When I saw the wide selection of sci-fi films coming up this year (District 9, Avatar, 9, etc) I rolled my eyes and had first thoughts of a blockbuster apocalypse coming soon (especially after I saw the rising popularity of the latest Tarantino flick). But nevertheless, I rolled my sleeves high up as we say in here, in the Czech lands and gave it a shot.
What a great surprise it was though! A refreshing breeze of fresh air, creativity, beautiful camera, intelligent combination of genres! All that just grabbed me within the first minutes and I held on right till the end. Wow.
Shot in a documentary/news report/home camera style, it never lets you off the hook and always has your eyes on the screen in expectation of what happens next.
The story follows Wikus van der Merwe (does this name have any significance whatsoever I wonder?) leading a team that carries out a forced relocation of alien refuge camp in Johannesburg called District 9. The aliens, nicknamed "The Prawns" indeed resemble the sea animals, love cat food, and don't look like much at first.
When exposed to an unknown gas/liquid found in one of the prawns homes, Wikus finds himself closer to the aliens than he'd ever like to be and discovers himself doing things that he'd never do.
The simple story gives just the right amount of information not to spoil the experience and viewing pleasure of the high-tech sci-fi technology and leaves just the right room for the study of the alien species, which of course are one of the main things that keep your eyes glued to the screen, only to still leave enough space for the in and out transformation of Wikus from zero to hero.
Great entertainment, real pleasure to watch, and offers some food for thought as well when it's location and treatment of the "prawns" is clearly referring to Apartheid.
9 out of 10.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
"Inglorious" Inglourious Basterds
I had a chance to watch Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds and unfortunately I must say I am joining the camp of those who weren't exactly falling head over heals for the film.
Judging from the great opening scene, which was one of the rate bright moments of the film, I was just expecting more. Unfortunately, apart from several scarce moments when the film is almost enjoyable, this hope was left unfulfilled.
I won't go into detail of explaining the main characters and the plot and the topic, cause you've already read that elsewhere or even saw the film yourself. Rather, I'll explain what I mean.
The plot. I can't help it but on my way back home and while I was thinking about the film, I was reminded of this Czech story about a cat and a dog who are a making a cake together. In a desperate attempt to make the cake as best as possible, they throw in bunch of things including a duck's head and hard candy and hope for the best. Of course, the result is obviously bad. I mean, sure I understand it's hard to cut 6 hours of material enough to make 3 features, but why to necessarily try to include everything in the film? Or, if you really have to, why don't just use stronger glue?
Luckily, there is the opening scene, and some fifteen minutes at the end of the film that are there for some exciting development that actually make some sense and you can honestly enjoy yourself (apart from several of those scenes that have Waltz in them).
As for the filmmaking. Camera is mediocre, it is neither the beautiful film noir 1940's style, nor a spaghetti western and the feeble attempts to copy them are just weak, while the contemporary camera has just several light moments that I've counted. Editing: this is perhaps the biggest weakness of the film that being owed perhaps to a complete lack of self-criticism on Tarantino's part needed to let some scenes just go for the sake of the entire movie. There are too many blank scenes that just don't help the pace at all; despite they indeed, are an indisputable tribute to the great works of those filmmakers Tarantino admires. However, while I share the admiration in many of such spots, they're just not strong enough to mean anything in the whole context and yup, somebody please just give me scissors...
Acting is also mediocre, apart from the brilliant performance of Christoph Waltz as the "Jew hunter" Hans Landa, a spineless Nazi perfectionist, who takes his role as something that he does the best, as he explains at the beginning of the film, and indeed, Waltz keeps a constant performance throughout the entire film. His time on the screen is the only time (apart from the closing scene) that almost gives you the shivers and Tarantino can thank Waltz for saving his film from being a total disappointment. Oscar nomination is awaiting him for sure.
So, well, enough said from my end about Inglourious Basterds, a film that, well, isn't just that glorious.
However, in a recent string of comments on FB I suggested I was the exception when not really loving the film. Well, that of course referred to that particular string of comments.
For more detailed reviews that I agree with, you can go here, here, and here.
Judging from the great opening scene, which was one of the rate bright moments of the film, I was just expecting more. Unfortunately, apart from several scarce moments when the film is almost enjoyable, this hope was left unfulfilled.
I won't go into detail of explaining the main characters and the plot and the topic, cause you've already read that elsewhere or even saw the film yourself. Rather, I'll explain what I mean.
The plot. I can't help it but on my way back home and while I was thinking about the film, I was reminded of this Czech story about a cat and a dog who are a making a cake together. In a desperate attempt to make the cake as best as possible, they throw in bunch of things including a duck's head and hard candy and hope for the best. Of course, the result is obviously bad. I mean, sure I understand it's hard to cut 6 hours of material enough to make 3 features, but why to necessarily try to include everything in the film? Or, if you really have to, why don't just use stronger glue?
Luckily, there is the opening scene, and some fifteen minutes at the end of the film that are there for some exciting development that actually make some sense and you can honestly enjoy yourself (apart from several of those scenes that have Waltz in them).
As for the filmmaking. Camera is mediocre, it is neither the beautiful film noir 1940's style, nor a spaghetti western and the feeble attempts to copy them are just weak, while the contemporary camera has just several light moments that I've counted. Editing: this is perhaps the biggest weakness of the film that being owed perhaps to a complete lack of self-criticism on Tarantino's part needed to let some scenes just go for the sake of the entire movie. There are too many blank scenes that just don't help the pace at all; despite they indeed, are an indisputable tribute to the great works of those filmmakers Tarantino admires. However, while I share the admiration in many of such spots, they're just not strong enough to mean anything in the whole context and yup, somebody please just give me scissors...
Acting is also mediocre, apart from the brilliant performance of Christoph Waltz as the "Jew hunter" Hans Landa, a spineless Nazi perfectionist, who takes his role as something that he does the best, as he explains at the beginning of the film, and indeed, Waltz keeps a constant performance throughout the entire film. His time on the screen is the only time (apart from the closing scene) that almost gives you the shivers and Tarantino can thank Waltz for saving his film from being a total disappointment. Oscar nomination is awaiting him for sure.
So, well, enough said from my end about Inglourious Basterds, a film that, well, isn't just that glorious.
However, in a recent string of comments on FB I suggested I was the exception when not really loving the film. Well, that of course referred to that particular string of comments.
For more detailed reviews that I agree with, you can go here, here, and here.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Sin Nombre
With all the talk being focused on Inglorious Basterds, I'd like to rip the chain of hypnotic attention for a bit and write this note on a film that was one of the most closely watched works at the KVIFF this year, Sin Nombre, playing in a theatre near you now as well.
I saw the film after the festival at one of the Šary Vary screenings, which I think are fabulous by the way. The audience at both cinemas, Světozor and Aero, are mainly KVIFF returnees who didn't catch all the titles they wanted to at Vary, and refuse to go back to their normal lives yet, sipping beer before, during and after the screenings, trying to keep some of the Vary feeling.. But, back to the film now..
Directed by the young talent Cary Fukunaga, a winner of the Sundance Film Festival Directing award, the film focuses on a combination of issues in South America, from involvement of kids and teenagers in Mexican gangs to what it takes for those who decide to leave South and Central America and seek greener pastures in the U.S.
The story follows two main characters, Casper and Sayra, played by lesser-known actors Edgar Flores and Paulina Gaitan. While Casper is the member of the feared gang Mara Salvatrucha, his faith connects him with Sayra, a Honduran emigrant that travels with her father and uncle together with the other emigrants on a freight train to the U.S.
On this journey together, as Casper tries to escape his faith and Sayra to meet hers, the main characters are slowly blending together, complete each other through their diversity, while they have to face the rough side of life in today's Mexico.
As a result, the film has a gripping, disturbing, moving sour-sweet blend to it, and is exactly the type of the film where it's unpredictability, natural change of pace, and lots of eye candy in the scenery, makes you part of the story until the credits role, making you beg for more inside.
Fukunaga's film feels so real not only thanks to his time spent in Mexico and his first hand experience with both, emigrants and immigrants he met before and while shooting the film, his cast of actual members of the Mara gang, perfect editing and combination of locations and the effort he took while filming to get the best out of his actors ("apart from beating them", he joked at Vary), makes the film one of the best feature debuts I've ever seen.
So after you've satisfied your cravings with Tarantino's latest flick, go and check out Sin Nombre for some sincere directing. It's totally worth your while believe me.
I saw the film after the festival at one of the Šary Vary screenings, which I think are fabulous by the way. The audience at both cinemas, Světozor and Aero, are mainly KVIFF returnees who didn't catch all the titles they wanted to at Vary, and refuse to go back to their normal lives yet, sipping beer before, during and after the screenings, trying to keep some of the Vary feeling.. But, back to the film now..
Directed by the young talent Cary Fukunaga, a winner of the Sundance Film Festival Directing award, the film focuses on a combination of issues in South America, from involvement of kids and teenagers in Mexican gangs to what it takes for those who decide to leave South and Central America and seek greener pastures in the U.S.
The story follows two main characters, Casper and Sayra, played by lesser-known actors Edgar Flores and Paulina Gaitan. While Casper is the member of the feared gang Mara Salvatrucha, his faith connects him with Sayra, a Honduran emigrant that travels with her father and uncle together with the other emigrants on a freight train to the U.S.
On this journey together, as Casper tries to escape his faith and Sayra to meet hers, the main characters are slowly blending together, complete each other through their diversity, while they have to face the rough side of life in today's Mexico.
As a result, the film has a gripping, disturbing, moving sour-sweet blend to it, and is exactly the type of the film where it's unpredictability, natural change of pace, and lots of eye candy in the scenery, makes you part of the story until the credits role, making you beg for more inside.
Fukunaga's film feels so real not only thanks to his time spent in Mexico and his first hand experience with both, emigrants and immigrants he met before and while shooting the film, his cast of actual members of the Mara gang, perfect editing and combination of locations and the effort he took while filming to get the best out of his actors ("apart from beating them", he joked at Vary), makes the film one of the best feature debuts I've ever seen.
So after you've satisfied your cravings with Tarantino's latest flick, go and check out Sin Nombre for some sincere directing. It's totally worth your while believe me.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Resurrecting the Champ
As promised, here goes the blog on Rod Lurie's earlier film, Resurrecting the Champ. To quote the imdb: a film based on a true story, that was based on a lie.
This Lurie's earlier film also focusing on the journalist's dilemma is another piece I'd like to recommend to you. As I've expected, the story following a young journalist at the beginning of his career Erik Kernan Jr. (Josh Harnett) who one day accidentally meets a homeless ex-boxer (Samuel L. Jackson) and sets out to write a story about him that he believes will be his breakthrough to the top and the surprises he encounters along the way, about himself and others, is beautifully portrayed.
Kernan, as well as Jackson's character meet, it seems, only to fulfill the dream for each other at the beginning, while at the end, they find out they are both driven by the same handicaps given to them in their childhood.
Though I felt the performances of the leading actors could have been better, I sure appreciated the screen-writing and since the film was inspired by a true story, I was also impressed by the way the film depicts the thin line a journalist walks every day, a line between staying objective and the never-ending hunt for the best scoop or report.
I have to say it again, Lurie's onto something with his filmmaking and we'll hear 'bout him soon again!
This Lurie's earlier film also focusing on the journalist's dilemma is another piece I'd like to recommend to you. As I've expected, the story following a young journalist at the beginning of his career Erik Kernan Jr. (Josh Harnett) who one day accidentally meets a homeless ex-boxer (Samuel L. Jackson) and sets out to write a story about him that he believes will be his breakthrough to the top and the surprises he encounters along the way, about himself and others, is beautifully portrayed.
Kernan, as well as Jackson's character meet, it seems, only to fulfill the dream for each other at the beginning, while at the end, they find out they are both driven by the same handicaps given to them in their childhood.
Though I felt the performances of the leading actors could have been better, I sure appreciated the screen-writing and since the film was inspired by a true story, I was also impressed by the way the film depicts the thin line a journalist walks every day, a line between staying objective and the never-ending hunt for the best scoop or report.
I have to say it again, Lurie's onto something with his filmmaking and we'll hear 'bout him soon again!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
