toward family and forgiveness; toward choosing life and choosing love. Although many people may shy away from “Vera Drake” because they think it’s left-wing political propaganda, that isn’t what the movie is trying to do at all (in my mind at least—it’s not a “pro-choice” movie, although many will look at it in that light). In a sense, it’s trying to discuss abortion as if the whole debate never existed. It takes us to a place where people still struggle with the issue—and when I say “still struggle” I mean, they still think about it harder than most Americans and most Christians generally do—and this world seems simple and quaint, yet unmistakably unsettling. Imelda Staunton plays Vera Drake, a 1950s woman living in England who lives to love and loves to live. She’s a housekeeper, a maid, a loving mother, a loyal wife—but she’s also an abortionist, a word that even the movie suggests is a bit “over-the-top” to describe someone. In her mind, she’s simply helping women who can’t think of any other way out.

Since this is a film by Mike Leigh, the purist filmmaker who strives for honest filmmaking and real-life representation in most all of his films, the movie has a very intimate feel and yet, a very sad one as well. It’s one that’s worth the rental not because of its subject matter but because of its graceful way of handling forgiveness, which is really what the movie is mostly about.

See it.