No Name No. 1

I’m pitting my least anticipated franchise “blockbuster” against my most anticipated franchise blockbuster. It’s sad how they compare.

Dragonball Evolution (James Wong, 2009)

A film I only watched to make fun of happened to be one of the most entertaining films I’ve seen so far this year. The story – although inaccurate to the original storyline (which I care nothing for) – chronicles the growth of Goku (Justin Chatwin); from an immature, self-absorbed adolescent into a passionate man who is strong both in will and in an ancient fighting art form. Along with a rag tag group of unusual pals in Bulma (Emmy Rossum) and Yamcha (Joon Park) the trio sets off to find the other dragonballs in an attempt to stop Lord Piccolo (James Marsters) from achieving an overwhelming power.

What makes this film so good is that it doesn’t ever take itself seriously. I mean, bar the climactic fight and the surprisingly (somewhat) menacing scenes of Piccalo speaking of his plans to his follower, it is a carefree and pleasant film. It understands that its content isn’t supposed to be taken seriously and that its characters aren’t meant to be anything special – and because of this it oozes charisma. From the staggeringly hot Emmy Rossum in a role bound full of mischief, to Joon Park giving the single most irritating (and therefore humorous) Korean impression of a typical American, to Justin Chatwin’s solid lead performance that is perhaps the most natural for any film alike; enjoyable and at ease. Plus Ken Watanabe is a bunch of fun and how can you not love a fun loving Watanabe?

What causes this film to succeed where Transformers does not is that it thrives on audience participation. There is a fairly well thought out singular plot; regulated plot devices that cause a formulaic story pattern and very simple characters that you can laugh with and/or at. It isn’t a big budget film, so it has to do other things to engage the audience – this is where the humor lays. Although it isn’t the funniest or the most interesting film ever, it does pace itself well and not exaggerate any scenes. Even the climactic fight is only about 5 minutes long. Comradery, new love and a desire for a soul at peace is what the film is all about. It isn’t profound, but it is simple fun. See it with little expectations like I did and you’re sure to at least enjoy yourself. [6/10]

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Michael Bay, 2009)
Alright, so you know the Michael Bay drill: explosions, comic relief (what for? I don’t know) and more explosions.

What causes the film failure is that it really, really takes itself too seriously. The first film was more reckless and more enjoyable because of it – sure, it had serious moments and did take itself seriously when ‘teaching’ about finding yourself, but that was basically it. The action wasn’t relentless, but it was entertaining. From the well placed bits of humor to the big fight scenes, it was a solid feature. This holds some similarities, but it truly exploits the successes of the ‘07 feature.

For example, Megan Fox – a fresh, sexy face for audiences to enjoy. Alright, she was used well in the first, but in this Bay exploits the character beyond hot into dull. Almost every line of dialogue that comes out of her characters mouth is redundant and boring. And how many times did Bay slow down the film to show her boobs jiggle? Like 10? Anyways, that’s one example. Another would be the humor; the masturbation scene in the first – along with the not-so-witty, but still funny one liners – really cut some built-up boredom through overlong scenes. This just has them coming at you from every direction and at least half of them miss.

Like the first, this follows the duel storylines of Sam (Shia LaBeouf) and the American reserves, headed by Captain Lennox (Josh Duhamel) and Sergeant Epps (Tyrese Gibson – this brings me to a small issue; his character in the first was an intense guy… now he’s just wise-ass typical black stereotype). So you get both parallel perspectives on the crisis and its flavored and varied (it isn’t, but whatever, just go with it). So there’s a comedy film about going off to college for the first 30 minutes, followed by an uneasy somewhat actiony and sneaky story about robots that follows… followed by fights between robots, as well as Sam, his main squeeze Mikaela (MEGAN FOX?!) and Leo (Ramon Rodriguez).

The film has a bunch of flare in terms of action, but it also contains a bunch of annoyance. Frantic camera movement that adds nothing to the scene and is only inconvenient for the viewer to experience (ie. even in scenes of two person dialouge the camera has to circulate the two characters at an illness inducing rate), as well as cuts in the fight scenes to show the obviously concerned and bedazzled expressions from the main characters cause for abrupt disruption that being scared just prior to orgasm – you lose momentum, finally build back up and boo… you get scared again. It’s a vicious and unhealthy cycle.

Plotholes also plague the movie, but I care not for plotholes in such movies – I just take them for empty entertainment. This film had me partially engaged and partially turned off to what was going on. I expected at least the same amount of pleasure from this as from Transformers, but I didn’t receive it. I don’t “not” recommend it… I just suggest you keep your mind open to the film and not have any expectations for it – maybe you’ll like it more. [5/10]

Here are some thoughts on three films I’ve seen as of late. I’ll review them in order:

The first is Confession a 1937 film by the unmentioned and unknown director Joe May. Starring Kay Francis and Basil Rathbone, the story opens on a young girl named Lisa (Jane Bryan) saying goodbye to her mother as she leaves for vacation. She and her friend receive an unusual letter from Michael Michailow (Basil Rathbone) to come see him at one of his concerts – these young women don’t know Michael. So they go and during the concert Michael lays eyes on Lisa – he “knew” she’d come. Lisa’s friend has to be home by 10 leaving Lisa alone with Michael after the concert; a shy, young Lisa and an aggressive and seductive old Michael cause for some of the most awkward romanticism you’ll ever see. Lisa feels increasingly uncomfortable and is convinced by Michael to see him one last time before he leaves for another tour.

Structured beautifully, after the opening third of the film Michael gets shot by a deranged woman at a nightclub the night before he’s set to leave – it turns out the first 30 minutes were Lisa telling her story of her and Michael to a court; the deranged woman on trial. Lisa’s character is basically unheard of apart from one or two small scenes later on and she takes a backseat to Vera (Kay Francis) and her story that is told behind closed doors. There is a twist in the story that smacks the film into perspective and had me literally speaking to myself going “Holy f-ck”. It’s by far the best twist I’ve seen on film; but perhaps that is just due to me not knowing anything about the plot before hand.

The cast is great and headed by one of the finest leading performances I’ve seen in Kay Francis. The pacing is elegant; the direction is subtle; the story is fascinating and the ending is thrilling. One of the greatest films I’ve seen and I urge anyone that’s a fan of classic cinema to seek this out immediately. [9/10]

The second film I’ve seen as of late is Tiger Shark. Coincidentally, I was putting early cinema film references in my latest screenplay – a homage to prohibition gangster films – and I decided to use this film, a film I’d not seen. A few days later it happened to pop up on TCM and it seemed like too eerie a coincidence to pass up.

Tiger Shark is a 1932 film by Howard Hawks and it stars Edward G. Robinson and Zita Johann. The story is simple and consists primarily on the lives of fisherman – most notably one fisherman by the name of Mike Mascarenhas (Edward G. Robinson) a self-absorbed, arrogant, yet genuine Portuguese man with a hook for a hand! He rambles endlessly about the most mundane of things and feels too similar a person to be a fictional character; a tribute to the skill of Mr. Robinson.

Aboard the vessel he is the captain of, there are major health issues; primarily ones that preserve your life and keep you from dying. The fishermen and their main goals are to fish, obviously. But in shark infested waters, there are many instances where the large fish pull you in and for the few seconds you lay in wait for help, you lose a limb. In one case, a man dies and Mike decides to go to inform his daughter Quita (Zita Johann) and care for her. Not because he’s noble, but because she’s quite pretty and he’s quite lonely. This sparks a typical romance and after a little while they get married. Soon after she realizes she isn’t in love with him, but rather one of his shipmates and closest friends in Pipes (Richard Arlen). Pipes wants no part of an affair because he’s indebted to Mike for saving him and losing a hand in doing so – she doesn’t care either way.

The story ends is typical from beginning to end with a pretty good ending that achieves what it wants the viewer to feel; Mike never once changes throughout the course of the film and it’s very nice to see consistency in such a character. Robinson was excellent and knocked the film up 1 mark with his best performance yet. I’d recommend it to fans of Edward G. Robinson or a light and short romantic films from the heyday. [7/10]

The latest film I’ve seen is The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. Having seen the 2009 version based on the novel by John Godey, I figured I may as well give the one with the superior acting and superior reviews a go.

Like you probably know because of recent trailers, the story consists of a subway man – in the Scott version, a subway dispatcher; in this, a subway policeman – by the name of Zachary Garber (Walter Matthau) trying to plea with a man who has hijacked the subway Pelham 123 with three co-conspirators. They demand a large amount of money – in the ‘09 version there is a hidden motive; in this it’s straightforward and less ironic due to recent circumstances in the real world’s financial situation – and the four men, led by Mr. Blue (Robert Shaw). Unlike the new version, this is all about business – there is no chummy, fate pondering dialogue, it is simply all about business.

What I liked most about this version in contrast to the ‘09 version were the characters. They were all real people: from the two main characters begin completely straightforward and putting forth very ‘manly’ auras to the subway patrons who are completely scared and not bound to do anything stupid or unconventional… everyone is just an honest person. Caricatures and unreasonable circumstances are not ever a problem with this film which put it miles about the most recent version.

The performances are very good: the determined and collected performance by Walter Matthau blends beautifully with the relentless and sardonic performance by Robert Shaw.

All in all, the film is very entertaining and structured very well. It has one of my favourite final acts in film history and the final scene seals that statement. If you disliked the version that just came out don’t hesitate to watch this film to restore your faith in the story! [8/10]

Is my new favourite actress. And it’s good too, because I’ve only seen two of her four nominated performances, meaning it’ll only get better. She sealed it last night with The Lady Eve. After seeing a slew of her films in the past month (The Lady Eve, Forbidden, Clash by Night, The Miracle Woman and Ball of Fire) on top of the several others I’d seen prior, I can now confidently say that she is the best actress I’ve seen on film. Sure, Bette Davis was offered the more juicy characters, and sure Katharine Hepburn was able to diversify herself with different projects (all of them result in her playing a posh character, it seems…), but Stanwyck did the best she could with the characters she was given.

Whether it be the frail, insecure faux sister in The Miracle Woman – falling in love with a blind and sincere man through the trickiest of circumstances or it be a Hitchcockian performance full of freight and poise in Sorry, Wrong Number she did it all. Though you wouldn’t expect it from her, she’s also hilarious! Though she plays the less comedic and bumbling characters in most of her comedies, her cynicism and sarcasm do wonders for the films layers of comedy. Her chemistry with the closeted and nimbly spoken Gary Cooper in Ball of Fire is some of the most delightful comedic romance on film.

So here’s to Stanwyck – a woman of flare, passion and underneath it all, a joker!

THE HANGOVER
starring: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms & Zach Galifianakis

Todd Phillips is a fair comedy director – bringing in laugh after laugh with Road Trip, Old School, Starsky + Hutch & School for Scoundrels. However, The Hangover is by far his best work to date – combining what succeeded in all those films into one smushed comedy. Not “the comedy of the year” by any means, and I’m sure it’ll lose it’s initial appeal on rewatches, but as a singular viewing it is a treat. A nifty concept that relies on post-drunk behavior as opposed to drunk behavior, it’s intelligent and honest. There are plenty of surprises to be had and it is certainly a funny movie. On the flip side, there are some parts that don’t work so well – they seem cheap and imitative, but you laugh at them anyways because of the prior laughs that you had. There are some violent scenes which come at you from nowhere and some rather crude scenes too. These are more or less the high points because in a frantic comedy, the less down to Earth the better. Zach Galifianakis is by far the best of the cast; he brings his deadpan and self-mocking humor from his stand-up and it translates to the screen beautifully. If not for him, the film would’ve been an average film at best.

All in all, a fun movie that I recommend based solely on the fact that there’s nothing all that humorous out right now (well, I haven’t seen Land of the Lost but I’m pretty sure it won’t be that funny) and it’s generally a good time. A low 7/10 and somewhat worthy of the packed crowd I saw it with. Oh yeah, and make sure to stay in your seats for the sweet montage during the credits. I saw some people dash for the doors right when they figured it was over, but man… they definitely saved the best for last with this one.

So I’ve basically decided to do some extra thing for my blog and that’s to do small reviews and rank the best picture nominees in all the years starting from 2008 and working backwards. I’m sure it’ll be a long process because I’m not just going to jump on every Best Picture nominee for that reason – but I’ve wanted to for a long time anyhow. Well, yeah. I realized I only wrote a review for Slumdog Millionaire of all the nominees from last year… and that was only after I saw it at TIFF. Anyways, it’s called And The Nominees Are… and you’ll be able to follow that over there on the right.

I hope you enjoy!

Yes, yes… I finally got to Departures. After much worry that American critics and people on here put into my head by calling it “dry”, “boring” and other negative things; or ‘aspects I don’t appreciate’, it took me a good while to watch it.

I’m glad to say it isn’t at all as bad as I imagined. So anyways, here’s them ranked:

BEST FOREIGN FEATURE, 2008!

05. The Baader Meinhof Complex [Uli Edel, Germany]

Alright, so this wasn’t exactly a good movie. For a film that relies on politics more than anything else, they threw together the whole point of the revolution very shoddily. One broke-out riot and maybe two sentences about what was the conflict was over. It was also obsessively one-sided, not examining the government’s side of the matter for any other reason to demonize them. Poorly structured; plain bad court scenes; but entertaining when it got to the thrilling scenes – primarily the prison scenes; and a solid cast. Unfortunate, because I thought if anyone would like this movie it’d be me. [3/10]

04. Revanche [Götz Spielmann, Austria]

A solid film and a decent choice, though it wouldn’t personally make any top ten of mine. It’s got an interesting structure; the opening 30 minutes are brooding and foreboding, with an unexpected turn. The following 90 minutes are typical filmmaking, but still a notch above average. With tedious symbolism (chopping wood = angry… three times throughout the course) and unflinchingly simple characters, it has it’s heavy flaws. Fortunately, it has a solid lead performance by Johannes Krisch, a delightful supporting performance by Irina Potapenko and naturally beautiful cinematography that helps the film drudge along without much resistance from this viewer. [7/10]

03. Departures [Yôjirô Takita, Japan]

Lovely. A traditional Japanese film with a pinch more sincerity and humanity than others. It has a typical plot outline, but the scripting, character development & entire story grows far beyond that. A wonderful ensemble, brisk pacing, wonderful cinematography + score are cause for some of the most memorable moments of film in 2008 for earnest reasons, rather than outgoing ones. Masahiro Motoki was wonderful in the lead and will certainly be an actor I will watch more of in the future. It is also carefully sentimental, which is something very few directors have the sense to do, which is maintain the sentimentality. It worked wonderfully here and resonated throughout the course of the film beautifully. A worthy winner. [9/10]

02. Waltz With Bashir [Ari Folman, Israel]

A film about genuine amnesia without an actual accident will always spark interest in me. The way this story was handled was unlike anything I’ve ever seen, which gives it a little boost over other films. It’s a rotoscoped, semi-documentary about a story which could’ve easily been live action and without as much flare. The animation plays a key role in the story because the footage Folman needed to thoroughly explain his forgotten memory couldn’t be found in any archive locker and are much more haunting in sepia colors anyway. Richter’s score infused with the animation made for some top-form cinema at times. Parallel to the majestic atmosphere, the ending snaps the viewer into perspective, reiterating that war isn’t as it seems – and in doing so creates the most harrowing and somber ending of this decade. [9/10]

01. The Class [Laurent Cantet, France]

The total package – one of the finest films I’ve ever seen. Mainly focusing on one class throughout the course of one year with dashes of administrative work in school (including the hilarious opening sequence) the film doesn’t seem all that grand. However, this film defines pure cinema; honest and gritty without sugarcoating facts and without over-blowing the way people are and how they go about their daily routine. Dialogue driven and not one for the aesthetics, this film will and has been seen as one without the ‘total’ package because it doesn’t maintain everything a ‘flawless’ film would have. But for me, a film that can create a wide variety of characters and make them all perfectly believable is a success strong enough to carry a film; especially when the amateur cast dominates the roles they step into. Complete with being most relatable high school film for anyone living in this generation, it’ll live on as a moment in history with future viewers, as inconsistent as it may be with future times. [10/10]

So all in all, it was a decent lineup by the Academy; three worthy winners, and two not all that worthy nominees. If I had to compile a Best Foreign Feature list for last year’s Academy Awards [with their restrictions - only one per country and it has to be released before October] I would’ve gone with:

01. The Class (Laurent Cantet, France)
02. The Silence of Lorna (Jean-Pierre + Luc Dardenne, Belgium)
03. The Rest is Silence (Nae Caranfil, Romania)
04. Tony Manero (Pablo Larrain, Chile)
05. Waltz With Bashir (Ari Folman, Israel)

The first film I saw today was apart of TCM’s tribute to Frank R. Capra. The main reason I saw it was for some more Barbara Stanwyck, but what I got was perhaps Capra’s greatest and certainly most underrated work. The film I am talking about is 1931’s The Miracle Woman.

The Miracle Woman begins with Florence Fallon, later Sister Faith (Barbara Stanwyck) in a cathedral. She’s standing at the podium talking about her father – the former priest of the church being forced into retirement. She reads her father’s letter to the on-looking audience. However, the letter ends abruptly, leading Florence into an anti-Christian frenzy; citing direct lines from the Bible she has memorized and leading the crowd out the door in a haste. This, on the occasion of a out-of-town businessman being in the audience. Still frustrated, she curses him out as well – he smirks and says he’ll help her by getting revenge to all of the followers of this church and every hypocritical catholic. She complies and the story goes on from there.

Cut to a few weeks later in an empty apartment. A blind man is standing in front of his window listening to the radio the woman across from him has on. He shouts “Can you turn that down?”, she complies. He begins to write a letter to his apartment landlord and friend, Mrs. Higgins (Beryl Mercer). It’s a suicide note – he feels unfulfilled in this world, blind and has had many failed attempts in writing music for companies. When he goes to jump out of his window, he hears Sister Faith’s voice over the radio talking about quitters and blind people – his smile radiates his void apartment. He feels good about life again thanks to Sister Faith.

He seeks a relationship with Sister Faith and so on and so forth. It’s a very endearing film that touches on many levels — whether they be philosophical, religious or love-induced. It’s predictable (for the most part), but genuine. And for a film released in 1931, I’m sure it was quite the inspiring piece of celluloid – as it is quite inspiring even today.

Stanwyck and Manners give two wonderful performances – both their best of their careers (albeit, I don’t know much of Manners’ work). Stanwyck’s conflicted heart and her fraid and frail soul without much faith are cause for some of her most emotional and emotionally detached scenes. With Manners, his empty eyes contrast with his warm soul wonderfully when he expresses himself through mannerisms and facial gestures.

With only a few minor black spots (Hardy’s awkward performance as Hornsby, the manager for Sister Faith), this is a film no-one should miss. Oh, and did I mention it contains one of the prime examples of perfect cinematography as well? I suggest you see this. [10/10]

And onto Vincent Cassel and Mesrine: Part Two (aka Public Enemy Number One).

Having seen part one (aka Death Instinct) at TIFF and once more a few weeks ago, I’ve been anxious to getting to the second half of the story. The first was a great set-up to the sequel – however, the sequel was quite the letdown compared to the set-up.

Jean-Richet Francois brings part two to this uncompromised and focused biography of one of the most beloved criminals in French history, Jacques Mesrine – played by Vincent Cassel in his Cesar winning role.

This film is exactly like the first without as much surprise. Perhaps if it was one long film, it would be a better product, but you expect what you saw from the first part and you do, so it falls flat in terms of at all changing the approach, but stays consistent.

This film starts off with Mesrine in a police car – he’s been caught once again and being sentenced once again. Comissioner Broussard (Olivier Gourmet) is speaking to the press about why they had to shoot him and how they caught him. He is the primary foe of Mesrine in this one, as the entire world was in the last one. He’s still slick, enjoyable and has a sense for plotting, but he grows more tired with age.

In jail, he makes another accomplice in Francois Besse (Mathieu Amalric) and they become good friends. Out of jail, he gets another girlfriend/accomplice in Sylvie Jeanjacquot (Ludivine Sagnier). It’s the same pattern as before – a highly enjoyable crime/thriller with an outstanding cast and a feel for the semantics that come with a budget – good visuals, lots of violence and a score that is intrusive.

If subtlity is your thing, avoid this entire thing at all costs. However, if you’re like me and enjoy fast-paced entertainment with strong signs of cinematic quality, I suggest you see this as soon as possible. If not for the wonderful cast dishing out great performances. And props to my favourite Dardenne regular, Mr. Gourmet in a role that you love  to hate. [8/10]

So I’m going to start posting more frequently about other movies I’ve seen. Little blurbs about what I’ve seen every-so-often and all that. So, I watched The Day of the Jackal.

I recorded this on VHS about three years ago and was bored last night, so I picked the most appealing recent film I had on video. It was between The Day of the Jackal and The Collector… so I went with the political thriller. Had I know it was pushing two and a half hours, my “long running feature on a small TV” phobia would’ve prevented me from watching it.

Much to my delight the film only felt about 100 minutes long. So I must give a lot of credit to the team that garnered the film’s sole Academy Award nomination; the film editing crew. A suspenseful film that relies on your own assumptions to create that stomach churning freight that makes all thrillers memorable. Being hardly manipulative and mathematically calculated allowed for easement in my viewing; both are two aspects that are must for a thriller – well, at least in order for me to *love* it.

This is mainly to the direction of Mr. Zimmerman. On the topic of his vision for the film, I really admired the way he chose to shoot the film. He added an extra dose of freight where most directors would allow them to be made less intense through an exaggerated isolation of the (then more) palpable scenes. I just thought masquerading the tangible really worked in the film’s favor.

The film features a lot of parallels to I… As In Icarus (though because I As In Icarus is quite unseen around most parts, it would make more sense to relate to this film in a review for I… As In Icarus) in that it’s comprised almost solely on ambient noises – not relying on a skilled composer to add to tension; the lead character only speaks when necessary and is a very intelligent man; and that it’s about the assassination of a French president.

The the lead performance by Edward Fox reminds me a lot of any Jean Pierre Melville film. Primarily physical – adding depth to the character through body language rather than unnecessary monologues (inner and outer). Michael Lonsdale brings great support in his BAFTA nominated performance as the man trying to catch The Jackal before he takes out the President of France. They play similar men – blunt and efficient – so the psychological chase that ensues is very capitvating.

Well-rounded, not quite as insightful as I’d have liked (rushed the revelation at the end to an extreme of M. Night Shyamalan-ian proportions), but constantly fascinating and easily manageable; despite the running time. [9/10]

Thursday, September 4th
Zift: 6pm – 7:22pm [amc 4]
Waltz With Bashir: 9pm – 10:27pm [ryerson]
JCVD: 11:59pm – 1:22am [ryerson]

Friday, September 5th
Achilles and the Tortoise: 9am – 11am [scotiabank theater 1]
Rock’n'Rolla: 11:45am – 1:40pm [ryerson]
Linha de Passe: 2:45pm – 4:35pm [ryerson]
Me and Orson Welles: 6pm – 7:47pm [ryerson]
Universalove: 9:15pm – 10:30pm [scotiabank theater 4]

Saturday, September 6th
Appaloosa: 9am – 10:47am [scotiabank theater 1]
Sauna: 12:30pm – 1:53pm [scotiabank theater 4]
Last Stop 174: 2:30pm – 4:20pm [isabel bader theater]
The Ghost: 8:30pm – 10:15pm [scotiabank theater 4]

Sunday, September 7th
The Burning Plain: 9:45 am – 11:36 am [scotiabank theater 2]
Wendy and Lucy: 12:45pm – 2:05pm [scotiabank theater 2]
Afterwards: 3:15 pm – 5:02 pm [scotiabank theater 2]
Le Silence de Lorna: 6:00 pm – 7:45 pm [scotiabank theater 1]
Zack and Miri Make a Porno: 9:15 pm – 10:57 pm [ryerson]

Monday, September 8th
The Other Man: 9am – 11am [ryerson]
New York, I Love You: 12pm – 1:52pm [ryerson]
Fear Me Not: 3:45 pm – 5:20 pm [scotiabank theater 3]
$9.99: 8:15 pm – 9:33 pm [varsity 2]

Tuesday, September 9th
(flash of genius? l’empreinte de l’ange?)
The Wrestler: 12:00 pm – 1:45 pm [ryerson]
Nothing But the Truth: 4:45 pm – 6:33 pm [isabel bader theater]
The Brothers Bloom: 9:00 pm – 10:49 pm [ryerson]

Wednesday, September 10th
The Hurt Locker: 9:00 am – 11:10 am [ryerson]
A Christmas Tale: 12pm – 2:30pm [ryerson]
Four Nights With Anna: 3:15pm – 4:42 pm [scotiabank theater 4]
Adam Resurrected: 7:45pm – 9:31pm [isabel bader theater]
Martyrs: 11:59pm – 1:39pm [ryerson]

Thursday, September 11th
Gommorah: 9:00 am – 11:15 am [scotiabank theater 1]
Synedoche, New York: 12:15 pm – 2:19 pm [scotiabank theater 1]
Gigantic: 3:15 pm – 4:54 pm [scotiabank theater 2]
Parc: 6:00pm – 7:49pm [scotiabank theater 2]
Il Divo: 9:00pm – 10:58pm [scotiabank theater 3]

Friday, September 12th
Che: 9:00am-1:22pm [ryerson]
Pride and Glory: 2:45pm – 4:50pm [ryerson]
Hooked: 5:30pm – 6:54pm [varsity 6]
Public Enemy No. 1: 9:00pm – 10:50pm [ryerson]

Saturday, September 13th
Lovely, Still : 9:00am – 10:30am [varsity vip 2]
Tony Manero: 12:30pm – 2:08pm [scotiabank theater 2]
Sut: 4:00pm – 5:42pm [varsity 7]
Miracle on St. Anna – 8:30pm – 11:16pm [royal ontario museum]

Bold = not currently in my possession, but I shant give up on those tickets.

Unfortunately, writer/director Alain Robbe-Grillet passed away in February of this year. Fortunately, out of this tragic loss, I have been opened to his (masterful) work, due to the Cinematheque playing a few of his films (along with Alain Resnais’). The two I’ve been able to catch thus far (and unfortunately, the only two I will have caught at the Cinematheque) have been Trans-Europ Express and L’homme Qui Ment. Since most of my review for L’homme Qui Ment can be found within my new pictoview (a few blurbs about the film within a picture of the film I’ve found on the internet – sort of like half picture/half review), I will only write briefly about it and then post the pictoview of the film.

So yesterday [August 6th, 2008] I caught L’homme Qui Ment (also known as The Man Who Lies) with my good buddy. It isn’t exactly for everyone… scratch that, it isn’t for most people, but being the film snob that I am (ha…ha) I was able to appreciate it! Some people with good film taste will look at this film and go “what? That’s not art” and you know, that’s fine; it is expressionism after all. The main thing that triggered my interest in the film was Jean-Louis Trintignant winning Best Actor at the Berlin Film Festival in 1968 – I’m a man that cannot pass up a good performance. His performance – along with the rest of the film – was definitely worth the ten dollars. The story is a bit scattered, but that’s what it wants you to feel, because the movie is scattered; very much so. So much in fact that halfway into it you’ll get the gist of the idea, but then go “What?” because although you know the point of the film, you never really “get it”. The film is a real thinker, which helps you enjoy the film even more when it’s over, for you try to put the pieces together. It’s a hard puzzle and not even I have cracked it yet; a total paradox. I’ve got my suspicions but that’s about all. I’ll let the pictoview do the rest of the talking for me. If you are wondering, yes, I write everything in the pictoview.

http://s182.photobucket.com/albums/x24/forizzer69/?action=view&current=LHqM.jpg

The ’second’ film (the one I saw first…) entitled Trans-Europ Express is one of my utmost favourite films ever. It has the perfect balance of oddities, ‘brow-raising scenes and humor that one cannot resist. It is a much more conventional film than The Man Who Lies, but it does contain some of the more graphic scenes of the two films. Actually, Trans-Europ Express has sadism, which I’m pretty sure was unheard of back in the mid 60’s… at least in films. Again, another film starring Jean-Louis Trintignant, and once again he is great! Though an inferior performance to his in The Man Who Lied, he’s still got a beautiful charm and aura about him in his role as Elias. His female counterpart in the film, Marie-France Pisier, is great! She plays a variety of different possible personalities, but I’ll go with sexual deviant. At first, we see her as some sort of a prostitute who only feeds Elias’ bizarre sexual hunger. We learn some stuff later on, yada yada… Yeah. She’s great, though. I loved her. The film takes a lot of turns here and there and is someone of an absurdist film, now that I think about it. There are scenes of absurdism, but I wouldn’t call the entire thing absurdist. Imagine, if you will, someone taking a Jean-Pierre Melville film (such as Le Samourai or Le Doulos) and turning the material into some sort of homogeneous blend of humor and ridiculousness (in both bizarre and unexpectedness ways). All of this is the formula for an amazing film, in my opinion. In my top twenty of all-time, and I will jump on the opportunity to catch this film again. See it if you can! Now for my pictoview (a much less grand one – less room to work with)

http://s182.photobucket.com/albums/x24/forizzer69/?action=view&current=transeuroexpress.jpg

Well that’s all for now. I’m very hopeful that I will catch at least a few more Alain Robbe-Grillet films before the month is out – through downloading and things of that nature. I’ll post another note on him if this is the case.