Mud (2012)

Galen: "This shit never gets easy."

By Jeff Nichols
With Matthew McConaughey, Tye Sheridan and Jacob Lofland

When I was a child I read several books that revolved around boys on the cusp of puberty, and their travels away from home, living an adventurous and dangerous life on the run, learning a few hard lessons, and coming home changed. It's almost like a rite of of passage, the extreme desire to break away from the home, forging a connection with the land and nature, and a growing awareness of women and the confusion that is only to be expected afterwards as the protagonist knew little of how to communicate with girls whose presence was often absent in tight-knit male social circles.

But I felt that Mud departed from this common story line if only in the sense that his growing realizations of the complex nature of love and relationships were enriched with the parallel experiences of his soon-to-be-divorced parents, his newly-acquired girlfriend, and most importantly, through the experiences of Mud, a mysterious homeless man in search of his true love. The protagonist, Ellis, comes to meet Mud on an island when going to play with his friend, Neckbone. Soon, the two boys enter a pact with Mud to help him meet the love of his life, a beautiful woman named Juniper. Ellis soon finds himself deeply entangled in Mud's situation.

At first, the relationship between Mud and Ellis, which vacillates from mentor to friend to equal reminded me strongly of the relationship the character "Pip" has with the convict "Magwitch" in Charles Dickens' Great Expectations. Pip in the novel was also tasked with providing a convict food, and knowing that society has cast him out. Similarly in this film, the two boys are faced with a choice to trust a man they clearly know is on the wrong side of the law. In the book, Magwitch ultimately provides for Pip in his growing years, and is responsible in a sense for bringing Pip together with the girl he will revere and love for all his life. I don't know that Mud would financially provide for the boy, but it is clear by the end of the film that Ellis' encounter with Mud profoundly affected and would continue to affect his life.

Of the recurring motifs in this film, the most noticeable is that of the snake. Mud has a snake tattooed on his arm, and tells the two boys a story about how dangerous a snake bite is, and that the antidote only works once. In an argument with Ellis' mother, Senior, his father, calls her a snake. And most glaringly, as narrated by Mud, the fear of the snake goes back to the early histories of mankind and women in certain tribes in the past would wrap a snake around their belly to scare a baby into labor.

For me this repeated symbol of the snake was biblically resonant as well--as the snake is reminiscent of Lilith, who is half woman and half snake. So for the purposes of this film and the puberty of the two boys, Ellis and Neckbone, and even of Mud and Senior and Galen (Neckbone's uncle) their problems with women and with love are as potent and fatal as a snake bite, as Lilith or the devil. It seems in the homo-social environment the male protagonists are exposed to color all women into dangerous and volatile species, much like the devil or Lilith or snakes, and they need to be in constant guard. Their obsession and fear of snakes is mirrored in their consuming passion and obsession with women. For Mud, it defines his life as he commits a crime he is constantly on the run for out of love for a woman and for Ellis, he too feels the sting of letting a girl too close to his heart. Ellis witnesses this with the disintegration of his parents' marriage as well, and comes to blame his mother for his father's unhappiness.

What was fascinating for me was the film's awareness and even manipulation of the fact that the men and boys in the film were unable to understand the women in their lives and were either reducing them to a villain and a "snake" or somehow allowing their presence and existence to make them become violent (as Mud is violent or as Ellis is--to which the girl he loves says something to the effect of "You can't punch all your problems away".)

The film to me seemed to come to one of its most graceful thematic climaxes when it showed its male protagonists witnessing and empathizing with the "other side of the story", the perspective of the "snake"-- most remarkably when Ellis witnesses Mud's long loved woman, Juniper, cry heartrendingly into a bed after an interaction with Mud, even though she had seemingly displayed callous and indifferent behavior the night before in a bar. Ellis' face in that scene was as raw as anything I have witnessed in cinema, at the realization that the emotions run far deeper than he could have imagined.

All this to say simply that this was a sumptuous and delightful film to watch. No pretensions, and the actors are brilliantly at ease with their roles. It felt honest and genuine and meaningful, and an experience not easily forgettable. There are scores of coming-of-age films, but this one bring something sweeter than any other I've seen--it shows just how long spanning the growing process is, and that puberty is not just about turning 14, but that the struggle with the self, with others, with love and relationships and life and meaning are those from which one learns from for the rest of their lives, even when they are 35, even when they are 80, and even when they are 14. To be it was endearing and beautiful to see the boyish confusion and deep earnestness in all of the characters, and how much they wanted to be good and to make their loved ones proud and safe. It was an instinct that spanned generations, and that came across in a wonderful and subtle way in this film.

I highly recommend this psychologically rich gem of a film. What beautiful and flawed and lovable characters. The sweetness of human connection, transcending gender and age.

90/100

Mud (2012)

Mud: "I don't traffic in the truth too often, but I did love her. I do."

By Jeff Nichols
With Matthew McConaughey, Tye Sheridan and Jacob Lofland

I didn't know what to think of Mud at first. Usually when that  happens I browse the director's other films and it is usually a good tell especially when it comes to directors who are also writers. I came to know Jeff Nichols also directed Take Shelter (2011) which was a good surprise largely due to the lead actor Michael Shannon. I was curious to see if Matthew McConaughey had what it took to follow in this lead actor role.

In Arkansas, Ellis, a young 14 year old boy and his best, or only, friend Neckbone go out on Ellis' father's boat and explore an island where there is a boat stuck in a tree. They climb up and explore the boat only to realize that this boat is inhabited by someone. Their time is up and they need to give the boat back to Ellis' father, but they spot some footsteps in the sand, the same Ellis saw in the boat in the tree. After following the track to no avail, they turn back and there a man stands next to their boat. Ellis and Mud, the man's name, will form a special bond, both seeing the damages of love first hand. Ellis' parents are on the verge of divorce and Mud is on the run after killing a man who beat up the girl of his dreams. Mud being unable to leave the island because of both state troopers and bounty hunters, Ellis and Neckbone will help him out with a wide range of services. But this strange collaboration might endanger the three of them more greatly than they can foresee.

It seems that Arkansas is a staple of Jeff Nichols' movies and here it plays a role, maybe not as important as the main characters but it is certainly a secondary character since so much of the film revolves around this little town's intrinsic mechanisms and beautiful island by the water sceneries. The Southern accent that comes with being in Arkansas is also enjoyable.

The strength of the movie resides, not necessarily in its story, but in the development of the relationships between all the characters. The story is quite simple - boys find fugitive, fugitive wants girl, girl is trouble, boys help fugitive, what does fugitive do to help those who help him? That is of course a very narrow way to see it but this is just to show that the story is simple in appearance and yet the movie doesn't get boring a single minute even though it runs over two hours.

One of the greatest tasks of making such a movie is the casting of the boys as they are pivotal to everything the movie has. So you need to find boys with chemistry and ones you would believe to build up such traits towards a fugitive. This aspect works out in every way. Matthew McConaughey is also very convincing (even though he does keep his shirt on for the vast majority of the time) and even I believed that he genuinely loved the girl who once saved his life.

In addition to all this, the music added a great feel to the movie. Nevertheless, some events seemed unrealistic and mostly there in order to drive the story line in a certain direction. For example, the constant references to the snakes or the weird ritual of the bounty hunters were aspects I felt weren't necessarily needed. Some characters also tend to be reduced to a single purpose, one dimension characters, for example the assassin who just happens to live across the river or the uncle who searches the bottom of the river for lost items.

However, these instances do not damage the movie much and in the end it delivers a really good knot of believable characters who all try to do good but whose efforts might just lead to failure. Matthew McConaughey signs another good serious role, after Killer Joe (2011) proving that he's more than this shirtless actor of said romantic comedy. Jeff Nichols proves to make beautiful and solid films given a simple story and I hope to see more of those.

I liked: The bonds between the 3 boys. Beautiful landscapes, well filmed.

I disliked: A few contrived situations.

80/100
I enjoyed it thoroughly, it doesn't hold anything revolutionary but it is well executed and it feels rewarding to watch such a movie.

Drinking Buddies (2013)

Kate: "I just need a smaller place, 'cause my place is meant for two and I am meant for one."

By Joe Swanberg
With Olivia Wilde, Jake Johnson and Anna Kendrick

I didn't investigate too much into Drinking Buddies before deciding to see it. I like beer and it seemed like a light comedy about relationships that I could watch once I'd be in the mood. It was only after that I realized it was by the same director of Autoerotic (2011) which was a really bad movie overall.

Kate and Luke are colleagues at a brewery, where he makes the beer and she serves it and is responsible for promotions and tasting events. Both love beer to a great extent and love going out for drinks after work with their other colleagues. They seem to be really good friends without much boundaries except for the fact that they are both in relationships. When they go for a weekend on a double date it clearly seems that their respective loved ones are much better with one another and Luke and Kate with one another. As expected with four individuals, each of them will handle the matter differently and the consequences will vary greatly.

Drinking Buddies is quite fun at times. The drinking is quite appetizing and the acting is fairly good. I am not a big fan of Olivia Wilde, unlike many I know, but her careless attitude was in line with the character. Sadly the movie doesn't seem to have any message or ideas to pass on to the viewer and the mostly improvised dialogues and weird friendship/relationship dynamics do not help the viewer in seeing any clearer in the midst of all that. We are served a jolly mix of jealousy and awkward situations.

The one good thing, which would have been so easy to do and has been overused way too much in movies, is that it doesn't end up blaming everything on the liquor. Yes they drink, but no, that's not why they act the way they act. Plus no one dies of cirrhosis.

I wasn't really bored seeing Drinking Buddies, but I might have enjoyed it more if I had one of those fine amber ales in my hand. But in the end I felt like I had watched the characters go in circle and nothing really happened. I was hoping to see more about the friendship/relationship border which really seemed to be the core of the movie but no great analysis or dialogue came up.

Anna Kendrick and Ron Livingston, respectively Jill and Chris, were both the finest actors and the most interesting characters but sadly had only so little screen time. The music was pretty good though, especially when played on vinyl I feel like it adds something to the scene.

I liked: Refrain from the usual clichés about alcohol. Sufficiently funny.

I disliked: Very stereotypical double-date. Empty of learnings or messages or goals.

58/100
I wouldn't exactly recommend it, but if you decide to see it you will probably not get bored. It has weird dynamics that are played out well.

The History of Love (2006) -- Book Review

“I want to say somewhere: I've tried to be forgiving. And yet. There were times in my life, whole years, when anger got the better of me. Ugliness turned me inside out. There was a certain satisfaction in bitterness. I courted it. It was standing outside, and I invited it in. I scowled at the world. And the world scowled back...And to be honest: I wasn't really angry. Not anymore. I had left my anger somewhere long ago. Put it down on a park bench and walked away. And yet. It had been so long. I didn't know any other way of being.” 

― Nicole Krauss, The History of Love 

“I scowled at the world. And the world scowled back. We were locked in a stare of mutual disgust.” 

― Nicole Krauss, The History of Love 

Sometimes I imagine my own autopsy. Disappointment in myself: right kidney. Disappointment of others in me: left kidney. Personal failures: kishkes. I don’t mean to make it sound like I’ve made a science of it…The pain of forgetting: spine. The pain of remembering: spine. All the times I have suddenly realized that my parents are dead, even now, it still surprises me, to exist in the world while that which made me has ceased to exist: my knees, it takes half a tube of Ben-Gay and a big production just to bend them. Loneliness: there is no organ that can take it all.” 

― Nicole Krauss, The History of Love

 By Nicole Krauss

Its been nearly a week since I read this book--no, maybe more than a week. Maybe less. I can't very much remember, but what I do remember is how moved I was by this little novel, and the way I was crying by the time it ended. I don't think very highly of the practice of recommending something by saying "it was so moving I cried" (with the implication that thus you should experience it too) since it seems like a rather shameful shortcut. But my intent in saying this book brought me to tears was that it doesn't matter how long ago I have read this book or how poorly I summarize what its basic contents are--the bottom line is that it was a book that has the power to move, which is to say, it is already a successful book in my estimation.

Let me begin by telling you that it will remind you of a novel you have read as a child. For a while I pondered about this strong feeling of deja vu. How could I have read something like this as a child, since it was only published in 2006? And it's not like I knew the ending--but did I? Something in me knew the characters with an indelible completeness--the tall, lanky, ungainly Alma (one of the several protagonists) whose widowed mother she is trying to make happy again, a mother who is translating a mysterious manuscript titled The History of Love for a large sum paid by an anonymous man, the book from which she is named "Alma" as the heroine in the book was named "Alma"-- or her young religious brother, nicknamed Bird who believes he is one of the 36 chosen ones and his flights of bravado and sincere nature as he tries to replace the gap the loss of his father created in his life.

And Leo...Leo Gursky, a rather typical "smelly old man" who a reader perhaps makes a move to pity, only to finish the book and realize how much strength the man had and what a hero he is. And that he wrote the original manuscript, The History of Love a long long time ago, for his childhood love, Alma. Does this sound like a fairy tale? And again to the question: why did I remember this book as something I had read as a child? It was only now beginning this review that I could come at a guess. I think it is because this book is at its heart a lovely and convoluted mystery which the characters construct in order to provide companionship for their loneliness--loneliness before the word picks up all the negative connotations it has today. The loneliness of playing alone as a child and wanting to connect with this large and bizarre world in a very immediate and overwhelming way. This sentiment precedes any literature we read as children or cartoons we saw--it's a remnant of our questionings, a memory from days where things were mysterious puzzles that were worth being solved.

The premise of the novel is both simple and complex. A boy loves a girl. He writes stories for her and loves her. War arrives, she is sent away, and only years later he can find her. Only then its too late and she is married to another man. Then the boy finds out the girl actually gave birth to his son, but he can never say a word to the son. The son grows up to be a famous writer. The man grows increasingly lonely and old. But what of his love of the girl? Does it survive? Will he ever feel that same love again? Will he ever be truly happy before he dies?

But that's only one story. There are a few more tangled into one another, each crucial to the final climax of the story. There are books within books, mostly prominently the few chapters of the book Leo Gursky wrote for Alma, the book named The History of Love. The chapters we are exposed to from his book are beautiful and whimsical. A chapter about the first gestures ever made. A chapter about silence. A chapter about strings. A chapter about a man who loves a girl but is made of glass and is afraid if she touches him he will shatter. Chapters from other books, books written by Leo's son. Books about angels and their fears and sadnesses.

In short, a splendid and multifaceted story, a whole world of whimsy and heart. Characters who are so lovable not because of their quirks, but because of how unabashedly desperate they are. No irony, no collapse into farce. It is rare to find so much heart in a story, complete with a wild scavenger hunt, with coincidences, and the hand of fate. I highly recommend.

92/100

Oblivion (2013)

Jack Harper: "Everybody dies, Sally. The thing is to die well." 

**This review contains spoilers**

By Joseph Kosinski
With Tom Cruise, Morgan Freeman, Olga Kurylenko

I read an article some time ago about Tom Cruise and his propensity to play roles where the protagonist has a fractured persona, and is unable to distinguish where his real self begins and where the mask leaves off. The article was a little cruel I think in that it conflated this observation with Tom Cruise as a person and how they believed he was just as empty and soulless and searching as the characters he plays are. Nevertheless, he does tend to attract and continue to show interest in these kinds of roles but I think this has more to do with having been typeset by Hollywood and simply working within this niche than any deep existential angst on his part. One can argue that he is perpetuating the postmodern protagonist who does not have a stable 'self' to discover, and that the yearning to discover is what in a loose way defines who he is. This film, Oblivion I think reinforces this concept, as I'll explore further on.

At the time I read the article, this film hadn't been released yet but the plot and title were already known. So to some extent I had an idea what this film would be about, and started seeing it with the themes of identity and soul and the differences between the exterior and the interior, lived life on my mind. Not to reduce the film in any way but the way I interpreted it was just another film in vein of a long range of films (and to name only a few) beginning with Solaris, perhaps, to Moon, Minority Report, Blade Runner, Gattaca, I, Robot, Total Recall, The Island, Cloud Atlas, Equilibrium, even Wall-E and last but not least, The Matrix Trilogy all of which explore themes of isolation, individuality, the self (what constitutes the self, the purpose of the self, the material substance of the self) with themes of technology and A.I. and perceived threats of the increasing role of science and its consequences on religion and the place of god, nature, love, and all the other good old fashioned things. And the decision to be aware, and the enormity of the decision.

The film is about a curious but troubled "repair" man, Jack Harper, who lives in a post apocalyptic world where a sentient race, nicknamed the "Scavs" blew up Earth's moon in order to destroy the planet and have access to the abundance of energy available on Earth. By day he is part of an "effective team" with his mission assistant and lover, Victoria, repairing drones that have been damaged by the Scavs and by night he is plagued by dreams that feel too realistic to be dreams of a beautiful woman and a place in New York before the great war. Then, in a series of accidents, he witnesses a crash only to see that several cryogenic chambers have been dropped on Earth and are being pursued by the drones who are trained to kill all but Jack and Victoria. Of the chambers, he is only able to rescue one, and no surprise, but it is the girl from his dreams. She wakes, they have an outing together and are kidnapped by the Scav. And the rest is history.

To say Oblivion is predictable is to put it very mildly indeed. If you've watched any of the movies above you will most definitely see any and all plot twists within minutes of the film. Not to mention the numerous instances of foreshadowing and references to a handful of films, some of which are mentioned above. That said, what exactly then justifies seeing this film? Is it the stunning graphics? In a sense even the graphics are hardly much of a shocker anymore, as beautiful as they are (especially the panoramic views of a post apocalyptic Earth, imbued with a little too much sentimentality and dripping with postcard worthy sunlight and vistas--rendering even the most natural of events and scenes with an uneasy hue of Photoshop-esque perfection) and much of the new high-tech gadgets seem like those of just every other sci-fi film with a large enough budget. It can hardly be the dialogue, which though contains some witty lines, can nearly make you cringe with some of its soap-opera theatrics.

But what justifies seeing this film was the awareness it seemed to contain of exactly how redundant it was, how ordinary and recognizable it was. The point is what is going to happen after all has been said and done. By this I mean, the film shows an uncanny awareness that we know the enemies aren't the Scavs, we know that the organization Jack and Victoria are working for are far more sinister than thought. We can even guess at them being clones. But what we don't know is how does being a clone affect them, their relationships? What does that have to say about truth and authenticity?

In the end of the film the mainframe of the Tet, the mastermind behind the war, articulates-- "But I created you Jack. I am god." Jack's emphatic response ("Fuck you, Sally") was great because it finally zeroes in one what the film is trying to say. A clone will always be a clone and nothing else unless it can feel emotion (valor, honor, love, curiosity) and a god is not a god unless it can give birth (and not just as an artificial womb as is symbolically portrayed by the vaginal shape of the Tet and the sperm-like spacecraft with which Jack enters ) -- ie, nothing can be an ultimate power without being vulnerable and humble in a way. Like a plant, or a fish. Or like the strong winds in the painting that recurs throughout the film. Or in a book, faded and discolored but powerful in its emotional breadth. The very dirt of life is its appeal, its power. The closeness with nature.

One of my favorite moments in the film was the discussion between Jack and Julia, and how they want to spend the rest of their life together, and even die together and be forgotten by everyone--only it wouldn't matter because they would have known and loved each other, and that alone will last an eternity. Here, death is seen as something precious and important, without which the meaning attributed to relationships and life quickly disintegrates. There needs to be a sense of urgency, of scarcity. Life as a matter of consequence, and not an endless stream of repetition.

70/100

In film nist / This Is Not a Film (2011)

Jafar Panahi: "If we could tell a film, then why make a film?"

By Jafar Panahi and Mojtaba Mirtahmasb
With Jafar Panahi

My interest in Iranian cinema started with Dayereh (2000) by Jafar Panahi and since then I've watched a few other Iranian films of which most are directed by him. (You can find my reviews of some of them here: The White Balloon (1995), The Mirror (1997), Crimson Gold (2003) and Offside (2006))I remember after the first film I saw, I read about him on Wikipedia and read about his sentence and ban from film making. It is quite shocking and this gives more sense to this documentary which would have never been seen if it hadn't been smuggled out of Iran on a USB stick.

In film nist starts with Jafar Panahi having breakfast over the course of breakfast he calls a friend, Iranian documentary director Mojtaba Mirtahmasb asking him to come over. The only link we have with the outside world is through his phone. Before his friend comes Jafar has a phone call with his lawyer who confirms that he will definitely have to go to prison and that she may try to reduce the ban duration on appeal but it's probably all she can do. She tells him that it is not a judiciary sentence but a political one. When his friend arrives, Jafar Panahi explains the last films he wanted to do and how they were both denied approval and had to let them go. He has the script of one and decides that he can explain it, using his living room, the carpet representing the room in which a girl is- also- imprisoned and a chair for the window.

This is not a film is exactly what the title says it is. It is a day, a documentary at most. Most of Jafar Panahi movies give a lot of freedom to (amateur) actors who creates the whole atmosphere. It seems clear that this was not planned either, this has no script or no particular goal except to have a camera there, to document whatever could be documented before it's too late.

The setting is also particular as the whole town goes crazy over the celebrations of "Fireworks Wednesday" and the two friends stay inside, wondering what to do and how to do it. It gets particularly strange when Jafar Panahi starts recording with his mobile phone, filming the act of being filmed. I think the highest point of this film being not a film, is when Jafar Panahi explains the story of this film he was going to make and in the middle of replaying it... He suddenly becomes silent and his face tells us that he has strong doubts and this is where the quote I picked is said, he doubts the whole concept of a film, of telling a story and if it is a story worth telling. It might be reduced to the film he was discussing in particular, however, I would think that it goes beyond that, that it touches every film he's done including this one.

A lot of the issues are not entirely discussed, maybe as a way to retain dignity in the face of a sentence or simply because they are not thought out to be relevant. These very blunt, almost political and philosophical moments contrast with the comical aspect of his iguana pet slowly climbing a bookshelf or the neighbor who tries to leave her dog with him before he simply starts barking. It is also strongly incidental as when a young arts student walk in to come and pick the trash, a job he does to help out his sister and brother-in-law, suddenly the story focuses on him and as he goes on to pick up the trash, we follow him. In a way, isn't that what movies always tried to do, follow the strange happenings of life?

I liked: It doesn't get much more explicitly banned film, well this is not a film.

I disliked: Very random in a bumpy unscripted way.

70/100
If you are looking for a deep political look in the situation of Iran's cinema industry and its struggle then you won't find it. This is a purely individual look at what it is to be a forbidden film maker.

Talaye sorkh / Crimson Gold (2003)

The Man in the Tea House: "If you want to arrest a thief, you'll have to arrest the world."

By Jafar Panahi
With Hossain Emadeddin, Kamyar Sheisi and Azita Rayeji

Crimson Gold is the last movie by Jafar Panahi that I decided to see before I feel ready to watch the documentary based on his life called This is not a film (2011).

The movie starts in a jewelry store where a man with a helmet is pointing a gun at an older man asking him where the jewels are. After somewhat of a fight, the older man manages to shut the grid on the burglar who shoots him in retaliation while bystanders look from the outside. We are then introduced to Hussein, a tall man of few words, and his colleague, Ali. Ali has just robbed a purse and discovers that there is a receipt for a jewel in the purse. Ali and Hussein work together as pizza delivery persons. The movie will follow the events that lead up to the burglary, encounters that Hussein make, his plans of marriage with Ali's sister and the constant affirmation of his social status.

Crimson Gold is a very dark movie, both in substance as in colors. Most of the scenes happen at night when Hussein rides his scooter through town and only a few scenes take place during the day. If I had to describe what the film is in the fewest words possible I would have to say that it is a social critique. We see Hussein poor and we are constantly reminded of it. We see his colleagues who aim for material desires while living on their low payrolls. We also encounter rich customers that Hussein meets but they are depressed or repressed by the police. There is a saying that one can't buy happiness and this might be the lesson we, and everyone in the film, learns through this journey.

Hussein is a very complex character with often very erratic behaviors and never many words of explanations. I wouldn't have guessed and I don't know if it is meant to be understood that the character is a paranoid schizophrenic, but the trivia on IMDb state the actor actually is. He seems indifferent to pretty much every situation except in few occasions when he might get really upset because a man reminds him of his social status of "poor", but he can also prove to have a heart of gold when, stuck and stranded in a street because of a police operation, he offers pizzas to everyone present. These scenes shone the most, as unfortunately, I think a lot of the other scenes were unfulfilling simply because of his lack of attention to his surroundings or to his interlocutors. He offers no judgement, denotes no pleasure or displeasure in anything.

As common with Jafar Panahi's movies, the surroundings are very bare and there is hardly any music. Most of the scenes are genuinely filmed in the streets and most of the beauty or ugliness relies on the mere city, a landscape or a simple interaction.

I found the overall message of the movie to be somewhat misleading like the horizons of Hussein suddenly turned black because he saw rich people are not necessarily more happy than he is. I liked dark movies and there is never a single reason to commit a crime, but given the tools the movie offered us, we are left wondering what is going on in Hussein's head and why does he do such things.

I liked: A clash of sorts. Characters struggles.

I disliked: Uncanny. One way. Everyone in their own bubble.

62/100
A slow unfolding of what we know will happen. A very dark and mysterious tale.

Micmacs à tire-larigot / Micmacs (2009)

Guard: "I will never encourage my son to become a poet, sir."

By Jean-Pierre Jeunet
With Dany Boon, André Dussollier, Nicolas Marié 

Micmacs is a film I heard about when I was on a spree for revenge films (after seeing the ingenious Kill Bill series). I believe I found this in some list or the other, but only decided to see it today as I felt the french dialogue would help me with my studies of the language. Also, I'd seen and enjoyed the much renowned Amélie and since both films are directed by Jeunet I was looking forward to seeing it.

In the film, a middle-aged man, Bazil, who works as a clerk in a local video store is one day shot in the head unawares. His father, too, had been a casualty in a war. After an indefinite stay in the hospital as he recovers, he finds he has been fired from his job and kicked out of his apartment. However, the woman who replaces him at his previous job stops him outside the store and gives him a bullet shell, presumably from the shot that caused his injury. Wandering the streets for weeks, he is finally approached by a twice convicted, now reformed, man who introduces him to a motley crew living in a junk yard and repairing discarded things. They welcome Bazil to their fold and help him in his elaborate scheme to get back at the arms company that manufactured the bullet and provided weapons for the war that took his father's life.

This was a film that reminded me of Charlie Chaplin films in many ways. The body humor, the inherent kindness of the protagonist coupled with a strong sense of pride (as he cannot even bring himself to accept a warm meal from the soup kitchen while he's homeless and instead pretends he is standing near the food because he is waiting for the taxi) the complicated schemes and strategies to achieve a task, the domino effect of one action and its consequences, and a sort of obliviousness to the concept of gravity--everything is up for laughs. There was also a very strong political message underlining it, perhaps a critique of capitalism and monopolies in industries, as well as the destruction wreaked upon the working class by the elite.

The characters are quirky and likable but a major flaw I think was in the refusal of the director to allow them, caricatures as they are, to be well rounded caricatures. Somehow all the chemistry between the actors seemed manufactured, almost puppeteered, as you could imagine the people in a dream of a very little child are. Some moments had me cringing at its sheer over-the-top ludicrousness, as you can tell the film is trying to make you laugh but it just seems as flat as a joke that has to be explained in order to be understood.

Much of the action seemed nonsensical, as well. We as a viewer knew why they were doing what they were doing, but we couldn't fathom the legitimacy of including that scene. Or perhaps it was all just a performance, like acrobatics? There was little dialogue, nothing too meaningful but that is to be expected. I believe this was more a satire/slapstick comedy than anything else which is absolutely fine if that's what you are interested in seeing.

If I had to sum my experience up in one sentence, I'd say it's an enjoyable family-fun film (despite the rather steamy sex scene we spy) and does a good job of keeping a viewer entertained. Not very psychologically gripping or complex, and not emotionally moving either, but definitely a fun view.

I liked: The circumstances, the colors, the snappy action.

I disliked: The feeling of being manipulated as a viewer, perhaps too sarcastic/satire for my tastes.

63/100
Watch if you enjoy Jeunet's work, and are looking for some frothy fun. It won't disappoint!

Ayneh / The Mirror (1997)

Little girl: "I don't want to be in the film anymore. They tell me to cry all the time. If my friends see this film, they'll think I'm a nagger!"

                                           ***Disclaimer: This review contains spoilers***

By Jafar Panahi
With Mina Mohammad Khani

The Mirror is another movie by Jafar Panahi that I decided to watch.

The film follows a young girl, in first grade. The school finished for the day, all the girls leave. But she remains waiting though her mother is not coming to pick her up. The girl doesn't feel handicapped by her arm in a plaster and she accepts a ride on a scooter by a relative of a teacher to drop her off at the bus stop. Things don't go as easy as planned when she thinks that she recognized the bus she takes and jumps in it. Braving through the traffic she once again gets off the bus in a hurry after she thinks she sees her mother. Her journey takes a surprising turn when the young girl simply stops acting and decides to go home, she is not in character anymore but her troubles are still the same as she has to reach home.

The beginning of the movie really doesn't surprise people who have seen The White Balloon (1995), a young girl has issues with what seem to be the simplest task to any adult but to a child it can become as complex as a jigsaw puzzle. The shots are mostly genuine and we are really immersed in the dangers of the traffic, as it seems to be quite a dangerous task to simply cross roads in Tehran at this time of day. Even the actress will look familiar as she is the younger sister of the one in The White Balloon.

Where the movie shocks and differs from what we are used to is when the fourth wall shatters unexpectedly half way through the film. The young girl stops speaking for a short moment and we hear the director's voice giving her the instruction to not look at the camera. This is very uncommon and at first we think this just might be a blooper, but this is what the "film" becomes then.

It really puzzled me at first but I think it is such a powerful method. Whether this was really a caprice of the young actress or actually scripted, I wouldn't know, but if it was scripted it was a genius idea. If it wasn't it is not only great circumstances but great salvage of the movie. I don't really think it matters whether it was scripted or not and that's not what I would judge the movie on. Whether it's Mina or the Little Girl, her path to find home is a trip in itself, the movie exploring once again the generosity of strangers while some other bypassers do not feel like helping her at all.

The downfall of the movie-became-reality is the fact that the shots are not that clear anymore, keep in mind that we are in a bus following a little girl running or taking rides through a town at rush hour. Therefore we often lose track of her, we only see car paint for minutes at times, fortunately keeping in touch with Mina through her microphone, which also encounters issues. The movie has no great quotes, no great twists or a beautiful touching ending. It is simply a journey where the reality mirrored the fiction. I would actually think it to be better if we never knew whether it was all intended from the start as I like the mystery. I like the fourth wall going down in this unexpected manner.

I liked: The sweet, yet petulant little girl. Blurs the lines of fiction. Endearing.

I disliked: Suffers from it's reality-like filming. Most dialogues heard through eavesdropping with no internal link.

71/100
I was greatly surprised by its twist, the immersion was total.

Only God Forgives (2013)

Crystal: "I don't want to talk about it anymore. Do you mind if I smoke?"

By Nicolas Winding Refn
With Ryan Gosling, Kristin Scott Thomas and Vithaya Pansringarm

I strongly believe that all art serves a purpose--in some form or the other, it intends to move the viewer, shock, surprise, but also transform the viewer, allow them to transcend if but briefly into something more than they are, but composed of the collective essence of humanity. Or some shit like that.

On that count (and every other count) Only God Forgives fails miserably. The film depicts the story of a drug dealing family based in Thailand. The older son is a blood thirsty scumbag whose taste for violence is almost innocent in its single-mindedness. After he rapes and murders a 16 year old prostitute (having asked for a younger one first) he sets the ball in motion for a film of gore and blood as he is killed by the father of the woman he murdered. His mother, the 'don' of their crime ring, comes to identify his body and berate the young sibling Julian for not avenging his brother. The "Angel of Vengeance", a retired Thai police then slowly tracks down the family.

I almost don't want to give the film the credit of analyzing it. What more is there to say? Unresolved Oedipus complex (the incestuous relationship the mother had with the older son was only too obvious) the repeated imagery of guilt on Julian's part (for wanting to have all the sex with his mother and for killing his father to get to her) the predictable links between 'sex' and 'death' all submerged in a glow of red.

But why should we care? The film never gives us a reason to care about the protagonist's Oedipus complex. So what if he's tormented by guilt for wanting to fuck his mom and having a small penis and being symbolically castrated? The talents of both Ryan Gosling and Kristen Scott-Thomas were wastefully underused, as the characters they played never had a chance to blossom. They remained stock characters from beginning to the end. Perhaps if they focused less on the dramatic music and slow motion scenes they could have squeezed in some fresh material.

Nevertheless, the film never learns and tries again and again to compensate for its lack of substance through its overbearing, classical edgy soundtrack and long shots of every moment possible. I kid you not when I say it takes nearly 15 seconds for someone to move their head in every single scene. We get it, you have nothing to say. We only wish we didn't waste an hour and a half of our life watching a film that seems to have been an overextended directorial masturbation instead of a real film.

1 liked: The songs were rather beautiful. But only ran a paltry seven minutes at most of the film.

I disliked: The pretentious pseudo-intellectual garbage that composed the dialogue/plot.

30/100
I wish I could somehow wash my mind of this film the way Julian kept washing his hands.  

Only God Forgives (2013)

Billy: "Time to meet the devil."

By Nicolas Winding Refn
With Ryan Gosling, Kristin Scott Thomas and Vithaya Pansringarm

I was quite looking forward to Only God Forgives, admittedly for Ryan Gosling, however, since I enjoyed Drive (2011)--also directed by Nicolas Winding Refn-- I thought it would be a good film.

The movie starts with Julian hanging out at a boxing club. After a fight, Julian meets with two others and we learn that one of them, Billy is his brother. We learn that they run a drug trade in Bangkok. Shortly after, Billy goes on a spree and starts engaging in erratic and violent behavior at different sex clubs. Later that night, the police arrive in one hotel and find Billy next to a prostitute that he raped and killed. The police however don't arrest Billy, and the head of the police decides to bring the father of the young underage, now dead, prostitute and leave the murderer and the father of the victim alone in the room. What is quite predictable happens and now Julian has to redeem his brother's death.

The movie starts off well, with some clever use of shadows and lighting. We are quickly put in the mold for the heavily violent atmosphere of brothels and drug smuggling. However this will remain the best component of the movie and nothing else delivers. The slow introduction to this rude and crude world never picks up on the pace and we are left watching everything in slow motion. If there is a fight or a kill that will happen, you've seen it unfold ten times in your head before it actually starts. And the dramatic music can't sustain such a build up for so long.

Of the main characters, Julian and his mother are both despicable and the audience can not possibly root for either one. Their acting consists mostly of blank stares and the rare lines that they speak are totally vain or trash talks from the mother who apparently flirts shamelessly with Julian, even though she vastly preferred Billy. The cop could have been an interesting character but that story line doesn't go anywhere either. Nevertheless, we do find out he is quite knowledgeable in the art of killing and torturing people.

The gore is not too bad but in a slow film like this it actually doesn't do much. The pace just doesn't fit the gore. The symbolism is pretty loaded but it is never certain whether something is imagined, dreamed or lived. This ends up making the film look like a collection of psychological clichés of a wide range, from the oedipal mother-son relationship to the recurring symbol of guilt--incessant hand washing--and other violent behaviors.

While I had initially liked the setting in Thailand, sadly, it is only further dwells into more clichés. I don't think I've ever seen a Western movie set in Thailand without dealing with prostitution (of minors). It is as though they feel Thailand has nothing other than that to offer to movies.

In all, the film is a major let down, where the good actors simply don't act, the story is cliché and the dialogues are entirely dull or rendered inaudible. The good aspects of a nice photography and shots are ruined by the extensive use of slow motion and build ups. It didn't manage to grasp my attention long enough to prevent me from wondering whether I really liked Drive or whether the good music and Ryan Gosling's presence had compensated for everything else.

I liked: Looks good if you fast forward. Thailand.

I disliked: Useless dialogues ("want to fight?"). Abusing two cool effects (red shadows and slow motion) doesn't make a good movie. Symbolic for shock value.

23/100
I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone. Maybe if you want to laugh gather a few friends and watch this in shuffle.

The First Time (2012)

Dave: "She's got this thing about her carpet. The way the sunlight hits it at a certain point in the afternoon."

By Jon Kasdan
With Britt Robertson, Dylan O'Brien, James Frecheville

The First Time is a film I wanted to see out of curiosity about the current state of the Hollywood romcom. I wanted something light and frivolous and preferably humorous. I thought this film would fit all the criteria and while it was light and frivolous, it wasn't humorous in the least. I'm surprised it managed to get the funding and even be produced as a film--it has nothing new to say, nothing remarkable, and the characters are both unrealistic and forgettable.

Highschooler Aubrey Miller, a "creative" type girl, meets the love struck Dave in a party one weekend. Dave is deeply in love with a girl he'll never get, and as he whines to Aubrey about this, Aubrey stuns him with her witty remarks and bright optimism. Naturally he has to walk her back to her place, where she sneaks him into her bedroom. Her bedroom is gorgeous--with Aubrey's art all over the walls, and pretentious music playing from her vinyl player. They spend the night spooning on the floor near her bed, and in the morning he has to unceremoniously jump out the window to prevent being caught by Aubrey's parents. Thus begins their friendship which everyone knows will eventually evolve into a relationship--even though Aubrey has an obnoxious boyfriend, Ron.

How can I list the issues I had with this film? Was it the epic boredom I felt watching the two characters interact? In a Friends episode, someone once says, "Whenever I hear them open their mouths, all I can hear is Blah Blah Blah". This is exactly how I felt when seeing them converse. Not a single conversation felt genuine to me, and I was painfully aware that these were actors and actresses getting paid to depict a story that isn't worth being retold.

Perhaps the only positive thing in this film was its attempt at addressing the very real issue surrounding the awkwardness of a first sexual encounter, and showing how perhaps one of the real keys to anything fulfilling is allowing for second chances, practice, and trust. But I didn't think it needed to take a one and a  half hour film to get that simple point across.

And why were all the characters wearing so much makeup? Nobody wears so much makeup just to go to school! And no high school kid unless they are extremely wealthy (which the characters in this film aren't) drive and own such expensive cars at that age. And what was with the token "racial diversity" (the very noticeable ONE black guy friend and the British friend who sat and passed judgement to Dave and didn't really help or contribute to the story line in any way?) I know this wasn't supposed to be a film for cinephiles or something like that, but it couldn't have harmed to give it just a little more depth. Everyone was so painfully shallow and everything was so hip and "ironic" that the whole endeavor just seemed trivial.

My advice? If you want to watch a romcom that doesn't feel like you're swallowing artificially produced food, stick to Meg Ryan films.

I liked: One of the themes, and the quote about the warm carpets was rather endearing.

I disliked: Mostly everything.

40/100
Won't make you fall asleep, but will have you wishing you had. 

Simón del desierto / Simon of the Desert (1965)

Priest: "For six years, six months and six weeks, you've stood on that column Simon. Your asceticism has edified us all."

By Luis Buñuel
With Claudio Brook and Silvia Pinal

I came across Simon of the Desert randomly while looking through movies. It came across as a really experimental movie and since it was by Luis Buñuel I decided to give it a shot.

The movie starts in an unknown place in the middle of a desert with a religious procession walking and chanting. Soon enough, they arrive at the base of a column and the priest addresses the man atop the column, Simon, a pious repentant trying to reach a spiritual state closer to God through practicing asceticism. Simon climbs down and passes through the crowd, his mother greeting him, and he tells her that this is the last time they will see each other in this life and that they will meet in front of God next time. Simon climbs on top of another, higher column. As the time passes, many people visit Simon, mostly religious congregations but also the Devil incarnated in a woman, who tries to seduce and lure him to come down.

I liked many of the themes in the movie, particularly asceticism, which I find a very deep concept. His asceticism was mostly explored through the temptations and visits from the Devil that he had to face. While I understand that this movie is mostly intended to be a farce exposing flaws inherent in the Church, I felt that too often, many important themes were left unexplored.

The comic relief of some of the situations was short-lived and didn't impact the movie much. The Devil is an interesting character but too much of a caricature, sadly reinforcing the idea that the devil is a woman of little virtue. T

The real strength of the movie lies in its twist ending but even the dialogue then felt like a let down. I felt there could have been a lot more exploration of the interactions Simon had with villagers, for example the dwarf shepherd or the beardless religious man who were both sent away and blessed by Simon but we don't know more about them, we don't know what they were expecting from Simon or what their dialogue with him invoked in them.

Running a mere 45 minutes, one can't blame the editing for cutting down all the key scenes and I am left with the feeling of an incomplete picture.

I liked: Asceticism. Faith in the farce and farce in the faith.

I disliked: Feels experimental for the sake of being experimental, without enough substance to back it up. Incomplete.

51/100
Maybe I had unfair expectations of a constructed critique of religion and that's why I felt disappointed.

Earrings (2012)

Guy: "You want everyone to blame you, 'coz it gives you a reason to blame yourself"

By Alex Withrow
With Catherine Warner

I read about Earrings on Sati's Cinematic Corner. I loved the snapshots that were displayed there and when I saw that this movie could be watched online (here), I decided to give it a shot.

The film follows a young nurse who lives alone. Through items and behaviors mostly, we learn about her, her solitude and about her bad habits.

There seems to be a great complicity between the director and the main actress as most of the film revolves around that tenuous link between a nagging conscience, the look of an outsider, both represented by this constantly close up camera and the loneliness and mental state of the main character. I found it to give such an intimate feel to the movie. The downward spiral is omnipresent, in a way it deals with both grief and freedom.

The freedom from memories can be metaphorically represented by the house the girl lives in as it holds all the memories fueling her grief, while the outdoors scenes depict her in a much more free way. Both these aspects, as well as the directorial work, reminded me of Absentia (2011). I was annoyed by some of the directorial choices, for example the extensive use of fade to black scenes and the out of focus blurriness, but it was compensated by the interesting fish-eye camera around the house but most importantly by the surrounding work around the main character, giving more depth to both the downward spiral and the search for freedom.

The music and sounds were very brief, but the music added a lot to the movie. All in all, the plot remains quite simple but it is not the plot that is most important, as the journey through it is actually far more interesting. I can only say that I'd be looking forward to a full length feature which would allow for deeper exploration of the character and dialogues.

I liked: Constant close contact with the young actress. Downward spiral. Bare and stripped from the superfluous.

I disliked: Lot of blurriness. Not sure the dialogue scene was required, it could have been preferable to keep giving clues through shots to keep a better flow.

69/100
A promising short movie which shows the sometimes venomous, sometimes emotional attachment we give objects, hence the title.

Altered States (1980)

Emily Jessup: "You think madness is simply another state of consciousness?"

By Ken Russell
With William Hurt, Blair Brown and Bob Baladan

Altered States is another movie I came across while reading the Wikipedia for Body Horror. To me it didn't seem too horror driven as far as the plot goes, but I decided to give it a shot anyway. I think it's an interesting topic to try to film, the psychedelic and altered states of consciousness.

The movie starts off with Eddie Jessup in an isolation tank with his friend Arthur Rosenberg monitoring him. We quickly learn that Eddie is researching psychedelic drugs and happens to be testing on himself. Eddie, through his hallucinations, seems driven towards finding the meaning of life. A lot of his hallucinations involve God and hell, they also involve the death of his father and his powerlessness in the face of it. Eddie meets Emily, a brilliant scientist in the field of anthropology, and a few years afterward they are married with two daughters. This is when Eddie goes to Mexico to visit old Indian tribal rituals. The rituals involve a very powerful and toxic mushroom that induces furious hallucinations. In his scientific quest, and with no regard to his own health, Eddie starts testing this drug on himself more and more but it might prove more dangerous to him than it would to anyone else.

The first half of the movie was one of the most interesting I've watched. The dialogues about the human mind were really good and mind puzzling. I thought the hallucinatory scenes were really good and while they were very bizarre and trippy and compelling, I think this is how it has to be if a director wants to convey a hallucinating state of consciousness to an alpha viewer. I loved them. It is hard to read all the symbolism into them as they flash quickly, but the scene with two people turning to sand and the sand being shaped away slowly by the wind was really amazing.

The psychedelic scenes reminded me of The Doors (1991) which is a good thing and the fact that a song by them was featured never hurts either. Another thing I was surprisingly reminded of is the TV Show Fringe (2008-2012), possibly because Blair Brown who plays Emily here, was also Nina Sharp in Fringe, but also because of the way Walter wanted to experience more, beyond science through the use of psychedelic drugs and in particular a few episodes where he'd use an isolation tank to do so.

Sadly, I thought the movie took a fairly poor turn of events when it started including genetic regression and how the hallucinations and drugs effect would carry on in Eddie's life and have him change radically. I think the movie could have been more powerful through the use of hallucinations and the research done through them, rather than have the main character change because of what happened inside his hallucinations.

The use of CGI is well done considering this is one of the first movies to include it. Nevertheless, the last scene felt very weak to me, despite being visually stunning. In fact, we realize that we've gone through the whole movie searching to discover something but we reach no such thing and we are left with just a man and his feelings. This isn't to speak of the cast, however, as William Hurt is quite a talented actor and even though this happens to be his first movie role, I was pleasantly impressed. Blair Brown did a good job too.

I liked: The hallucinations. Scientific drug tests. Good dialogues.

I disliked: The whole search for creation. A weak attempt at being a coming of age movie.

64/100
An excellent premise that was poorly executed. It reminded me of The Fly (1986) and Videodrome (1983) both by David Cronenberg and both superior to this.

Hors de prix / Priceless (2006)

Irene: "That was the end of our lesson about the mysteries of womanhood."

By Pierre Salvadori
With Audrey Tautou, Gad Elmaleh, Marie-Christine Adam

I think Priceless does something special in that it invites a closer look at the concept of a "gold digger", and lends a story to the what others can construe as a fabulous body with no brains. In the film, Irene is an unapologetic young "gold digger" (as much as I hate to use this terminology) who happens to be spending the night of her birthday in a five-star hotel, accompanied by her grey-haired lover. He seems to be a little too fond of the drink and passes out on their bed. Bored, Irene goes downstairs only to mistake the gentle barkeep, Jean, with a fellow hotel guest. Sparks ensure and many cocktails later, Jean and Irene tangle up some sheets. Unfortunately for Irene, she is caught by her lover who unceremoniously breaks off his engagement with her. Jean steps in, quitting his job at the hotel to cater to Irene's every whimsy.

 Soon he finds himself falling in love with Irene, and maxes out his credit cards and empties his bank account shopping for her and catering to her lavish lifestyle. Eventually he cannot keep it up and then in a bizarre set of circumstances, finds himself as a rich widower's young "boy toy". Thus begins Irene and Jean's rather strange courtship, with Irene teaching Jean tricks of the trade--which include some rather hackneyed seduction techniques--conducted in a string of upper crust hotels and shops each of them frequent.

I enjoyed the film. I thought it was extremely refreshing to see such a playful relationship develop, and develop in such quirky circumstances. Obviously while not the most realistic, it was touching to see how even the most callous "gold digger" isn't immune to someone's humble devotion towards her. It was good as well to see how the film exposes the dual nature of a "gold digger" "sugar daddy" relationship as the "sugar daddy" is often quite aware that he is paying for physical intimacy but it perfectly alright with it. Nevertheless society never quite sneers at a "sugar daddy" for that but rather scorns the other party. This film was partial to me, it seems, where the dynamics between the two are far more playful and resonant.

While Jean played the part of a love struck young boy quite devotedly, it was Irene's character which shone for me. Her confidence and meticulous orchestrations to get the attentions of a rich man look somehow innocent and childish when you see that all she does is buy beautiful things with it, things which fill her with a sense of luster in life. One scene where she has sex with her current "lover" (also an aged man) just to get him to fall asleep was played rather brilliantly I think, as the viewer could witness a certain maternal aspect to her personality. It seemed to me that she felt she was doing the men a favor in a sense, giving them warmth and her joy at buying whatever pretty thing she wanted, because it made them feel powerful and happy too.

Instead of this being a story about love or even the "price" one can put on love, I think it was more about deflating lies and being honest with oneself. It wasn't that she didn't enjoy that life (she enjoyed it quite thoroughly) but what she missed was genuine conversation, not a set of phrases she uses on every man to get them to fall for her. This time, she pays the "price" of giving up all the material luxuries of life so that she can buy, essentially, her own happiness.

Was the film a little preachy? Yes. At times the little bit where Jean constantly forgets he isn't a concierge anymore and slips into being a concierge whenever he isn't thinking is over the top and gets stale quickly. Nevertheless, maybe it was simply to put emphasis on the fact that it's important that by the end he is able to stop conceiving of himself as either solely a concierge or a boy toy but someone who transcends these labels somehow.

I liked: Humorous plot, some genuinely hilarious moments. The wonderful Audrey Tautou. 

I disliked: Some cliched scenes, and stereotypical stock characters.

65/100
An enjoyable film to see with many funny moments. Always engaging, and shows a refreshing perspective on a a rather under-discussed phenomenon.

The Caine Mutiny (1954)

Lt. Tom Keefer: "Captain Queeg has all syndroms of acute paranoia."

By Edward Dmytryk
With Humphrey Bogart, Van Johnson and Robert Francis

I cannot recall exactly how I heard of The Caine Mutiny, but what is certain is that it was a film starring Humphrey Bogart that I hadn't seen before. This was enough for me to watch it.

Willie Keith is a recently graduate from Princeton and joins the Navy during the 2nd World War. Much to his dislike, he is assigned to a broken down ship called The Caine. The commander in charge, DeVriess, is an old and tired commander who doesn't enforce rules, a matter which displeases Willie Keith. However, when Willie Keith makes mistakes he is duly reprimanded. When Commander DeVriess is relieved and moved to another boat, Willie Keith sees the opportunity to have more control on the ship and enforce rules.

The new Commander Philip Francis Queeg pleases him at first as his opening speech is all about abiding the rules and doing things his way. Under fire, however, Commander Queeg doesn't seem able to react adequately and blames others for any mishaps. Many incidents of this sort have the officers wondering about Queeg. The lieutenant, Tom Keefer--also a writer in his free time--tells the Lieutenant Steve Maryk that Commander Queeg shows all the signs of a paranoid. He also shows him that the Navy Code allows for a lieutenant to remove the commander from his posting in extreme cases.When a typhoon hits the Caine, in the midst of action, Steve Maryk relieves Queeg from his command.

The movie is surprising in its war-soaked environment yet it talks very little about the actual war. The focus is always on the Navy Code, the rules, the hierarchy and most importantly on the personalities and psychological characters of everyone involved. The atmosphere of the sea-at-large is very present, yet we don't really feel in a huis-clos.

I have to say I was a little bit surprised when the trial came up as I didn't expect it. Maybe I thought if they were going to have a trial it would come earlier on in the film, however, I ended up liking it a lot. The plot twists are classical but well done and I enjoyed all of them. Moreover, Bogart's performance is strong and I wouldn't be surprised if other actors who would later have to play paranoid type characters were inspired by this performance.

I was a little annoyed by the romance they forced down our throats involving Willie Keith, his overbearing mother, and singer May Wynn. It didn't have enough screen time to capture us but it was too present to be really secondary. However, I have to admit that the shots of Yosemite park were really beautiful.

I liked: Psychological. Men under the stress of combat or at sea. A mutiny trial.

I disliked: The music was loud to the point of distraction and drowned the dialogue at times.

77/100
This is a good example of a war movie to show to people who don't enjoy war movies. It owes a lot to the psychological drama genre.

Soul Kitchen (2009)

Shayn: "Voyager hasn't reached its target yet. It is not over."

By Fatih Akin
With Adam Bousdoukos, Moritz Bleibtreu, Pheline Roggan 

Soul Kitchen is an extremely satisfying film to see. It's the kind of film where the lines between hero and villain are righteously blurred, though of course that isn't to say it doesn't have an antagonist. It's a karmic film if you will -- a film that reassures the viewers of a sense of justice in the world -- albeit in the most slapdash and chaotic way possible. I loved it.

The film begins with Zinos, a man in his twenties recklessly putting together a greasy fast food dinner. We then realize he is the owner and chef of a small diner in Hamburg called "Soul Kitchen" which proudly caters to what is considered the working class and is very comfortable in its niche. He also rents out space to an aged boat captain, Sokrates, who can never afford to pay rent and who silently enjoys beer after beer in his diner.

After his shift, he joins his girlfriend and family at an upscale restaurant where one of the chefs loses his temper when asked to heat a gazpacho by a customer (insisting that gazpacho is eaten cold and thus out of an integrity to the food he cannot heat it) he slams a knife into a table in rage. He is promptly fired but Zinos, watching him, feels a sense of solidarity with the chef whose name he learns is Shayn when he offers him a job at Soul Kitchen. Thus begins the classic clash between a fast food diner and an upscale restaurant as Zinos and Shayn butt heads about what the correct method of serving food is.

Added to this stew is Zinos' criminal brother, on parole in jail on the condition that he gets a job. Zinos' agrees to "pretend" to hire him, but when a waitress in the diner draws his attention, the brother begins to spend more and more time there, and eventually his criminal ways get entangled with the diner.

What was most enjoyable about this film was its depiction of a group of lost souls in their twenties. They weren't drug ridden, they could enjoy a night or two of getting wasted, but were mainly working hard to keep afloat, pay the rent, and be a part of society that clearly can't endure people who refuse to color between the lines. The diner itself is a character, and like the rest of the characters, transforms over the course of the film. I think one of the most important moments in the film was the way each character had to endure loss -- for Zinos, arguably the protagonist, he loses his health, his girlfriend, and even his diner and livelihood is in danger -- before they can somehow deserve what they do have and regain what they lost.

I enjoyed the snappy dialogue, and in more than one occasion I found myself laughing out loud. Suffice to say the comedic memento was perfectly timed. A lot in the film relied on coincidence and chance, but also on individuality and the mercurial nature of life. It seemed to stress a sort of zen attitude, of not resisting change but trying nevertheless to eke a sustainable way through the change to a place you want. I would even dare call this film magical realism, as many of its events are not strictly plausible, but also dirty realism, as a strong sense of the dirt and muck of life is conveyed--nothing is stylized or romanticized, including but not limited to their romantic and sexual relations. Or perhaps the film is paying homage to Greece and Greek philosophy--in particular perhaps Aristotle's conception of a perfect tragedy--as Zinos and his brother are both Greek-German.

But that's not what keeps a viewer involved--what does is the endearing charisma of the characters, and their ability to make you feel that their life matters.

I liked: The dialogue, the food scenes, the characters, their warmth, and the plot.

I disliked: There were moments that were included for cheap humor. Not many, but certainly noticeable.

71/100
A quirky and enjoyable coming-of-age film, with good laughs and warm characters and delicious food. I do recommend!

Shirin (2008)

Shapoor: "Men get warmed by love. Women get burned."

By Abbas Kiarostami

I heard about this movie when Marla linked me to a list of movies. I knew a few but was clueless to most of them, and my recent interest in Persian cinema had me most curious about Shirin.

The background story is an ancient Persian tragic romance that involves the Queen to be of Armenia, Shirin and the King of (neo)-Persia Khosrow. However, this is not the story we see. The movie is filmed in a theater and we see the faces of women watching the romance unfold on screen.

A very interesting outlook on cinema, narratives and emotions altogether, if one thing for sure it is that Shirin is not your typical movie and you are most likely going to be quite surprised by it. Although all of the audience are part of the Iranian cinema industry (with the exception of the renowned French actress Juliette Binoche), there is no particular focus on anyone and the film seems to jump from face to face in accordance to the emotions depicted.

It is quite interesting to see the differences, for example when someone cries during a scene, others might bite their finger or play with their hair. It reflects back at the spectator who might at the time do the exact same and a certain bond can or can not be formed. There are all sorts of reactions, the shock, the fear are both displayed and experienced differently. Some will, for example in a scene which most likely involves a battle, close their eyes, put their hand on their forehead or become very still. In addition to the biting fingers, some women also readjust their hijab and leaving us wondering if watching such scenes disturbs them somehow.

There were men in the audience and one could wonder why no shots focused on them. I wondered about this myself and it puzzled me, though perhaps it may be that the story being told is a warning to women about love. Also, the title is Shirin, not Shirin and Khosrow, which I guess would imply that the focus is on the part of the woman in the tragedy.

I have to admit that I would probably have enjoyed seeing the film that was being shown more than the expressions of the audience. Of course, it was quite an experience and an exposure to a vast palette of emotions, but I feel emotions are such a personal thing that they might be better enjoyed at the first degree, when they are still raw. I can easily assume that this would be very different from a viewer to another and one can relate more to faces describing an emotion than a situation.

I liked: A different outlook on movies. Womanly, since I'd hate to use the term feminist here. Background historical tale.

I disliked : Feels a little like watching a recycled movie at times, digested by others. Really puzzling at times it is quite impossible to understand what goes on on the screen, maybe it is intended that way, but it did bother me.

64/100
A very particular film, it felt like going to a theatrical performance of an old Greek tragedy and standing on the scene watching others watch it unfold. It feels really artsy.

Fast and Furious 6 (2013)

Dom: "Never could resist American muscle."

By Justin Lin
With Vin Diesel, Paul Walker and Dwayne Johnson

I'm not exactly a huge fan of the series even though I watched them all. Most of them are entertaining at best but I guess I must find them amusing since I always decide to see the new one coming. The fact that Jordana Brewster is in it also helps, I've been a converted fan of hers since The Faculty (1998) but it's mostly her role in the hilarious D.E.B.S. (2004) that I keep in mind.

The whole crew is in exile as they are all sought after criminals in the U.S. When tough cop Hobbs pays a visit to Dom to ask for the help of his team while bringing proof that Letty, Dom's girlfriend he assumed was dead, is alive and kickin' with another gang of drivers/criminals, Dom calls everyone and they all meet in London. Shaw is the leader of this opposing gang of criminals and we learn that he's after three devices that will help him sell a bomb, and that Letty is apparently working with him.

The movie is action packed and pays good tribute to the previous installments. I enjoyed the images of the previous ones in the intro, it is something that most sequels directors omit but it really helps put the audience in the story quickly. The Fast and Furious films have always been a staple for fast cars chase, bikini girls and loud music. This doesn't change much here, although I have to say that the car chases lost all sense of realism in order to impress. We are now served tanks, airplanes, demolition of bridges and a full on military arsenal. I had to pause for a minute after some scenes because I just couldn't believe they made this! If the laws of physics could talk, they would be speechless.

They also managed to find someone who is squarer than Dwayne Johnson to pair the two in a fight.

I was not exactly disappointed with the movie, but I think I liked the previous ones more, or maybe I was less critical. I did enjoy most of it though, it is definitely action packed and better than some of the last sequels I've watched (think Die Hard) but they brought everything to such proportions than one would wonder how they'll top it in a sequel, as this already way over the top.

I liked: Seeing the same characters. Brewster, Rodriguez and Kang are all adorable. Beautiful shots of London or Spain.

I disliked: Loss of all realism. Uninteresting story. Predictable.

53/100
It has all the elements of a Fast and Furious, but it could be more accurately renamed Fast and Furious and Armed and Travelling and can also Fly. Well, you get the gist--action fans should be pleased with this one.

From Beyond (1986)

Dr. Edward Pretorius : "The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another mind."

By Stuart Gordon
With Jeffrey Combs, Barbara Crampton and Ken Foree

I was browsing IMDb and I went to the page about Body Horror, a genre of horror that deals with deformation of the human body, famously exploited by David Cronenberg in most of his 80's movies. It also featured the renowned director of body horror, Stuart Gordon. I saw his film Re-Animator (1985) and since it was pretty fun so I decided to watch From Beyond.

The movie starts with Crawford Tillinghast running a computer program to run a machine that we later discover is meant to stimulate the pineal gland in order to allow the human to go beyond the five senses. The machine turns on at one fourth of its power and Crawford sees fish-like pink monsters floating in the air but he soon gets bitten by one. He runs to his professor, the doctor Edward Pretorius, but Pretorius doesn't want to experience only a portion of the machine's capabilities and runs it to its full power. Things go wrong and Edward Pretorius ends up dead and Crawford being the only one on the scene is put in a mental hospital as he keeps repeating the phrase "it devoured his head". Dr. Katherine McMichaels, a young psychiatrist who doesn't believe in locking up schizophrenics believes Crawford and with the help of police officer Bubba Brownlee, the three of them go to the house to try to run the experiment again.

The similarities with Re-Animator are legion. Not only was From Beyond was made quickly after Re-Animator, but they both share the same director, both are based on stories by H.P. Lovecraft and they both feature the two same main actors. We find Jeffrey Combs in the role of a crazy scientist once again and his overacting suits, the cold-blooded, scientific ambition driven character perfectly. However, I think Re-Animator was superior, not only in its story but in its dialogues as well. I remember many quotes from it as being cult--From Beyond somewhat lacked those.

I was also not that convinced with the saturated pink tones which were left unexplained. The graphic gore is top notch, though it is almost too much and borders onto the absurd at times (this is where I think most viewers would think it is absurd a lot of the time, I still think this is a good example of 80's horror pushed to a limit).

I think the main flaw lies in the scientifically legitimate aspect. Where the goal was simple in Re-Animator, ----create a living body out of body parts-- here we are lost in a maze of rationale about the pineal gland, the senses, death and schizophrenia. The after taste is confusing.

I liked: Crazy scientist. From beyond gore. Crawford's deadly kiss.

I disliked: Weak characters development. Pinkish neon colors. Suffers the comparison with Re-Animator.

60/100
I would only recommend it to the fans of old school horror or H.P. Lovecraft and those who loved Re-Animator.