les invasions barbares (the barbarian invasions). canada / france, 2003.
21 grams. usa, 2003.
winged migration. france, 2003.
capturing the friedmans. usa, 2003.
star wars episode ii. usa, 2002.
monsters, inc. usa, 2001.
geung si sin sang (mr. vampire). hong kong, 1985.
finding nemo. usa, 2003. Wow – I was blown away by this flick. I’m actually proud to work in computer graphics when Pixar can make such a stellar film using the technology. The film’s success is really in the imagination and skill of its creators: good characters, and brilliant animation to evoke their personalities. Pixar still suffers from a masculine view of the world (witness the dippy female character), but they’ve improved a lot from past films.
spellbound. usa, 2002.
the station agent. usa, 2003.
lost in translation. usa, 2003.
kill bill vol. 1. usa, 2003. So violent, so gory. There were some truly inventive shots and fights in this film; I have to give Tarantino credit. It was all very memorable, and very stylish. But I just didn’t have the stomach for the level of “comic” violence he used in this film. update: I saw this again in 2005, and I actually really liked it the second time. So much style and comedy… I can put up with the worst of the violence for that, now.
the birds. usa, 1963.
the saddest music in the world. canada, 2003.
fog of war. usa, 2003.
animal nightmares: sex, frogs and rock ‘n’ roll. canada, 2003. Peter Lynch really outdid himself with this flick. After project grizzly and cyberman, the last thing I expected was a glossy, freaky music video. Very stylish and creative, but probably impossible to see outside a film festival.
bugsy malone. usa, 1984.
x-men 2. usa, 2003.
the matrix reloaded. usa, 2003.
the hours. usa, 2002.
x-men. usa, 2001.
hable con ella (talk to her). spain, 2002.
love happy. usa, 1948.
intacto. spain, 2002. A top-notch flick. I’m not sure if it was the espresso before the movie, but my heart was thumping non-stop through this philosophical thriller. It’s a very eerie piece, dealing with a world where luck is not random. Individuals hold luck, and can steal luck from others. The ramifications of this fact play out slowly over the movie, which is shot in an eerie Lynchesque lighting, with a suitable soundtrack. The storytelling is excellent, communicating complicated ideas in a clear, highly visual manner. First rate.
gangs of new york. usa, 2002. Wow, what a violent movie. It felt like it had the material to be a great film, but the actual movie didn’t live up to the promise. Some magnificent sprawling setpieces, a very convincing bit of geography and an excellent period look, but there’s just not enough thematic material to tie it together. To justify the raw, ugly violence of the opening scene, I needed a grander, deeper, and more coherent message. To its credit, the movie is much more realistic about American history than most: class warfare, racism and lynch mobs, and the ugliness of the political system are well represented. But the initial ugly gang brawl still sits poorly with me: it was shot with fast-paced excitement music, and it didn’t tie into any of the other themes, really. All it did was set the tone and shape a vivid image of the Five Points. Sorry, Scorcese – you didn’t deserve an Oscar for this one.
nine queens. italy, 2002.
roger and me. usa, 1988.
russian ark. russia, 2002.
être et avoir (to be and to have). france, 2002.
blue velvet. usa, 1986. It took a while to make up my mind about this one, but in the end I liked it. It’s a difficult film to watch, and distinctly strange and twisted. The real trick with the movie is that you think you understand it: the story is straightforward, there isn’t any nonlinear narrative structure or dream sequences. The characters and situations are outlandish, but you could easily just reject it as a bad or gratuitous movie. mulholland drive, by comparison, was outrageously difficult to follow, so you spend a lot of time analysing it before drawing a judgment. To my mind, mulholland drive is still the better film, and definitely more accessible. However, if you spend some time reflecting on the characters and meaning of the scenes in blue velvet, there’s a lot of substance there. And there’s no denying the power of lynch’s style; the images and music of the film have stuck in my head for weeks afterwards.
siunin wong fei-hung tsi titmalau (iron monkey). hong kong, 1993. Some very fun kung fu, with the typical way-over-the-top acting and so on. A little too mysogynistic at times, but otherwise excellent. There are a few spectacular fights along the way, especially in the finale.
the pianist. poland, 2002.
feng yue (temptress moon). china, 1996. I wasn’t very impressed, frankly.
dogtown & z-boys. usa, 2002. A fun ride. Very informative for those of us who knew nothing about skateboarding history, and some cool shots of 70s style skateboarding, doing surfing tricks with narrow boards in empty pools and so on.
microcosmos. france, 1996. Fantastic, incredible cinematography. There’s no plot – it’s just 24 hours in a French field, shot at the scale of an insect. This is a film of beautiful, mind-blowing images, and the insects themselves are full of many all-too-human surprises.
banff mountain film festival. I saw several films: eiger b.a.s.e., cannibals and crampons, white trax and more.
le salaire de la peur (wages of fear). france, 1953. A very tight thriller, with even surprises to keep a modern filmgoer interested. The plot: drifters in a South American town take a job moving nitroglycerin by truck to an oil fire. If the truck is bumped, they’ll be blown sky-high. The start is quite slow, but once they get in the trucks the tension never lets up. Remarkable considering its age.
barbarella. usa, 1968. Yes, it’s camp. But it still feels to exploitative for my tastes, and I can understand why the one woman in the audience left after a few minutes.
himalaya: l’enfance d’un chef. uk / france / switzerland / nepal, 1999. Beautiful images, and a straightforward plot.
8 mile. usa, 2002.
repo man. usa, 1984.
the execution of wanda-jean. usa, 2002.
american movie. usa, 2001. A remarkably sympathetic documentary, with a mildly scathing view of American life mixed in for good measure.
bowling for columbine. usa, 2002. Quite entertaining, more than a little deceitful, and generally on-the-money. It even had a shot of my ex-girlfriend’s home, which was (inaccurately) labelled as a slum.
manhunter. usa, 1986.
punch-drunk love. usa, 2002. Good, sometimes great, but a little uneven. I’m still not sure what to make of it.
chinatown. usa, 1974.
spirited away. japan, 2002. First-rate, and much easier to absorb than princess mononoke was.
donnie darko. usa, 2001.
e v o. canada, 2002. AWFUL!! Stay far, far away. The worst film that I have ever seen, and that’s quite an accomplishment. Film school wankery at its worst, claiming scientific greatness and depth with visual daring, and failing on all counts. The world’s cheesiest special effects (palette- rotated blowjobs and porn, anyone?), pretentious text that the filmmaker clearly didn’t understand, and a few minutes of Richard Dawkins (the only redeeming feature, and clearly over the head of the filmmaker). Honestly, this will never make it to theatres or video, so no one else will have to suffer through the shit. Just feel sorry for me okay? And never, ever, bother with experimental film poetry.
dracula: pages from a virgin’s diary. canada, 2002. Excellent. Spectacular visuals, and the marriage of ballet and surreal cinema is perfect.
the trial of henry kissinger. uk, 2002.
after jenin. 2002.
seeing is believing: handicams and the news. canada, 2002.
lilya-4-ever. sweden, 2001. Lukas Moodysson’s together and fucking åmal were brilliant films, amongst the best I’ve seen during the last year. This one pales by comparison, but is still a strong contender. My largest criticism is that it doesn’t make a strong statement beyond nihilism. There’s a faint thread of “this could be happening in your everyday life; do something to stop it”, but it’s faint and uncertain.
fix: the story of an addicted city. canada, 2002. Marvellous.
view from the summit. canada, 2002.
a tree without roots. bangladesh, 2002.
hellhouse. usa, 2002.
waking life. usa, 2001. First rate.
vernon, florida. usa, 1981.
magnolia. usa, 2000.
about a boy. usa, 2002.
treed murray. canada, 2001.
lumumba. france, 2000.
lolita. uk, 1962.
blue crush. usa, 2002.
once upon a time in china 2. china, 1992.
red sorghum. china, 1987.
nikogarsnja zemlja (no man’s land). bosnia-herzegovina / slovenia, 2001. An intriguing film. In tone, this film is a much lighter-hearted look at the Serbian powderkeg than cabaret balkan was. But the message of the film is equally bleak: there is little solution to the mess that they’ve got themselves into, regardless of the good (or bad) intentions of the UN, the media, and the international community. There are some hilarious portrayals of different nations’ attitudes in here: the French peacekeepers who start every conversation with “Vous parlez français?”, without meeting a single french-speaker; the central role of a psychotic design of American-made mine; the British twit in command. A worthwhile film, if somewhat unhappy.
ulee’s gold. usa, 1997. I’d heard good things about this film, but I wasn’t honestly very impressed. It’s a slow drama starring Peter Fonda, who tries to help his family back from the brink of disaster after his son is arrested. Overall, it felt too much like a retiree’s fairytale: the old grandfather saves the day, everyone comes around and understands his passions, and no problem is too great. The way that the oldest grand-daughter changes is completely implausible, and the quick conversion to beekeeping was too easy as well. Nevertheless, the film does avoid some of the classic pitfalls of the genre, and would definitely make a good recommendation for any filmviewer who dislikes the more violent and unhappy cinema made these days.
amores perros. mexico, 2000. A truly excellent film. Violent, unhappy, etc. etc., but it has the potential to really make you think. This is a story of three sides of Mexico, and it’s also a narrative on the risks of love. The first part shows us the violent, crazy life of the hopeless lower classes, where tragedy is caused by love of money, and love unreturned. The second (and weakest) short story tells us about the upper classes, where the biggest risk to love is accidental destruction and self-love. The final (and strongest) segment follows a homeless man, and speaks of the risks of love destroyed by our own actions. I found this third part to be the most moving and human of the narratives, and it closes the film with a hopeful note. The movie is gripping in its violence and tragedy, but offers enough themes and depth to warrant contemplation after the fact.
insomnia. usa, 2002.
spike & mike’s classic animation festival. usa, 2002.
ghost world. usa, 2001. This proved to be a remarkable little comedy. Usually, I avoid anything based on a comic book, but reviews were quite positive. And the risk paid off – the film take risks and really succeeds. It’s a cynical sort of comedy, but it has some real insights into the present culture of alienation, and it’s not lacking in hilarity along the way.
spider-man. usa, 2002.
l’emploi du temps (time out). france, 2000.
reservoir dogs. usa, 1992.
lawn & order. canada, 1995.
project grizzly. canada, 1996.
stranger than paradise. usa, 1984.
city of lost children. france, 1995.
the white balloon. iran, 1995.
muppets from space.
a matter of life and death. uk, 1946.
the chocolate wars. usa, 1991.
slackers. usa, 1992.
le fabuleux destin d’amélie poulain (amélie). france, 2000.
le pacte des loups (brotherhood of the wolf). france, 2000. Whoa. This is one messed-up movie, a real genre-bender. Take an 18th century wolf legend, add some eighteenth century costume drama, then toss in some kung fu, iroquois mysticism and a dash of political intrigues. The plot makes almost no sense and is completely over-the-top (just wait until you see the sword / nunchucks scene), combining traditional french martial arts like savate with some serious Hong Kong action. The film’s visuals are quite spectacular, though: also over the top and excessively arty, but this is still a refreshing change in the tired action genre. Lots of cute slow-mo water shots, dripping blood, and supertight depth-of-field. The visuals almost make it worthwhile.
mononoke bure (princess mononoke). japan, 1999. I’ve never quite understood the anime movement. At Waterloo, the second-biggest club on campus was CTRL-A, the Club That Really Likes Anime. I saw akira in high school, and thought that it was mostly just excessively violent and weird. On the other hand, my favourite television as a kid were almost all Japanese: astroboy, g-force, voltron. So, after hearing overwhelming positive reviews for this film, I gave it a shot. The artwork is gorgeous, reminding me of my childhood anime, of older Japanese painting, and even battle scenes that looked like Akira Kurosawa’s ran. Some of the best scenes are in the forest, where Hayao Miyazaki composes a beautiful still with just the slightest animation. Unfortunately, the characters are very flat and the plot just goes to hell during the final third of the movie. It devolves into an akira-style holocaust in the end, and then tacks on a happy conclusion. Maybe holocaust is a notable theme of Japanese cinema, but my tolerance in this respect is a little limited.
35 up. united kingdom, 1992. 42 up. united kingdom, 1999. These films are the latest installments in the long-running 7 up documentary series by Michael Apted. The premise is simple: take 14 children at the age of seven, film them, then come back every seven years and interview them again. The series makes for potent criticism of English class structure, as we see the upper-class children achieve their dreams easily while the lower-class children struggle with variable results. You can’t help but compare your life to the characters’ lives. A truly excellent and engaging series – I’ll have to see the earlier installments.
le temps retrouvé (time regained). france, 2001. Marcel Proust’s writing is alleged to be almost indecipherable, and this film adaptation by Raoul Ruiz is certainly not an easygoing ride. I think that I tried to hard to understand what was happening, when the true content of the film lies in its style, its visual language. There are some truly luscious set pieces in the film, with some very disconcerting, swirling visual effects mixed in. It’s a beautiful piece, but it defied my understanding, at least on the first viewing.
meet the feebles. new zealand, 1989. I can’t believe that Peter Jackson ever 1) got money to make this; 2) got to make the lord of the rings after making this! It’s a totally twisted version of the Muppets, with a heroin-addict frog who has Vietnam flashbacks, a walrus / hippo pair to substitute for Kermit and Miss Piggy, a gay troupe director who puts on a splashy Sodomy song and dance number, and every bodily fluid imaginable. Gross, yes, but still occasionally funny. The Vietnam sequence is easily the best, and some of the other scenes are worthy, but the end was just gratuitously violent. Not for the squeamish.
harold & maude. usa, 1971. A curious little darkly comic oddity. Harold is 20, nearly mute, and likes faking suicides. Maude is 79, and a bit of a manic hippie. Somehow, they fall in love. It sounds improbable, but it (almost) works in the film… I was never fully convinced, but this is a fantasy-type film, really. Although the suicide part sounds dark, it’s not really a very dark film, more comic than anything. It’s quirky, but decent.
cabaret balkan. yugoslavia, 1999. They don’t come much darker than this. I’d heard that it was dark, but the first several scenarios weren’t too bad – grim, yes, but I’d seen worse. By the end, however, the film was as bleak and unhappy as anything I’ve seen. It’s a political allegory for the state of life in Yugoslavia, told in a series of chapters. In each story, a minor incident spirals out of control into violence, and the victims of one story become the aggressors in the next. The story flows very plausibly, giving a real feel for how violence begets violence. It’s a depressing film, but very well done. One scene in particular stands out: a man and his girlfriend are being held captive by a coke addict and a young boy, and the addict begins to rape the girlfriend, while forcing her boyfriend to sing his native Macedonian anthem. It was a very powerful scene, with brilliant acting and staging.
captain corelli’s mandolin. usa, 2001. I expected it to be dreadful, and it wasn’t. The scenery is gorgeous, the script is braver than you’d expect, the accents are atrocious, and the politics are braindead. It won’t get a high recommendation, but I won’t slag it totally I either.
mulholland drive. usa, 2001. Having just seen this again, I have to put some comments in. This is a truly fabulous film – everything that a film buff loves. It’s amorphous; don’t expect a clear narrative, logical progression, or anything so trite. The biggest virtue of the film, in my view, is that no one can agree on what exactly happened. Better yet, everyone who likes the film comes away and argues about the plot, about the meaning of symbols (what is that blue box supposed to mean?). And reinforcing the bewildering plot is a sumptuous style and excellent score, cinematography and directing. This one’s a winner, folks.
gosford park. uk, 2001.
the shipping news. usa, 2001.
the castle. australia, 1997.
the lord of the rings. new zealand / usa, 2001.
le dîner de cons (the dinner game). france, 1998.
le temps retrouvé (time regained). france, 2000.
trust. usa, 1990. My friend Lars insisted over and over again that I watch a Hal Hartley movie. Eric Brochu played this for a new movie night, and I now see why Lars liked the director. Initially, it felt a little too much like Ayn Rand: selfish characters interacting. But I warmed to the style, the verbal sparring and unreality that Hartley seems to favour. Good acting, and incredible considering the budget.
fucking åmål (show me love). sweden, 1999. Yes, after hearing about this film umpteen times from Lars, I finally got around to showing it. In fact, I played it for the Green College film nights, to much acclaim. It’s quite a well-assembled film, with excellent character development, and utterly real. If virgin suicides was the first film I’d seen that showed the high school prom accurately, then this is the first film that shows the high school house party correctly. I really liked the sympathetic shots of Elin’s male love interest – obviously a dim fellow, but still a nice guy, still human. Prime quality.
warren miller’s snoworld. usa, 2001.
kandahar. iran / afghanistan, 2001.
planet of the apes. usa, 2001.
rosemary’s baby. usa, 1968.
tilsammans (together). sweden, 2000. I have to put in a good word for this flick, since it’s one of the best films I’ve seen this year. If you’ve grown up with left-wing parents, then run to the nearest specialty video store and rent this film! Set in a 1970s Swedish hippie commune, it follows a wide range of characters lives. The primary focus is Elisabeth, who has just left her alcoholic, abusive husband to join her brother in the commune. The strange characters in this house are vividly portrayed, and the humour is first-rate. The director, Lukas Moodysson, does a great job of developing sympathy, and doesn’t take any cheap shots. Even the abusive husband is deserving of sympathy. This is the best comedy that I saw in 2001. (Note that I didn’t seen amélie until 2002…
le 15 février, 1839. québec, 2001.
atanarjuat, the fast runner. canada, 2001. The first film in Inuktitut is good, and not simply as an anthropological curiosity. A traditional Inuit tale of betrayal was set to film with real panache. Handheld cameras reveal the scale of the Arctic landscape and the rhythm of life in the north several centuries ago. The culture is undoubtedly alien, but human elements remain at the forefront, although there are (thankfully) no apologies for lifestyles that may seem politically incorrect to Western sensibilities. I found this film truly engaging, both in terms of culture and story.
moulin rouge. usa, 2001.
la goût des autres (the taste of others). france, 2000.
the godfather part ii. usa, 1974.
eat my twisted shorts. various. I saw this at the festival juste pour rire / just for laughs festival recently. The National Film Board put on two sets of shorts, one regular and one “twisted”. There were some hilarious films amongst the twisted set, plus a few that were a little too disturbing. The standout was definitely rejected from don hertzfeld (usa, 2000). From the first few seconds of stick drawings, the audience was already giggling – it’s that good. The premise is that the animator was commissioned to do a series of commercials for the (fictional) Family Learning Channel, which were rejected. And you can see why they’d be rejected… they’re kind of messed up and disturbed.
ai. usa / uk, 2001.
taxi 2. france, 2000.
apocalypse now. usa, 1979.
pulp fiction. usa, 1994.
pleasantville. usa, 1999.
the godfather part i. usa, 1972.
yi-yi (and a one and a two). taiwan, 2000.
chungking express. taiwan, 1999.
the dish. australia, 2000.
man on the moon. usa, 1999.
the virgin suicides. usa, 1999. So, the dark little flick from Francis Ford Coppola’s daughter Sophia came my way recently. I knew nothing about this, going in, but was pleasantly surprised. It’s not an easy film, and my John Woo-fan friends didn’t take well to it, but it’s well made. Flipping quickly from funny to bleak, it takes some adjustment. I liked the cinematography, and I really liked the shot of Lux leaving the football field… that really stayed with me. The little documentary-style inserts were intriguing too; usually, tricks like that feel manipulative, but this story lent itself well to that treatment. I’ll be watching for more from this director, and not just on account of her father’s name.
roman holiday. usa, 1953. Okay, so my friend Naomi loved it, and Sameera liked it too. Naomi even imitated Hepburn’s moves when she visited Rome. And it’s cool to see all of that familiar Roman landscape. But it’s still a pretty schlocky story, dripping over with silliness. I think I’d have to watch this in a really lovesick mood to enjoy it properly… I’m too critical otherwise. (Okay, it is funny, it isn’t too culturally insensitive, and it’s a classic. Don’t take my critical uppiness too seriously.)
wild strawberries. sweden, 1957. Ya gotta watch some classics some times. Ingmar Bergman’s best known film filled my evening a few nights ago, and it wasn’t bad. I’m not sure what to make of it overall – some of the characters seemed way too outlandish for 1950s Sweden – but it was well-made. I loved the silly flirtatious girl, and the yesteryear characters’ wickedly wanky mustaches. I still have trouble getting absorbed by black-and-white the way I do with colour, though.
la veuve de st. pierre (the widow of st. pierre). canada/france, 2000. Ben, c’est le premier film français que j’ai vu depuis… euh… septembre. Malheureusement, ça ne vallait presque pas la peine. Les trailers étaient les pires que j’ai vu de ma vie – des films québécois que j’espère sortiront jamais de la belle province. Le film lui-même avait des points forts: la cinématographie est exquis, des bleus muets et les paysages maritimes éblouissants. Quelques-uns des comédiens faisaient bien aussi, y compris Daniel Auteuil, mais la reste ne vallait pas la peine. Peut-être j’avais malcompris trop de la dialogue française, mais je trouvais l’histoire ennuyant et maladroit. Trop révisioniste pour mes goûts.
being john malkovich. usa, 1999. I’d heard so much about this film that it couldn’t possibly live up to the hype. The premise is cool, from the half-floor to entering John Malkovich’s brain, and much of it plays out well. I loved the world filled with John Malkovichs, and the ra-ra-puppeteering games. But I didn’t take well to some of the bits that felt too much like… my high school joke videos. The “we’ll build a place for midgets” gag was just sad, as was the “isn’t John Cusack pitiful?” running joke. Okay, the hippy people are clueless, just as the ad exec is predatory – show me a new cliché, guys. Ordinarily, I’d overlook this, but it doesn’t belong in such a highly rated film.
snatch. uk/usa. Okay, I probably shouldn’t admit that I really liked this… but then, I haven’t seen lock stock, so I don’t know how derivative it is. The film had me laughing most of the way through, even if it didn’t make much sense at times. Mostly, it’s about Brad Pitt’s kickass accent, or the gratuitous Madonna reference, or the slicin’ dicin’ Brit accents. I don’t know why del Toro is in this film, since he does basically nothing… but whatever. Enjoy.
oh brother where art thou? usa. I’m not used to the Coen brothers, honestly – I liked the big lebowski, and I liked this film, but I can’t really say why. The zany humour, the musical numbers, the uselessness of George Clooney’s character, the wacky interweaving of Homer references… none of these really explains how such an off-the-wall film was so damn enjoyable. I really did like that music, though, and I’ve never been one for country or bluegrass, although I have a soft spot for dixie jazz… which wasn’t in the film. So, screw my critical skills, and suffice it to say that the flick’s good stuff.
