4 Little Girls

Spike Lee’s documentary about the horrible 1963 bombing of a Birmingham church that claimed the lives of four young girls.  As a documentary, it achieves everything it should: it informs us, it moves us, and it reminds us of the evil that we Americans have in our past, and still have today.  “Never forget”, indeed.  It goes without saying that this was an awful act of hatred and bigotry, its impact still sharply felt by friends and family of the victims.  There is one amusing moment: a clip of George Wallace, years after the fact, trotting out his black “best friend” for the world to see, and the man clearly has contempt for Wallace.  Speaking of trotting out, however, I question the need for Bill Cosby to chime in, or Jesse Jackson for that matter.  There are plenty of articulate and interesting interviewees already involved without pulling in a couple of celebrity pals.  It pulled me out of the film for a moment.  Other than that, however, a strong and memorable film.  Rating: Very Good

IMDb

Andaz Apna Apna

Almost fascinating in its awfulness.  There’s very little funny going on in this “comedy” full of goofy sound effects, exaggerated facial expressions, dumb slapstick, diarrhea gags, and wacky mix-ups.  Stuff like Veer-Zaara is merely trite and clichéd, but this is painfully obnoxious.  I thought Salman Khan was the most ridiculous star in Bollywood, but Aamir Khan (who is great in Lagaan) matches him every step of the way, both of them being grating knuckleheads (not to mention the horrible fashion sense and bad mullets).  The sad thing is there actually are some decent comic ideas in the script, but it’s all executed so amateurishly and clearly aimed at the lowest common denominator.  There were a few moments I found myself having fun with it, but then something stupid would happen and ruin it all over it again.  Even the songs are disappointing.  Ugh.  Rating: Poor

IMDb

Salomé

I’m getting really into these Saura dance movies.  In fact, just last night I spent way too much on the (out-of-print) “Flamenco Trilogy” set.  This one, however, I didn’t much care for.  It’s pretty much just straight ballet, which as I’ve said before is a form that doesn’t speak to me at all.  I find it a very ineffective method of storytelling.  I kind of get what people are doing and how they feel, but the “why” eludes me.  I can’t decode it, my brain just doesn’t work that way.  I need some narrative glue between the dances, or I need the dance to be more dynamic and exciting.  However, I did enjoy the behind-the-scenes stuff in the first part, with dancers working out their moves, the “director” (actually an actor) giving guidance, the discussions of the music and staging.  And the film is quite lovely, again utilizing a very spare soundstage and gorgeous lighting.  It’s just that ballet is so dull to me.  Rating: Fair

IMDb

49 Up

Another review where I shit on this highly-regarded series.  I watched Ebert’s interview with Apted on the DVD, and I noticed that Ebert’s love for the series seems almost entirely about the concept of the thing as a whole.  He rarely mentions specific moments or elements of the individual films that excite him.  Yes, it is a “noble” endeavor, and one that I’m glad exists, but really, the films on their own are mostly pretty dull.  Here we have everything settling into middle age, and most of them quite comfortably.  Good for them, but what’s in it for me?  I don’t really need to hear about the mundane professions your kids have taken up, or that you love your grandchildren (I kind of figured you did).  It’s somewhat rewarding to know that these folk have found some degree of contentment, it just doesn’t make for compelling filmmaking.  I could read about it in a Wikipedia article or something and have the same results.  The one really interesting thing going on in this installment is that it seems to get a bit more meta.  Several of the subjects address their involvement in the film, some with a measure of resentment or frustration (and maybe I’m mistaken, but I think we hear more of Apted’s voice as well).  These were the most rewarding parts for me.  Rating: Fair

IMDb

Zazie dans le metro

For a long time I’d only heard vague things about this movie, but it was all very fawning and I had the sense that it was Malle’s masterpiece.  Then I saw a trailer that Criterion put together and my hopes were dashed.  It just looked incredibly obnoxious.  So I was steeling myself for a trying experience.  In actuality, it’s a mix of my premature impressions.  Something like a Looney Tunes cartoon come to life, the film is bursting with colorful scenes, zany action, sight gags, slapstick, wordplay (much of which I assume is lost in translation), irreverent humor and wild camera tricks.  I have to applaud the energy and inventiveness that Malle brings to the screen, it’s a unique, anarchic and bold film with echoes in Tati, Jeunet and others.  However, it’s still a bit obnoxious.  It’s a weird sensation to be simultaneously charmed and annoyed, but very little of the comedy appealed to my sense of humor.  It’s all too wacky and madcap.  Like Hellzapoppin’, I admire the spirit of it and kind of had fun with certain parts, but I doubt I would ever sit through it again.  Rating: Good

IMDb

Source Code

With Moon, Duncan Jones created an interesting sci-fi premise based on some vague, implausible science and used it to explore questions of identity and free will.  Here, he does the same thing, but the emphasis is more on the vague, implausible science and less on the character-based struggles.  So, when the science starts getting more and more complicated and making less and less sense, it’s a problem.  I didn’t really care how Jake Gyllenhaal was doing these things or what the scientific implications are, except that the movie kept trying to make me care about them.  I liked the suspense and action of the first hour, and the more emotional route the film takes in the last part.  But all this silly science kept getting in the way, leading to an unsatisfying ending that has little to do with the humanity of the story.  I should also note that even though Moon was derivative in a lot of ways, this felt less original to me.  It is a mildly enjoyable entertainment, well-crafted and refreshingly brief.  But none of it really lingers with me, and the cast is entirely lackluster.  Rating: Fair

IMDb

The Terrorizers

After ho-hum reactions to Yi Yi and Brighter Summer Day, this is the first Yang movie that I liked.  The interwoven plot threads slowly reveal themselves in pieces, culminating in a finale that pulls everything together and yet opens up new mysteries.  There is some fine cinematography, and the themes of alienation and disconnectedness give you something to chew on.  However, I really can only appreciate this on an intellectual level.  For me to really love a movie, I have to have some kind of emotional reaction to it.  It has to be touching, or amusing, or exciting, or frightening.  Like a lot of Antonioni (whose name repeatedly pops up in the reviews of this film), it only left me cold.  Only one scene (when the writer weeps in her confused husband’s embrace) had any kind of emotional resonance with me.  I don’t mind a film that makes you think, but there has to be something else to hook me in and encourage me to give it thought.  For those who love cinema on a more intellectual level, however, I imagine this would be more rewarding.  Rating: Good

IMDb

The Castle of Cagliostro

Miyazaki’s debut (not including some TV work) lacks the fantastic imagination and whimsy of his later work.  But it packs a lot of fun into 100 minutes.  An action tale featuring Lupin III, a thief/adventurer/detective character… something like a mix of James Bond and Robin Hood and the old-time serials.  It’s no surprise that Spielberg loves this movie, and I have to wonder if he saw it before making Raiders of the Lost Ark.  The animation doesn’t have a lot of wow factor, but it looks pretty nice.  I could do without the exaggerated facial expressions, and in fact a lot of the attempts at comedy are just too goofy.  But I enjoyed these characters (archetypal though they may be) and their antics.  There’s a lot of nifty situations and it’s told at an enjoyable pace.  Good times.  Rating: Very Good

IMDb

Two Friends

Jane Campion’s first feature concerns a pair of girls whose friendship is fading away… and works backwards from there.  The reverse chronology comes off as gimmicky and adds very little to the film.  It does provide a more upbeat note to end on, but I think it would have been better accomplished via more of a flashback structure.  But it works well enough, and the film is quite sweet with some genuine moments.  I’d like to think the title has a double meaning, referring not only to Kelly and Louise, but also Louise and her mother, a strong relationship that was enjoyable to watch.  The production feels a little flat, but there’s a terrific whimsical sequence near the end, and the performances are endearing.  A pretty nice movie, although again I could have done without the gimmicky structure.  Rating: Good

IMDb

Barking Dogs Never Bite

All of Bong Joon-Ho’s films are black comedies to some degree, but this (his first) leans the most towards comedy.  It actually reminded me a bit of a lighter Ming-liang Tsai with its commentary on the corruption and decay of urban life.  It’s always a pleasure to see Bae Doo-na (of Linda Linda Linda) and the film has some charming and quirky touches.  I have a really hard time with animal cruelty, however, especially when used for humor.  This and a few other mean-spirited elements were an obstacle for me.  I suppose it’s to Bong’s credit that I ended up liking it anyway, but I can’t say I loved it and I wouldn’t watch it again.  Worthwhile for Bae and some of the offbeat filmmaking flourishes, though.  Rating: Good

IMDb