Boy, it's always a mixed bag at PSIFF. The last full film festival I attended was terrific. I thought that I'd found the solution for singling out good films from the dozens of marginal works. I don't think I'd seen a bad film at all last year. So it was will full confidence and an overwhelming sense of capability that I approached the selection this time. I wasn't prepared at all. Wow. What a festival.
There were a few in the pack which could be classified as automatically good and worth watching. Now that seems a little smug, because every film is worth watching to some degree or other. On of the greatest pleasures I get out of attending the event is seeing films from countries or cultures that are new to me, so there is always something to be enjoyed no matter what the genera or budget of the film.
But I'm not going to lie to you. Some of the films can be hard to get though. I don't mind the violence or gore. Amateurish camera work and wooden dialog are fine as well. No, the real thing which can be a problem is pacing, or more specifically, a lack of pacing. A movie which just sits on the screen for over an hour can make any film lover wince and twich in their seat. I got both barrels this year.
The first one was "Rabbit Woman", which was billed as being an adventure story about genetically modified bunnies which crave flesh, presented in a manga style. It wasn't. It was just long.
Then there was Madera. I'm not sure if that is the correct way to spell the title of the film, but I'm not going to take the time to double check. It's not worth it. It is a film about adultery in a small town. But an honest viewer would say its a small town spread over 90 minutes. No small town is worth that sort of attention. Ever.
Longwave was better and funny in parts, and Patch Town was the best of the fest as far as I'm concerned. The automatic winners I'd given a pass to because I figured it would be easy enough to get them on Netflix or Amazon later this year. Now I'm thinking about changing my approach to the films. Yes, there is something to be said about finding a film you'll never see anywhere else. But some films just don't have to be seen all the way through to be experienced. They can be completely appreciated in a small dose while passing by in the theater hallway.
We'll see how long I'll stick to this resolution. There is a good chance that some South American documentary about Nordic tattoos will catch my eye next time, and I'll plunk down the price of a ticket when the festival rolls around again.
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Monday, January 13, 2014
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Sucker Punch Movie Review
Movie: Sucker Punch
Ted Puffer's Review : 3 Stars
There's a lot going for the movie Sucker Punch, and not all of it has to do with the fact that not only did the director also film the supposedly unfilmable graphic novel "Watchmen" but also blew the doors off with "300". To have seen those films tells you what to expect when you sit down to a new creation by this guy. You're going to see lots of slow-mo fighting and wowza visuals. That's a given. But are you going to get a side helping of plot along with that meal?
Actually, yes. Now I'm not going to give you a line about how there are layers of meaning behind the story and that every item in the scene is a metaphor for life and the difficulty of maintaining ego integrity in the modern world. That would be a stretch. The plot isn't that large in scope but it is there and more importantly it's done well.
What really impressed me about this film is that while the plot can be summed up in a paragraph or two at the most, the small story was done with excellent execution. Now all of this brings up the larger question of is a movie with a well done small plot more important than a movie with a larger subject being handled haphazardly. In this instance, I'm happy with the small plot. It is done well and even has (gasp!) foreshadowing! And... and internal logic integrity! Heck, the director has even gone so far as to throw in a plot point or two just to show the Syd Field fans that it can be done.
OK, it's not "Birth of a Nation". But it is good, and was worth seeing in a theater.
Ted Puffer's Review : 3 Stars
There's a lot going for the movie Sucker Punch, and not all of it has to do with the fact that not only did the director also film the supposedly unfilmable graphic novel "Watchmen" but also blew the doors off with "300". To have seen those films tells you what to expect when you sit down to a new creation by this guy. You're going to see lots of slow-mo fighting and wowza visuals. That's a given. But are you going to get a side helping of plot along with that meal?
Actually, yes. Now I'm not going to give you a line about how there are layers of meaning behind the story and that every item in the scene is a metaphor for life and the difficulty of maintaining ego integrity in the modern world. That would be a stretch. The plot isn't that large in scope but it is there and more importantly it's done well.
What really impressed me about this film is that while the plot can be summed up in a paragraph or two at the most, the small story was done with excellent execution. Now all of this brings up the larger question of is a movie with a well done small plot more important than a movie with a larger subject being handled haphazardly. In this instance, I'm happy with the small plot. It is done well and even has (gasp!) foreshadowing! And... and internal logic integrity! Heck, the director has even gone so far as to throw in a plot point or two just to show the Syd Field fans that it can be done.
OK, it's not "Birth of a Nation". But it is good, and was worth seeing in a theater.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Eraserhead
Part of me wishes that I could see David Lynch films in fast-forward mode. I'd enjoy them more, and I don't think it's a disservice to the director or myself for saying so. He does "bizarre" like a kid in school vying for attention to the point where he's willing to eat worms. In David Lynch's case, at this point of his career he's shovelling them down by the handful.
I do like creepy scenes in movies, and atmospheric works are something I appreciate and enjoy. But Mr. Lynch seems determined to have the audience unnerved or unsettled by showing characters moving in slow, awkward ways that are unpleasant to watch. Well and good. When it works, it works fine. But for goodness sake, the same effect could be created once at the beginning of the film and it would be enough. It doesn't have to be done again and again throughout the running time of the movie.
Eraserhead is slow moving, but there are scenes unlike any I'd seen before. So for that I'm thankful and would recommend that this film be watched for anyone with a taste for the odd or disturbing. But keep your finger near the FF button. And if you have to leave the room for a smoke or to make coffee, don't worry too much about missing anything important.
I do like creepy scenes in movies, and atmospheric works are something I appreciate and enjoy. But Mr. Lynch seems determined to have the audience unnerved or unsettled by showing characters moving in slow, awkward ways that are unpleasant to watch. Well and good. When it works, it works fine. But for goodness sake, the same effect could be created once at the beginning of the film and it would be enough. It doesn't have to be done again and again throughout the running time of the movie.
Eraserhead is slow moving, but there are scenes unlike any I'd seen before. So for that I'm thankful and would recommend that this film be watched for anyone with a taste for the odd or disturbing. But keep your finger near the FF button. And if you have to leave the room for a smoke or to make coffee, don't worry too much about missing anything important.
Begotten
Now when I think of film, I really do think of individual stories which are only united in the medium in which they're presented. This medium has a myriad of ways to be presented, so as far as a uniting theme it's broad.
Of course this idea doesn't really go that well in practice. It doesn't take a viewer that long to realise that most movies look an awful lot alike, and that stories and plots borrow from each other liberally all the time. So when something comes along that is unique in ways unlike anything before it, it's an adventure. Maybe not a good adventure, but an adventure all the same.
"Begotten" is one of these movies. It's hard to watch, and I'm not going to kid anyone by saying that it's because of the imagery. It's the pace of the thing that makes it a trial. But although it moves as slow as molasses, it makes for a powerful visual treat and one that I'd recommend to anyone looking for something out of the ordinary. Besides, any movie that has a character called "God Killing Himself" isn't your everyday fare.
What is funny about this film is that it reminds me strongly of a short I saw on HBO about 9 years ago. There was a series on cable which had hour long short films by different directors and one of them had to do with a film that was so horrible and ghastly that any audiece that watched it was immediately driven insane. I'm not sure of the name of the series, but the faux film which was so dangerous could easily have been "Begotten". Grainy, black and white, and glorious.
Of course this idea doesn't really go that well in practice. It doesn't take a viewer that long to realise that most movies look an awful lot alike, and that stories and plots borrow from each other liberally all the time. So when something comes along that is unique in ways unlike anything before it, it's an adventure. Maybe not a good adventure, but an adventure all the same.
"Begotten" is one of these movies. It's hard to watch, and I'm not going to kid anyone by saying that it's because of the imagery. It's the pace of the thing that makes it a trial. But although it moves as slow as molasses, it makes for a powerful visual treat and one that I'd recommend to anyone looking for something out of the ordinary. Besides, any movie that has a character called "God Killing Himself" isn't your everyday fare.
What is funny about this film is that it reminds me strongly of a short I saw on HBO about 9 years ago. There was a series on cable which had hour long short films by different directors and one of them had to do with a film that was so horrible and ghastly that any audiece that watched it was immediately driven insane. I'm not sure of the name of the series, but the faux film which was so dangerous could easily have been "Begotten". Grainy, black and white, and glorious.
Catfish "Movie" review
Movie: Catfish
Ted Puffer's Review: -3 stars
Long story short, this movie is faked. Now there are plenty of clues about the fakery involved in it, but that's not the point. The point is that even if the story were legit, it's still not that involving, and barely worth telling in the first place.
I don't think that I'm being too harsh on the movie, because there is a fair amount of speculation about what makes a good movie in the first place. For the most part I really do try to keep an open mind, and believe strongly that there are different levels of what constitutes "good" when it comes to film. A film that fails under every category, yet is effectively edited could be considered "good". It's a stretch, but you see what I'm getting at.
In the case of "Catfish", there isn't anything to really hold onto. For a film like this, it must:
1- be made in such a way that the viewer believes it's real
2- have a twist which the viewer wasn't expecting or hasn't seen before
3- contain the seeds of a larger theme or idea beyond the main storyline
Yeah, I could go on. But "Catfish" isn't really worth it. I sort of liked the interior shots of the New York office. And the sound was well done.
Ted Puffer's Review: -3 stars
Long story short, this movie is faked. Now there are plenty of clues about the fakery involved in it, but that's not the point. The point is that even if the story were legit, it's still not that involving, and barely worth telling in the first place.
I don't think that I'm being too harsh on the movie, because there is a fair amount of speculation about what makes a good movie in the first place. For the most part I really do try to keep an open mind, and believe strongly that there are different levels of what constitutes "good" when it comes to film. A film that fails under every category, yet is effectively edited could be considered "good". It's a stretch, but you see what I'm getting at.
In the case of "Catfish", there isn't anything to really hold onto. For a film like this, it must:
1- be made in such a way that the viewer believes it's real
2- have a twist which the viewer wasn't expecting or hasn't seen before
3- contain the seeds of a larger theme or idea beyond the main storyline
Yeah, I could go on. But "Catfish" isn't really worth it. I sort of liked the interior shots of the New York office. And the sound was well done.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Social Network Movie Review
The Movie: The Social Network
Ted Puffer's Review : -2 stars
Writing about this movie is slightly more painful than seeing it, so I'll keep this short. I've suffered enough for this film to last a lifetime. This movie would have fared better had it come out in the 90's. Every scene has been shot before, and better, over two decades ago.
Ted Puffer's Review : -2 stars
Writing about this movie is slightly more painful than seeing it, so I'll keep this short. I've suffered enough for this film to last a lifetime. This movie would have fared better had it come out in the 90's. Every scene has been shot before, and better, over two decades ago.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Palm Springs Film Fest 2011
I just finished seeing the 6 films over three days that I'd picked for the Palm Springs Film Festival, and it looks like the method worked very nicely. I didn't overthink my selections, just pointed and made the purchases. The films that I ended up with were as diverse as anyone could have hoped for, and contained a remarkable range of directorial styles. I'm very glad I went this year! Writing was killing my schedule and I really didn't think that I'd be able to break away for a few days to go down to the Fest.
My best of the fest pick this time? I think that I'll have to go with Uncle Boomee, but Bardsongs is a close second. Bardsongs was much more easily understood and approachable, but that isn't what drew me to this film. The stories and locations are endlessly entertaining, and even with no dialog I'd have sat in the theatre just soaking in the atmosphere of foreign cultures, sounds and sights alike. What an enjoyable film!
Mamuuth... Well, I DID like it... but good grief.
No star sightings this time, but I'll keep an eye peeled next year.
My best of the fest pick this time? I think that I'll have to go with Uncle Boomee, but Bardsongs is a close second. Bardsongs was much more easily understood and approachable, but that isn't what drew me to this film. The stories and locations are endlessly entertaining, and even with no dialog I'd have sat in the theatre just soaking in the atmosphere of foreign cultures, sounds and sights alike. What an enjoyable film!
Mamuuth... Well, I DID like it... but good grief.
No star sightings this time, but I'll keep an eye peeled next year.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Palm Springs Film Festival
I grabbed a 'six pack' of movie tickets to the Palm Springs International Film Festival, and it looks like I've finally found a way to choose good movies from the extensive list of films on display. Last year I relied solely on tracking down reviews from Rottentomatoes and the festivals own programme. The results were hit-and-miss. Some of the films were very good, but others had been so mis-represented that it was a nasty shock to find out you'd been duped.
This year I just made my selections by choosing the movies from the category or genre, with very little attention being paid to a description of the story line. I was more likely to choose a film that was made in an interesting country, or at least a country which I haven't seen too many films being produced in. The method works wonderfully. I'm not sure what changes have taken over the festival, but this year has seen more foreign films than have been on display in the past. It makes for great variety, and a strong field of movies that aren't on your regular cable channels.
First day in, and I've seen "Dog Sweat" and "Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives". Great stuff!
This year I just made my selections by choosing the movies from the category or genre, with very little attention being paid to a description of the story line. I was more likely to choose a film that was made in an interesting country, or at least a country which I haven't seen too many films being produced in. The method works wonderfully. I'm not sure what changes have taken over the festival, but this year has seen more foreign films than have been on display in the past. It makes for great variety, and a strong field of movies that aren't on your regular cable channels.
First day in, and I've seen "Dog Sweat" and "Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives". Great stuff!
Friday, December 10, 2010
True Grit : Movie Review
Movie : True Grit (2010)
Ted Puffer's Rating : 4 stars
I was able to catch an advanced screening of the Coen brothers' "True Grit" in Palm Springs yesterday, and I've got to admit that it's one heck of a good movie. Now I love the Coen brothers movies. They are mostly known for off-beat characters and ironic humor, but what really draws me to their films are the complex plots. Each movie they create is centered around a plot that can't be summed up in one or two sentences. That's not easy to do. After awhile most movies fall into genres and can be trapped by them. Romantic comedies must have a break up scene, horror films need to have shadowy chases, etc. And that's fine, there really isn't anything wrong with sticking with what works. But Coen movies use these devices sparingly if at all, and try to tell larger stories then the genre usually sees.
True Grit is a Western. Now I hate westerns, horses and the desert in general. So the fact that I actually liked this movie and would see it again should speak volumes. One reviewer mentioned that there are no cut away shots where the camera lingers on a rolling horizon. I agree with this. Westerns can be counted on for throwing the breaks on the plot while the camera wanders the countryside. True Grit avoids this trope.
Today I watched the original, which I hadn't seen before. I was struck with how much of the dialog matched word for word between the two films, but they are completely different movies. It's actually worth seeing just for this, because it allows the viewer to see how two different directors (and actors) can start out with the same script but end up miles away from each other. John Wayne is good, no doubt. But darn it, I like the updated version better. I'm not completely sure why the first doesn't strike me as a 'landmark' film, and I hate to think that I'm only able to enjoy movies shot in a modern style with massive budgets. However, the fact remains that while I liked the first movie, I have no desire to see it again. The updated version blew my socks off.
Ted Puffer's Rating : 4 stars
I was able to catch an advanced screening of the Coen brothers' "True Grit" in Palm Springs yesterday, and I've got to admit that it's one heck of a good movie. Now I love the Coen brothers movies. They are mostly known for off-beat characters and ironic humor, but what really draws me to their films are the complex plots. Each movie they create is centered around a plot that can't be summed up in one or two sentences. That's not easy to do. After awhile most movies fall into genres and can be trapped by them. Romantic comedies must have a break up scene, horror films need to have shadowy chases, etc. And that's fine, there really isn't anything wrong with sticking with what works. But Coen movies use these devices sparingly if at all, and try to tell larger stories then the genre usually sees.
True Grit is a Western. Now I hate westerns, horses and the desert in general. So the fact that I actually liked this movie and would see it again should speak volumes. One reviewer mentioned that there are no cut away shots where the camera lingers on a rolling horizon. I agree with this. Westerns can be counted on for throwing the breaks on the plot while the camera wanders the countryside. True Grit avoids this trope.
Today I watched the original, which I hadn't seen before. I was struck with how much of the dialog matched word for word between the two films, but they are completely different movies. It's actually worth seeing just for this, because it allows the viewer to see how two different directors (and actors) can start out with the same script but end up miles away from each other. John Wayne is good, no doubt. But darn it, I like the updated version better. I'm not completely sure why the first doesn't strike me as a 'landmark' film, and I hate to think that I'm only able to enjoy movies shot in a modern style with massive budgets. However, the fact remains that while I liked the first movie, I have no desire to see it again. The updated version blew my socks off.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Cold Souls Movie Review
Ted Puffer Review = 2 1/2 stars
This is the sort of movie that you really, really want to like. You want to connect with the characters and the central premise of the film in a very direct and personal way that you end up cheering every frame, even though the movie might not deserve it.
And to be completely honest, this film doesn't. But that doesn't mean that I didn't like it. The film resolves around an actor who finds the weight of his own soul to be crushing his happiness, and interfering with his work. So he goes to a soul storage facility for a sole-ectomy. His soul will be removed and kept safe for him while he pursues his life without the weight of his sold burdening his mind.
What impressed me was that this was the only leap of faith that the director demands of the audience. After this ability for the soul to be removed and confined, if not completely understood, is presented, the rest of the film flows naturally.
For myself, I appreciated the questions raised in the film as far as what would happen to someone if their soul was suddenly removed from their life. The movie suggests that there are changes, but no the ones you'd normally expect. The actor who is the central figure of the film doesn't become an evil Faustian character. He does say that once his soul is removed, he feels empty, but lighter. Beyond these vague descriptions, you are left to see the changes to his body and personality yourself, even if the actor isn't aware of them on a personal level.
All in all a good movie, but it would have been a great short film. They can't all be winners.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
The Hurt Locker
Ted Puffer Review = 4 Stars
The only real reason I wanted to see this movie was because it was being billed as the greatest movie about the Iraq war created so far, and considering the duds which have hit the screen since the war started that's actually saying something. I knew it didn't have to be great, but it did have to be a generally good movie. And a good movie about Iraq is needed. Movies tend to let us crystallize our thinking about a topic, and the Iraq war is a heck of a topic in need of some clarification.
Also what attracted me was the idea that this was a fictional story. So while it may do nothing to actually explaining the war, it might be able to show real emotion and a broad theme surrounding the whole mess.
And it does.
The movie is surprising in that it doesn't have any tense moments. This is a movie that follows a bomb squad through their tour of duty, so you'd expect lots of ticking time-bombs and action against the clock. The movie has none of that.
What is does have is some great characters and some bewildered people not really sure why they're in a warzone, but happy to be there. Not happy in the normal sense of the word, but happy they are in a place they feel they should be in .
Not an easy subject, and an even more difficult emotion to convey in film. But brilliantly done, and making for a great movie.
The only real reason I wanted to see this movie was because it was being billed as the greatest movie about the Iraq war created so far, and considering the duds which have hit the screen since the war started that's actually saying something. I knew it didn't have to be great, but it did have to be a generally good movie. And a good movie about Iraq is needed. Movies tend to let us crystallize our thinking about a topic, and the Iraq war is a heck of a topic in need of some clarification.
Also what attracted me was the idea that this was a fictional story. So while it may do nothing to actually explaining the war, it might be able to show real emotion and a broad theme surrounding the whole mess.
And it does.
The movie is surprising in that it doesn't have any tense moments. This is a movie that follows a bomb squad through their tour of duty, so you'd expect lots of ticking time-bombs and action against the clock. The movie has none of that.
What is does have is some great characters and some bewildered people not really sure why they're in a warzone, but happy to be there. Not happy in the normal sense of the word, but happy they are in a place they feel they should be in .
Not an easy subject, and an even more difficult emotion to convey in film. But brilliantly done, and making for a great movie.
Alice In Wonderland Movie Review
Ted Puffer rating = 2 or 3 stars.
I'll keep this brief because there are more in depth reviews available everywhere. Alice In Wonderland isn't as bad a movie as it should be. It should be terrible. It should have been a multi million dollar snore fest. But when all is said and done, it really wasn't that bad.
So I'll bump up my review to three stars.
The acting was fine, the special effects are good and the pacing of the movie moves right along. What keeps this film together is the story, which shocked me. It actually is a nice, tight little story that doesn't get bogged down or off track.
The real surprise is the fabled dance that Johnny Depp is supposed to dance when the Red Queen is finally defeated. The director is waving a red flag at this point telling the audience to expect a cinematic abomination which will embarrass all involved and their kin for years to come. When the ghastly scene finally crawls on to the screen, it's over before it's lumbering pretense has started. That in itself is a win.
I'll keep this brief because there are more in depth reviews available everywhere. Alice In Wonderland isn't as bad a movie as it should be. It should be terrible. It should have been a multi million dollar snore fest. But when all is said and done, it really wasn't that bad.
So I'll bump up my review to three stars.
The acting was fine, the special effects are good and the pacing of the movie moves right along. What keeps this film together is the story, which shocked me. It actually is a nice, tight little story that doesn't get bogged down or off track.
The real surprise is the fabled dance that Johnny Depp is supposed to dance when the Red Queen is finally defeated. The director is waving a red flag at this point telling the audience to expect a cinematic abomination which will embarrass all involved and their kin for years to come. When the ghastly scene finally crawls on to the screen, it's over before it's lumbering pretense has started. That in itself is a win.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Avatar Movie Review
Ted Puffer Review = 3 Stars
This movie is the ultimate example of style over substance. Since there are millions of reviews for this movie that I'm going to forgo the opportunity to add my own. Not because there are plenty of reviews already and to make another would just be rehashing what has already been put down somewhere else. I'll hold back on reviewing this movie because it isn't worth the ink that's already been used on it. It's a good movie, case closed.
Special effects are fantastic, etc. etc.
Good movie
3 stars.
This movie is the ultimate example of style over substance. Since there are millions of reviews for this movie that I'm going to forgo the opportunity to add my own. Not because there are plenty of reviews already and to make another would just be rehashing what has already been put down somewhere else. I'll hold back on reviewing this movie because it isn't worth the ink that's already been used on it. It's a good movie, case closed.
Special effects are fantastic, etc. etc.
Good movie
3 stars.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
A Serious Man
Ted Puffer Movie Rating : 4 Stars
There is so much to go into about this movie, I'll keep it brief. Partially because this is one of those movies that specialize in analysis and so going over the length of the work frame by frame would be rewarding but exhausting. Also, it's getting late and I don't want to spend the entirety of my evening at the keyboard. So here it is:
Very good movie.
Very highly recommended.
The movie presents an image of God as one who is intimately connected with the lives of His followers, and is quick to test their faith and resolve, and even quicker to punish weakness and lack of resolve.
Very good movie. Dumb name though.
There is so much to go into about this movie, I'll keep it brief. Partially because this is one of those movies that specialize in analysis and so going over the length of the work frame by frame would be rewarding but exhausting. Also, it's getting late and I don't want to spend the entirety of my evening at the keyboard. So here it is:
Very good movie.
Very highly recommended.
The movie presents an image of God as one who is intimately connected with the lives of His followers, and is quick to test their faith and resolve, and even quicker to punish weakness and lack of resolve.
Very good movie. Dumb name though.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Good Hair
Ted Puffer's Movie Rating = 4 Stars
The subject of this movie has got to be one of the hardest sells for a film in a long time. How do you convince someone that a movie about black hair and black hairstyles is interesting? The second they hear that the movie focuses solely on hair relaxers, straighteners, weaves and wigs they'll start running for the doors. And with good reason. The subject is boring for the most part, and a movie-length documentary about it must be excruciating and that's even before you mention who is making the movie.
Chris Rock.
Yeah, that guy. You know him. He's the one that was in a bunch of cringe-worthy 'comedies' last decade and has since been relegated to specials on the Comedy Channel. Not a funny guy, but more damning, not someone you'd care to hear an opinion from.
All of this adds up to why I'm rating this film so highly. It's a good movie. In fact, I'd say this is an excellent movie. One reviewer (I forget who) mentioned that the genius of the direction is that the film flows so well. It covers a large range of viewpoints and experiences, but seems to slide so naturally between them that Chris Rock makes it seem easy. Behind the camera, it's anything but. Mr. Rock interviews Al Sharpton, Ice T, Salt N' Peppa and dozens of unknown hair stylists and people getting their hair styled. But the comfortable delivery and pacing makes these disparate elements come together naturally to create a complete conversation.
It's truly stunning.
The real question is, "Is this a better film than Capitalism: A Love Story"? And I really don't want to answer this question because I'm not pleased with the obvious conclusion I came to. Yes it is. I love the subject of Capitalism. I'm impressed that Michael Moore tackled such a large issue and argument, and did so whole-heartedly. But at the end of the day, and at the end of the movie, Good Hair is better. Even with is narrow subject and personable delivery it makes for a better documentary.
Good Hair makes the audience aware of the world of black hair. Not only that, but it makes the audience care about the larger issues surrounding the perceptions and marketing of the styled look of black hair. Capitalism doesn't. Not really. It does make you righteously angry, and you do feel more aware of our country afterward. But Good Hair delivers the same experience, only more so.
There is a framing element for this film centering around a styling competition, but essentially the outcome doesn't matter. Mr. Rock seems to appreciate this and doesn't milk this event for more than it's worth. He seems to use the competition to guide the movie along, but never to push an agenda or viewpoint.
As a final note, the interview with the black market hair collector in India is worth the price of admission alone. The only word of advise I can give to women with long hair vacationing in India is simply don't go to sleep. Seriously.
The subject of this movie has got to be one of the hardest sells for a film in a long time. How do you convince someone that a movie about black hair and black hairstyles is interesting? The second they hear that the movie focuses solely on hair relaxers, straighteners, weaves and wigs they'll start running for the doors. And with good reason. The subject is boring for the most part, and a movie-length documentary about it must be excruciating and that's even before you mention who is making the movie.
Chris Rock.
Yeah, that guy. You know him. He's the one that was in a bunch of cringe-worthy 'comedies' last decade and has since been relegated to specials on the Comedy Channel. Not a funny guy, but more damning, not someone you'd care to hear an opinion from.
All of this adds up to why I'm rating this film so highly. It's a good movie. In fact, I'd say this is an excellent movie. One reviewer (I forget who) mentioned that the genius of the direction is that the film flows so well. It covers a large range of viewpoints and experiences, but seems to slide so naturally between them that Chris Rock makes it seem easy. Behind the camera, it's anything but. Mr. Rock interviews Al Sharpton, Ice T, Salt N' Peppa and dozens of unknown hair stylists and people getting their hair styled. But the comfortable delivery and pacing makes these disparate elements come together naturally to create a complete conversation.
It's truly stunning.
The real question is, "Is this a better film than Capitalism: A Love Story"? And I really don't want to answer this question because I'm not pleased with the obvious conclusion I came to. Yes it is. I love the subject of Capitalism. I'm impressed that Michael Moore tackled such a large issue and argument, and did so whole-heartedly. But at the end of the day, and at the end of the movie, Good Hair is better. Even with is narrow subject and personable delivery it makes for a better documentary.
Good Hair makes the audience aware of the world of black hair. Not only that, but it makes the audience care about the larger issues surrounding the perceptions and marketing of the styled look of black hair. Capitalism doesn't. Not really. It does make you righteously angry, and you do feel more aware of our country afterward. But Good Hair delivers the same experience, only more so.
There is a framing element for this film centering around a styling competition, but essentially the outcome doesn't matter. Mr. Rock seems to appreciate this and doesn't milk this event for more than it's worth. He seems to use the competition to guide the movie along, but never to push an agenda or viewpoint.
As a final note, the interview with the black market hair collector in India is worth the price of admission alone. The only word of advise I can give to women with long hair vacationing in India is simply don't go to sleep. Seriously.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Capitalism Movie Review
Movie: Capitalism: A Love Story
Ted Puffer movie review: 3 stars
In case you don't know, this is a Michael Moore movie following up on Bowling for Columbine and Sicko. In this film, Michael Moore takes a look at capitalism and the countries unquestioning acceptance of this framework of commerce as being both fair as well as the absolute best economic structure for society.
After checking out multiple reviews of Michael Moore's movies, I'm noticing a trend that reviews fall into. They tend to rate the movie on it's expected societal impact and whether or not it will win converts over to Mr. Moore's arguments. This is fine and everything, but doesn't tell you if a movie is actually good. Or worth seeing. Or anything really. So I'm avoiding that all together.
Does Michael Moore clearly state his concerns about capitalism. Pretty much. Does he do a good job differentiating capitalism from democracy? I think so. Is the film competently directed and edited. Sure, but not phenomenally so.
Michael Moore seems to have made this movie with an eye towards television instead of the full cinema experience. The camerawork is competent, but definitely not anything special. Cut scenes are appropriate to the moment and editing is seamless. Pacing seems to be his real problem for this film. Although the examination of capitalism throughout American society is interesting, it comes as a slow boil for about 2/3rds of the movie. After that, the gloves come off which is a welcome relief to the audience, but the pacing of the first half is decidedly slow.
Worth seeing? You bet! A must see movie? Well, why not? What else are you going to do for the next two hours? If anything, you will leave the theater a bit wiser about the economic bailout, which alone is worth the price of admission.
Ted Puffer movie review: 3 stars
In case you don't know, this is a Michael Moore movie following up on Bowling for Columbine and Sicko. In this film, Michael Moore takes a look at capitalism and the countries unquestioning acceptance of this framework of commerce as being both fair as well as the absolute best economic structure for society.
After checking out multiple reviews of Michael Moore's movies, I'm noticing a trend that reviews fall into. They tend to rate the movie on it's expected societal impact and whether or not it will win converts over to Mr. Moore's arguments. This is fine and everything, but doesn't tell you if a movie is actually good. Or worth seeing. Or anything really. So I'm avoiding that all together.
Does Michael Moore clearly state his concerns about capitalism. Pretty much. Does he do a good job differentiating capitalism from democracy? I think so. Is the film competently directed and edited. Sure, but not phenomenally so.
Michael Moore seems to have made this movie with an eye towards television instead of the full cinema experience. The camerawork is competent, but definitely not anything special. Cut scenes are appropriate to the moment and editing is seamless. Pacing seems to be his real problem for this film. Although the examination of capitalism throughout American society is interesting, it comes as a slow boil for about 2/3rds of the movie. After that, the gloves come off which is a welcome relief to the audience, but the pacing of the first half is decidedly slow.
Worth seeing? You bet! A must see movie? Well, why not? What else are you going to do for the next two hours? If anything, you will leave the theater a bit wiser about the economic bailout, which alone is worth the price of admission.
Monday, September 28, 2009
The Hurt Locker Hurts
To keep this from becoming a rant, I'll keep it brief. I attended the Palm Springs Film Festival's premiere of "The Hurt Locker" which featured a Q&A panel afterward composed of the director, producer, screen writer and subject of the movie.
The only thing that was missing was the movie. The PSFF was unable to get a copy of the film to the theater in time for the event.
Ted Puffer movie review of The Hurt Locker = +3 stars
Ted Puffer review of PFSS (so far) = -3 stars. Hey, that was a long and hot drive to Palm Springs. Sure the area is great to visit and all, but I'd planned on seeing the movie at the end of that trip.
Grr.
Special showing of The Hurt Locker has been rescheduled to this Wednesday with the director in attendance. I'm still debating whether to go.
The only thing that was missing was the movie. The PSFF was unable to get a copy of the film to the theater in time for the event.
Ted Puffer movie review of The Hurt Locker = +3 stars
Ted Puffer review of PFSS (so far) = -3 stars. Hey, that was a long and hot drive to Palm Springs. Sure the area is great to visit and all, but I'd planned on seeing the movie at the end of that trip.
Grr.
Special showing of The Hurt Locker has been rescheduled to this Wednesday with the director in attendance. I'm still debating whether to go.
Departures Movie Review
Ted Puffer movie rating = +4 Stars
Definately worth the effort of finding to watch. Good luck watching this movie on cable, but if you can find a copy somewhere, buy it. Ignore the boring movie poster featuring the guy playing a cello in the middle of a grassy field. The image has nothing to do with the movie.
From the producer:
Departures follows Daigo Kobayashi (Masahiro Motoki), a devoted cellist in an orchestra that has just been dissolved and who is suddenly left without a job. Daigo decides to move back to his old hometown with his wife to look for work and start over. He answers a classified ad entitled Departures thinking it is an advertisement for a travel agency only to discover that the job is actually for a "Nokanshi" or "encoffineer," a funeral professional who prepares deceased bodies for burial and entry into the next life. While his wife and others despise the job, Daigo takes a certain pride in his work and begins to perfect the art of “Nokanshi,” acting as a gentle gatekeeper between life and death, between the departed and the family of the departed. The film follows his profound and sometimes comical journey with death as he uncovers the wonder, joy and meaning of life and living. --© Regent Releasing
Definately worth the effort of finding to watch. Good luck watching this movie on cable, but if you can find a copy somewhere, buy it. Ignore the boring movie poster featuring the guy playing a cello in the middle of a grassy field. The image has nothing to do with the movie.
From the producer:
Departures follows Daigo Kobayashi (Masahiro Motoki), a devoted cellist in an orchestra that has just been dissolved and who is suddenly left without a job. Daigo decides to move back to his old hometown with his wife to look for work and start over. He answers a classified ad entitled Departures thinking it is an advertisement for a travel agency only to discover that the job is actually for a "Nokanshi" or "encoffineer," a funeral professional who prepares deceased bodies for burial and entry into the next life. While his wife and others despise the job, Daigo takes a certain pride in his work and begins to perfect the art of “Nokanshi,” acting as a gentle gatekeeper between life and death, between the departed and the family of the departed. The film follows his profound and sometimes comical journey with death as he uncovers the wonder, joy and meaning of life and living. --© Regent Releasing
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Movie Rating System
The movie rating system needs an update.
Back in the Roger and Ebert days, it was a simple thing to give a movie either a thumbs up, or thumbs down. This was quick shorthand to indicate if a movie was worth seeing or not. It works if you have a passive interest in film, if you get the urge to see a movie every now and then and want to know what is worth the price of admission.
But if your interest in movies goes beyond that, if you're more interested in how good a movie is then a sliding scale is needed. Most movie reviewers have adopted this, usually by rating a film between 0 and 5 stars.
This is sufficient if films are either bad or good. A bad film gets 0 stars and a good film gets 5. Easy enough, right? However, films are complex things and deserve more than this. Films can be bad on many levels, and excel in many ways sometimes despite their flaws. What this means for the star rating system is that medocre films get 3 stars which bestows it more worth than it's due. Let me give you an example.
Under the 5 star rating system, an unwatchable film (Mortal Combat 2) gets 0 stars, a passable film (Happy Gilmore) gets 3 and excellent film (Dave) gets five. But all films aren't worth the price of admission. Not really. Each of these films is flawed in vital ways and none will stand the test of time. Dave is a very good film, but not worth repeated viewings. It's good entertainment, but could easily be seen on DVD without missing anything.
Mr. Cranky takes a different approach to ratings which I've enjoyed before the site started going downhill. Mr. Cranky rated films on badness, from 1 to 4 bombs with a stick of dynamite for an abysmal film. This gives the reviewer plenty of opportunity to cover how a film has failed, what it's fumbled and how it has fallen short of being a good movie. The problem of course is that it rates every movie on badness alone, with great movies being given the best rating of one bomb.
I suggest a new system which rates movies between -5 to +5 stars.
Most movies can be charted on a bell curve with the majority of films falling in the middle. These are the movies that exist to make some money and provide a few hours of diversion, before being consigned to the DVD bargain bin at Hollywood Video and eventually consigned to a dusty shelf in the living room of the average film goer. These films can safely be given a 0 rating indicating their unworthiness of time or money.
The negative stars allow the reviewer to brand movies which to their shame fail to live up to even a mediocre label and in general lower the standards of the film genre worldwide. Take "You've Got Mail". Under normal standards this movie would get 2-3 stars. The acting is passable, the plot simple and film work adequate. But the new rating system gives it a -3 stars for squandering talent, creating a film centered around a product and wasting the movie goers time.
Examples:
Negative Stars
-Any Adam Sandler Film
-Any starlet vehicle
-Any film with Dana Carvey
-Any unfunny comedies (See above)
Zero Stars
-Any date movie
-Any Disney Movie (yeah, with one or two exceptions, but not many!)
-Any film where a major character works in the movie industry
-Any teen horror film
-Any awkward, stilted period films
Postive Stars
-Any Pixar movie
-Any film with no marketing tie-ins
-Any film rated R for content and not just nudity
-Any sci-fi film (And I'm not talking about near future films like The Day After or other such garbage. I want spaceships and lots of 'em!)
What's really great about this system is that it make it easy to spot the standouts in any category. Take The Ring. Horror film. Expectations for this genre are pretty low, so when it get a 4 star ratings it's obvious there's something special about this film. Upon viewing, they mystery is solved. The film has suspense and unease practically oozing through every eerie frame. It's internal logic is solid and powers of suspension of disbelief unchallenged. Great film!
Then look at Gladiator. Period piece. Again, expectations are low but not abysmal. During period pieces the audience is expected to watch the pretty background while the characters chew it. But when the movie appears with a -3 rating, eyebrows go up. One painful movie experience later and the cause is clear. Wasted lead, anachronistic sets and language and a directors contempt for the subject are on display throughout the film. Ouch.
Now if there were more spaceships in Gladiator, it would be a different story.
Back in the Roger and Ebert days, it was a simple thing to give a movie either a thumbs up, or thumbs down. This was quick shorthand to indicate if a movie was worth seeing or not. It works if you have a passive interest in film, if you get the urge to see a movie every now and then and want to know what is worth the price of admission.
But if your interest in movies goes beyond that, if you're more interested in how good a movie is then a sliding scale is needed. Most movie reviewers have adopted this, usually by rating a film between 0 and 5 stars.
This is sufficient if films are either bad or good. A bad film gets 0 stars and a good film gets 5. Easy enough, right? However, films are complex things and deserve more than this. Films can be bad on many levels, and excel in many ways sometimes despite their flaws. What this means for the star rating system is that medocre films get 3 stars which bestows it more worth than it's due. Let me give you an example.
Under the 5 star rating system, an unwatchable film (Mortal Combat 2) gets 0 stars, a passable film (Happy Gilmore) gets 3 and excellent film (Dave) gets five. But all films aren't worth the price of admission. Not really. Each of these films is flawed in vital ways and none will stand the test of time. Dave is a very good film, but not worth repeated viewings. It's good entertainment, but could easily be seen on DVD without missing anything.
Mr. Cranky takes a different approach to ratings which I've enjoyed before the site started going downhill. Mr. Cranky rated films on badness, from 1 to 4 bombs with a stick of dynamite for an abysmal film. This gives the reviewer plenty of opportunity to cover how a film has failed, what it's fumbled and how it has fallen short of being a good movie. The problem of course is that it rates every movie on badness alone, with great movies being given the best rating of one bomb.
I suggest a new system which rates movies between -5 to +5 stars.
Most movies can be charted on a bell curve with the majority of films falling in the middle. These are the movies that exist to make some money and provide a few hours of diversion, before being consigned to the DVD bargain bin at Hollywood Video and eventually consigned to a dusty shelf in the living room of the average film goer. These films can safely be given a 0 rating indicating their unworthiness of time or money.
The negative stars allow the reviewer to brand movies which to their shame fail to live up to even a mediocre label and in general lower the standards of the film genre worldwide. Take "You've Got Mail". Under normal standards this movie would get 2-3 stars. The acting is passable, the plot simple and film work adequate. But the new rating system gives it a -3 stars for squandering talent, creating a film centered around a product and wasting the movie goers time.
Examples:
Negative Stars
-Any Adam Sandler Film
-Any starlet vehicle
-Any film with Dana Carvey
-Any unfunny comedies (See above)
Zero Stars
-Any date movie
-Any Disney Movie (yeah, with one or two exceptions, but not many!)
-Any film where a major character works in the movie industry
-Any teen horror film
-Any awkward, stilted period films
Postive Stars
-Any Pixar movie
-Any film with no marketing tie-ins
-Any film rated R for content and not just nudity
-Any sci-fi film (And I'm not talking about near future films like The Day After or other such garbage. I want spaceships and lots of 'em!)
What's really great about this system is that it make it easy to spot the standouts in any category. Take The Ring. Horror film. Expectations for this genre are pretty low, so when it get a 4 star ratings it's obvious there's something special about this film. Upon viewing, they mystery is solved. The film has suspense and unease practically oozing through every eerie frame. It's internal logic is solid and powers of suspension of disbelief unchallenged. Great film!
Then look at Gladiator. Period piece. Again, expectations are low but not abysmal. During period pieces the audience is expected to watch the pretty background while the characters chew it. But when the movie appears with a -3 rating, eyebrows go up. One painful movie experience later and the cause is clear. Wasted lead, anachronistic sets and language and a directors contempt for the subject are on display throughout the film. Ouch.
Now if there were more spaceships in Gladiator, it would be a different story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
