Cashback



director: Sean Ellis
year: 2006


Art student Ben (Sean Biggerstaff) breaks up with girlfriend Suzy (Michelle Ryan). He mopes. Time slows down. Then, he realizes, it actually does slow down: he has an extra eight hours every night! He also can't sleep, so, to make a few bucks, he takes a night-shift job at the local supermarket. There, he freezes time, undresses women, and sketches them. He also slowly falls in love with co-worker Sharon (Emilia Fox). During the whole time, a persistent, serious voice-over constantly feeds us deep truths.


Expanding his own award-winning short film into this same-titled but much-expanded feature, art photographer Sean Ellis shows he has a keen visual style and not much talent in the way of storytelling. The film's story is slight, wholly unoriginal. It has all the write-by-numbers beats that make up any generic romance. And, to top things off, it's told mostly by way of a voice-over that tries to simultaneously grant the film a sense of continuity and give it some thematic weight; on both counts, it fails. Hell, perhaps Cashback would have been better if Ellis had abstained from story altogether, and gone with a more experimental (read: plotless) film that drew attention to his images and effects rather than distracted from them—and the images are often quite nice: frozen time, floating cameras, evocative lighting and deliberate compositions. Still, one can't shake the feeling that Ellis would be better off as a cinematographer; or at least working from someone else's script.

Cashback demands its cash back. Ellis should, however, play again.

The Bourne Ultimatum



director: Paul Greengrass
year: 2007


Based on the Robert Ludlum novel. The third of the Bourne trilogy, and the second directed by Paul Greengrass. The plot is simple: still trying to find out more about his past, including just how and why he became a "non-existent" U.S. government assassin, Bourne (Matt Damon) must evade more attempts by his former organization to kill him. But it's told in such imaginative and well-executed set-piece action scenes that the banality of the story itself doesn't even register until you think about it. And, really, why would you think about it?

In keeping with the well-known rule that the third time is the charm, Paul Greengrass' The Bourne Ultimatum is the best of the Bourne films. I'd say it's also the last, as it should be; but, given its box office receipts and the fact that some guy wrote two more Bourne novels after Ludlum died, I'd wager we'll see Mr. Bourne again. Anyway, The Bourne Ultimatum kicks ass. Not only does Bourne outsmart his tech-wielding opponents, who have the scary ability to see everywhere, but, in Greengrass' hands (hands which I don't generally like, because they shake a lot, as if they belonged to Gene Wilder in Blazing Saddles), the outsmarting takes place on two levels throughout the entire film: the micro and the macro. On the micro level, we have Greengrass' camera focused on Bourne's weapons as they eliminate a would-be foil. While, on the macro level, we have a keen sense of geography—thank you, maps and dialogue—that places these Bourne fisticuffs in a specific time and place. Hence, when we see Bourne jumping through a window and using a towel to kill one of the bad dudes, we also have a mental bird's eye view of the situation that enables us to place this jump-and-kill maneuver in the greater context: it's part of a three-way cat-and-mouse game; and Bourne has arrived just in the nick of time!

The Bourne Ultimatum: yes.

The Bourne Identity



director: Doug Liman
year: 2002


Based on the Robert Ludlum novel. The first of the Bourne trilogy, and the only one directed by Doug Liman (Swingers). In this one, Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) is fished out of the sea by some Italian fisherman, with two bullets in his back and a neat red laser-light that flashes a Swiss bank account number embedded in his thigh. His memory a blank, he sets off to find out who he is. As he learns his identity, he engages in some cool hand-to-hand fighting and neat set pieces. Also, along the way, he picks up a German hottie (Franka Potente). Meanwhile, demented African statesman Nykwana Wombosi (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) tries to derail the movie through an inexplicably campy performance: all bulging eyes and screwed up lips. Thankfully, Bourne prevails.


The Bourne Identity updates technologies and speeds up the plot, but, underneath, it's an old school paranoia thriller. Think something like Alan J. Pakula's 1974 The Parallax View, but with a focus more on the personal and less on the politics (although they do still exist). As far as thrillers go, it's also grounded much more in reality—used loosely, as per film writing guidelines—than your alien-busting, ghost-haunting variety. In The Bourne Identity, the pleasure comes more from globe-trotting and a more earthy, punch-it-up type of violence, than from alternate realities and using lasers to fend off the supernatural. Hence, if you find pleasure in the concept of small European cars chasing each other through Paris, this movie may be for you. Incidentally, the idea of small is important: rumors have it that director Liman and star Damon fought with the studio over some of the more low-key elements in the film's second half. And the fight was worth it, because those lower-key action scenes lend The Bourne Identity an awareness that many films of its kind lack: an awareness that half the fun is in seeing one man fight the system that made him (and find redemption in the process). Bourne doesn't have the toys or the resources that the bad guys have, but he has the smarts; and we like to think that, in our world of computers and automation, the smarts still count for something.

The Bourne Identity passes the police line-up.

Little Children



director: Todd Field
year: 2006


A gaunt pedophile (Jackie Earle Haley) moves into suburbia and disturbs the suburbanites: a collection of stuck-up housewives, and two married couples (Patrick Wilson + Jennifer Connelly & Kate Winlset + Gregg Edelman). When the man from the first marriage, whose wife makes documentaries, begins an affair with the English lit-loving woman from the second, whose husband likes to masturbate to porn while wearing panties he ordered online, Field alternates between moving his story forward and reminding us that his title is a metaphor, for slightly more than two hours. Another metaphor: like the bony pedophile, who exposes himself to children but doesn't actually abuse them, the proceedings aren't at all penetrating.

That Todd Field's Little Children is embarrassingly pretentious perhaps wouldn't be that much of a problem if Field had taken his own material the least bit seriously. After all, there's a risk that anything which aims at profundity can miss and come off as pretension. However, whereas this is a well-intentioned pretension, a failed stab at uncovering a bit of enlightenment, what Field creates in Little Children is anything but well-intentioned; it's malicious. By alternating tones, Field spends much of his film creating a straight narrative with straight themes, only to then mockingly comment on how pathetic and childish his straight characters and their straight problems are. Because he is above making a lurid melodrama (as an artiste who, remember, had a bit part in Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut as a pianist whose greatest talent was to play the same note over and over and over again), Field takes a step back and chooses, instead, to make us aware that although he's telling us a lurid story, he's doing it to convey messages that a plain soap opera would never grasp. The problem: Field's messages are even more asinine than what he's deriding! In Little Children, we have a case of a a director who has been outsmarted by his own characters. And, to make the film even more deplorable, Field actually isn't above wallowing in the melodramatic depths afforded his story. Notice, for example, how he milks the "fate" suffered by his pedophile: not only does he take glee in introducing the idea to us through an extreme close-up of a certain object ("oh, golly, what's he going to use that for?") but, even more reprehensibly, he drags out the revelation for about ten minutes, before topping it with what can only be called a twisted money shot. Oh, and don't worry about accidentally missing out on Field's genius. It's impossible; he won't let you.

Todd Field's Little Children are retarded.

Hustle & Flow



director: Craig Brewer
year: 2005


Memphis pimp Djay (Terrence Howard) pulls his shit together and, with the help of two buddies (Anthony Anderson, DJ Qualls) and a pair of hos (Taryn Manning, Taraji P. Henson), cuts a rap single and aims to put it on the radio. Surprisingly largebut much welcomepart of the film takes place in Djay's makeshift recording studio, as the boys and girls do their music thing. Film suffers, however, as the generic last act kicks in: will D make his dream come true or will he be doomed to a life of pimping? I wonder. As an expected bonus, everyone finds love in the process.

Craig Brewer can write a film, and he can direct a film. Hustle & Flow is proof. The Trouble is that no matter what scenes he chooses to tell his story with, and no matter how he photographs those scenes, his film will fall flat if he's just transplanting The Mighty Ducks to black Memphis. Which is what, unfortunately, Hustle & Flow is. Lucky for the film, then, that Terrence Howard's lead performance is so watchable, and Brewer's 70s exploitation throwback style charming enough, that Hustle & Flow is enjoyable anyway. You may not be seeing anything you haven't seen before a hundred times, but you're seeing it in a new setting, at least—and you're seeing it told in a way that makes the story better than where it's going.

Hustle & Flow, baby. Ain't so bad for a pimp, out there.

California Dreamin'



director: Cristian Nemescu
year: 2007


Vapid American NATO officer (Armand Assante) delivering radar equipment during bombing of Yugoslavia is cynically delayed by grudge-against-America railway chief (Razvan Vasilescu) in a Romanian village; they wage a personal cold war. Hence, over several days Americans are Americans and Romanians are Romanians, as film explores contemporary politics and the failings of both West and East. Meanwhile, American soldiers romance Romanian girls with dreams of Californication, factory workers strike while under threat of bankruptcy, and upper-most levels of government are ineffectual as usual. In the end, you'll laugh, think, laugh, cry, think, reflect (in that order).


Visualized in the Lars von Trier style, with several plots spread over a bloated running time, Nemescu's final film (he died in a car crash while finishing it) has more in common with the humane sharpness of Jean Renoir than the aggressively-simplistic politics of the "great Dane". It's an overlong, but still undeniably brilliant, exploration of contemporary politics—the role of America in foreign politics, the emergence of the states formerly behind the Iron Curtain, the cultural-political differences between the West and East—that, at the same time as its criticizing America for being a duplicitous bullshit-spreader and tearing into countries like Romania for failing to grow up and join the adult table at the international community tea party, keeps its messages in undertones hidden between character interactions and in the folds of the unfolding story. Rare, indeed: the political film that does not preach, but insinuates; does not tell, but suggests through narrative. Conclusions you reach while watching California Dreamin' will, therefore, be your own—even if the person steering you confidently towards them is Cristian Nemescu.

California Dreamin': Stop into a church, that you pass along the way. Get down on your knees, and do more than just pretend to pray.

Knocked Up



director: Judd Apatow
year: 2006


Bong-hitting slacker Ben Stone (Seth Rogan) accidentally knocks up better-looking, older, more-successful, richer Alison Scott (Katherine Heigl). Two then become unlikely couple, prepare for birth of baby, fall in love, fight, reconcile, and find out they're right for each other after all. More vulgar and funny than most romantic comedies, only turns sappy in final act. Supporting character Pete (Paul Rudd), Alison's sister's husband, is a blast; Ben's loser friends (Jonah Hill, Jay Baruchel, et al), not so much. Sub-plots very welcome.


Depending on your age, and perhaps sex, Judd Apatow's Knocked Up may be either comedy or horror. If you're Ben Stone's age, it may terrify you into not having sex. Therefore: bad date movie. If you're already married, however, or not planning to be, you may enjoy the laughs. Either way, there's no denying Knocked Up is a writer's movie. And while Apatow writes dialogue and situations well (characters, not so well), he directs with all the flair of a TV episode and, barring the film's pre-credit shot (it's a sunset for Ben, after all!), fails to squeeze enough cinema out of his words. The jokes—they come and they work—pop up again and again, making things pleasant, but, ironically, often attract because they're, contrary to genre, unpleasant. Lots of pop culture references, too.

Knocked Up isn't stillborn, but drugs may enhance the birthing experience.

California Dreamin'

While the Romanian national cinema has been picking up steam (and arthouse awards) in the past few years, my experience with it has been decidedly mixed: for every Filantropica, there's been an equally outrageous miss. In fact, only a few days ago I was terribly disappointed with Catalin Mitulescu's much-hyped How I Spent the End of the World, which was both plodding and simplistic, and which I had been very much looking forward to.

Colour me that much more surprised, then, when, after watching Cristian Nemescu's California Dreamin' on nothing more than a whim, I realized that what I had just seen was one of the most sobering and intelligent films I can remember: not only the best Romanian film I've ever watched, but one of the most interesting and enlightening film experiences I've had in a long time, from anywhere. Granted, like most kids from the former Soviet bloc, I have a perverse obsession with history and politics, which undoubtedly added to my enjoyment and, possibly, understanding, and which might mean that you, coming from another background and another culture, might dislike the film; but that's for you to find out. All I can say is this: California Dreamin' thinks about stuff that I like to think about.


The Set-Up


It's 1999.

Doiaru is chief of a railway station in a Romanian village. He's corrupt and most of the villagers hate him. However, he's related to the village police chief, and, therefore, protected. As the film opens, he's trying to force a local factory into bankruptcy so that he can buy it on the cheap, while keeping tabs on his disaffected 17-year old daughter.

Then, the Americans arrive: a troop of soldiers led by Captain Doug Jones, whose mission is to transport, by rail, radar equipment meant to help in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.

But, Doiaru, it turns out, harbours a long-standing grudge against America for bombing his family in Bucharest in 1944 (Bucharest has the distinction of being bombed by both the Allies and the Germans in that year), and failing to arrive in Romanian before the Russians, dashing his childhood hopes—and thereby paving the way for a Communist takeover of the country, Ceauşescu and the "disappearance" of his parents.


Therefore, he cynically-but-lawfully orders the Americans to stop, asks for their papers, which they don't have (their transport being approved by the higher-ups but without bothering to supply the lower-downs with the proper documents), and orders them to stay in the town until the proper papers arrive in his hands.

The showdown is set.


War

Americans and East Europeans have very different opinions about wars, how they're run, and what they mean. These differing opinions, manifest through the film's respective American and Romanian characters, provide a core conflict in California Dreamin'.

Captain Jones is the consummate professional soldier. He doesn't question his orders; he merely wants to carry them out. He pays attention to details, keeps order among his troops, and prides himself on an extreme personal discipline. He also doesn't involve himself emotionally in the conflicts he's paid to involve himself in physically. When Doiaru tells him that then-President Bill Clinton is an idiot for poking at Monica Lewisnky with a cigar in the Oval Office, and then asks why he—Jones—agrees to "drop bombs for this man", Jones simply shrugs: he isn't doing it for Clinton, he's doing it because that's his job. The individuals in the White House, in the Senate don't matter to him. For East Europeans, on the other hand, those things do matter. In Eastern Europe, war is much more personal.

Consider this: the United States went to war against Germany in 1941, defeated Germany in 1945, and, by 1947, was giving massive amounts of aid to its former enemy. To an East European, this is unthinkable: Doiaru still bears a grudge against America for things it did in 1944! East European countries bear, and will continue to bear, grudges against Germany, against Russia. To an East European, an enemy will always be an enemy; to an American, once the war is over, so is the enemy. The American approach is, simply put, much more professional: you don't fight out of hatred, you fight because it's your duty to fight. Once the politicians declare the war over, it's perfectly reasonable to help rebuild what you've destroyed if it helps your economic prosperity in the long run. In Eastern Europe, people still declare football victories as "revenge" against past grievances, and you wouldn't be too hard-pressed to find businesses that would rather lose money than have relations with people from the "traditional enemies".

In one standout scene, Doiaru, who appears to be warming up to Jones, prepares him some food. He mixes ingredients, they chat. Then, he's stumped for a word: boiled, baked? Minced, suggests Jones. Yes, minced! He lays the plate of minced meat in front of Jones—"this is probably what the Serbs look like after you bomb them"—and walks away.


Great Expectations

Americans currently have somewhat of a poor reputation abroad. California Dreamin' gets at the reason why: it's not due to America being bad, or worse than other countries (in fact, America is much better than many other countries with better reputations); instead, it's caused by America being exactly like other countries—except with one crucial difference: people expect more from America.

And when American doesn't perform up to these lofty expectations (which are caused partly by America itself, with its idealistic rhetoric, partly by American culture, and partly by American history), people are much more disappointed than they would be if another country, say France, had done the same. In other words, when America falls, it falls from a greater height. Even if it lands in the same spot as anyone else.

In Eastern Europe especially, America was, for a long time, the ideal, the anti-communism; and if communism was the epitome of evil, then America, as its ideological enemy, had to be the epitome of good.

In California Dreamin', these hopes crop up in the suddenly-aroused dreams that Romanian girls start having when the American soldiers arrive. They will romance an American soldier, they fancy, who will then whisk them away to America, where they will live in a giant palace in Hollywood. After all, that's what happens in all those American movies, right? A bit of sobering comedy occurs when a Romanian army translator gets ahold of an American army uniform and, in his heavily-accented English, picks up two local girls who, never giving him a thought earlier, suddenly swoon before him simply because of his uniform. The reasoning: if it's American, it has to be better.

Interesting aside: as Allied planes bombed Bucharest, the film theatres played Gone with the Wind. but, as Wikipedia tells us, while the war drove Doiaru to an irrationally low opinion of America, most Romanians remained on an irrational high.


Blood

California Dreamin' climaxes in a bloody battle: The mayor and the factory workers attack Doiaru and the police. In a mess of flying clubs and thudding body blows, someone tosses a Molotov cocktail at the police van. The police respond by opening fire. The camera trembles and shakes amidst the violence.


Doiaru, felling opponents left and right, has his throat run by a knife-wielding assasin. He dies in his daughter's arms.


His is one body among many.

As for the Americans, they're leaving. As their train pulls away, they see only the celebratory fireworks planned for the village's anniversary. Which, ironically enough, has been a fraud staged for them.


They remain ignorant of the bloodshed, the deaths, the misery. And especially it's lingering consequences. Even if Captain Jones is aware that these two groups of people will beat up on each other for a while, the professional soldier in him just can't fathom that this one fight will possibly echo in generations to come. He is, so to speak, ignorant of their ignorance.

The catch? He played a part in causing the massacre.


Jones' Speech

Fed up with Doiaru and with being stalled in this small Romanian village, unable to carry out his mission, Captain Jones addresses the villagers. He's been invited by the mayor. In front of an old disco ball, gesturing, intoning like a preacher, he speaks:

People of Căpâlniţa, I want to thank you for your hospitality. And your generosity. You've shared your food. What greater respect is there than that? You know, I'm looking at this place... it's paradise. It's paradise. But I feel that a shadow has been cast over this place. You know, a shadow. Like a cloud. And I'm just thinking that this—how do you pronounce his name?—this Doriyahoo... that's just disrespect. It's disrespect. All it is. Disrespect. And no one deserves it. No one deserves it. No one! And I'm just looking at all these little faces here, races, and religions, and belief systems, and attitudes. I mean, that's what it's about! It's about attitude. That's why God put us here. That's what we're supposed to be. As God intended us to be. To be who we are. Just to be who we are. I mean, I may look like a total fool up here, but I wanna tell you something. We may look like strangers here. But I want to show you something You see this?

He takes the hand of the mayor, and lifts both hands up in the air:

We're standing here now as one. United as one. What if all of us, what if all of us right now could stand up here right now and be united as one? Just united as one. I'll tell you what. We could defeat the repression. We could defeat the tyranny. We could defeat the Doriyahoos of this world. Defeat the disrespect. The disrespect! And be united, as God intended us to be. As God intended us to be! United as one! United! United! United!

He breaks into a chant, the crowd joins in.


Although caricature, and perhaps the least subtle scene in California Dreamin', this speech is necessary. It shows not only—to use a nice word—the bullshit that so often comes out of American politicians' mouths, but also the willingness of the people, in this case Romanians, to swallow it up. What multitude of races, what religions? Romania is 90% Romanian Orthodox, and its only two significant ethnic minorities are the Hungarians (6.6%) and the Roma (2.5%). Not to say much about the words these pronouncements are couched in: the snide address to the "little faces", the ignorant mispronunciation of Doiaru's name, the feverish invocation of God, the mock fury about "disrespect", "tyrants", "repression".

So, why do the Romanians buy it? Because it's said by an American. Had a Russian, a German, a Romanian said the same things in the same way, no one would believe him. It would be lies, obvious deception, laughable. But it's not laughable from America; America is serious and America is just. When America promises aid, promises to fight injustice, that promise is expected to be kept.

Hence, when the Chinese sell toys and food that ends up being poisonous, that's alright; they're only Chinese. And when the French chirp about world peace while being the world's largest arms dealers, that's alright; they're only French. But when America threatens to cut its substantial aid to North Korea, how dare they; they're American.

Captain Jones, for his part, perhaps doesn't realize that this stirred hatred, this pomposity, will be taken seriously by the Romanians. He doesn't take it seriously—just as he doesn't take war "seriously", in the East European sense—so he doesn't expect anything different from his audience. In any case, even if he is serious, his main goal is to get his train moving. Whatever happens in Romania will happen in Romania. Adults live there, not children; they'll take care of it like adults take care of things in America.

Having rallied the people, Captain Jones then proceeds to negotiate with the mayor: Since Doiaru is both the enemy of the Americans, for keeping them at the railway station, and the enemy of the mayor and the people, because of his corruptness, they could unite against him, could kill him, to solve both their problems. Although, says Jones, the Americans can't actually open fire on Doiaru and the police, they can return fire. Therefore, if the mayor and his men start a tussle with sticks and fists, and the police protecting Doiaru fire a single shot against them, the Americans will be there, and will to protect the people of Căpâlniţa.

This, Captain Jones promises.


Promise Broken

Unfortunately, this American firepower isn't there. The papers arrive at the train station before the showdown gets started, and Captain Jones is all too happy to get his troops and radar equipment on their way to Yugoslavia rather than delay any longer to back up his word. The promises he's made are forgotten. They're no longer necessary for achieving his objective. His job is done.

The Romanians, however, still meet, fight, die. The mayor and his people are left on their own. When the police opens fire, no American soldiers fire back.

Much like the Kurds during the Persian Gulf War, who, after being fed American statements of support, were left alone to be slaughtered by the Iraqis, the Romanians are left alone to deal with their own violence, in their own way, by themselves. Whatever hand the Americans played in this confrontation is left to linger. They certainly weren't the cause, but they did more than nudge it along. Sadly, it doesn't take too much nudging to get little children who don't like each other to beat themselves over the head with sticks.

The Americans eventually arrive with their equipment in Yugoslavia. It's installed and ready for action—two hours after the cease-fire is signed. An absurd irony, if not for the fact it's based on an actual incident.


Aftermath

California Dreamin' ends on a scene several years later. Doiaru's daughter and another character who now lives in Bucharest, where they both attend university, meet in a cafe. They have little to say to each other, but they seem to have managed an escape from their village: its corruption, its naivety, its grudges.

Out of a population of several hundred, these two have grown up. They're self-sufficient and independent. They no longer dream of California.

What, then, is Cristian Demescu telling us?

Probably that, like these two characters, many countries need to grow up. America is not a parent, and shouldn't be treated like one: whether in international politics or as an idealized dreamland. It's as mucked up a place as any other, and, also like any other, pursues its own goals first. It's normal; it's not saintly. In many ways, it's even naive and cynical. And when a Doiaru feels more contempt for the Americans who didn't come than for the Russians who did, this skewed expectation leads only to tragedy. When an entire country feels that way, it perhaps says more about that country than about America.

As a father tells his son: Go to Bucharest, go to school. If you come back, I'll break your legs.

It's as good advice as any. Because clinging to the arm of an American soldier as his train pulls away is merely the last gasp of a pipe dream. Back home, he's a nobody, too. Flirt with him, sure, but don't fall in love. The only chance for sustained happiness is to guarantee it yourself, in a reasonable way. For, especially in Eastern Europe, outside guarantees matter little in the end, no matter how great and indestructible they may initially seem.


Heroes, Villains

Captain Jones and Doiaru are the main characters in California Dreamin'.

Jones is a stuck-up windbag, but he has his decorum, his own set of standards, and he sticks by them. When his men go whoring, he refuses. There's also more than a hint of sadness to his character: a ferocious soldier who's kept on a leash and sent on minor assignments to keep him from causing too many political problems.

Doiaru, on the other hand, is corrupt petty official who, infuriatingly, either evades or sticks to the very letter of law depending on what his mood is like and how much he likes you. His is a common breed to Eastern Europe. But, he too has his reasons. He's also undeniably intelligent and he cares for his daughter. When he dies, you feel for him.

It's much to film's credit that while these characters represent more than themselves, they are also deeply intriguing as individuals. Stubborn, aging, perhaps they're even not as different as they first appear.


Conclusion

Cristian Demescu's California Dreamin' is one of the smartest, funniest and most tragic political films I've seen in a long time. Although it lacks the technical beauty of a film like Jean Renoir's The Rules of the Game, it's saturated with the same mix of sharpness and humanity that Renoir gave us in 1939. And that's high praise, indeed.

Sunshine



director: Danny Boyle
year: 2007


Eight multi-cultural astronauts team up aboard a big spaceship/bomb called Icarus II (Icarus I failed, so everything rests on II) to try and detonate a massive enough explosion inside our dying sun so that they "create a star within a star", thereby saying mankind and every other living thing on Earth. Before that plan goes according to plan, however, a distress beacon from the thought-lost first ship sends the second ship off course, and suspenseful thrills commence. Story shares between the eight space people (6 men, 2 women), but is most aligned with nerdy-sexy physicist Capa (Cillian Murphy) and roughneck-sexy Mace (Chris Evans).


Funny thing about Danny Boyle's Sunshine is that everything starts to break up at the same time: science fiction gives way to slasher flick, substance gives way to style, precision gives way to ambiguity, and good gives way to bad. All turning on a dime, like an interstellar synchronized swim team! And all the more reason to mourn the interesting premise and awesome atmosphere exhibited in the beginning, when the film still has that peculiar quality of science about it. Nevertheless, the film's sight and sounds, it must be said, remain evocative and effective throughout, its aural assault patching things up at the end to preserve a semblance of continuity. Just a shame those same techniques couldn't be put to better use: working out the story to a spectacular climax rather than saving the story when it blows itself into space.

Sunshine is overrated. It's fun to be in the sun, but if you stay too long you end up with skin cancer.

Live Free or Die Hard



director: Len Wiseman
year: 2007


New York cop John McLane (Bruce Willis) returns for yet another turn under the cow, milking the big teat of guaranteed box-office returns with yet another tried-and-tested formula action flick. This time, the plot upgrades into high-tech, however, as McLane must protect a nerdy computer whiz (Justin Long) and single-handedly battle other computer whizzes turned terrorist (Timothy Olyphant, et al) who've managed to unleash chaos all across the United States by attacking communication and control systems. Plus, before the day is done, he also has to rescue his daughter (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), held firmly in the clutches of these same cyber-terrorists. PG-13 appropriate violence and advertising ensues.


Live Free or Die Hard (aka Diehard 4.0 in places where execs figured the original title might "offend" away potential theatre-goers) is the worst Die Hard in the series. And it's through no fault of the story, which is quite interesting, or Bruce Willis, who is entertaining as usual. Instead, the dubious honour must be bestowed on the film's poorly-acted, bland villain and director Wiseman, who doesn't direct his film so much as shoot well-lit scenes that the CGI and sf/x folks then furnish and the editor subsequently mangles into a succession of shots that get thrown at the viewer for little more than visceral impact. In other words, Live Free or Die Hard forces you not to focus on it. The fast-editing, meant to create tension and "an adrenaline pumping, non-stop roller coaster thrill ride", only lets up when there's a corporate logo in the frame. That's when you should focus. Still, the film isn't all bad. Some of the action sequences are original and well-executed: a car taking a ramp and taking out a helicopter, a truck squaring off against a fighter jet. And Willis pulls off some good lines, with his lovable smile.

Live Free or Die Hard dies too easy.

Grizzly Man



director: Werner Herzog
year: 2005


Troubled nobody Timothy Treadwell becomes troubled celebrity Bear-conservation activist Timothy Treadwell; and then gets eaten, along with his girlfriend, by one of the bears he wanted to protect. Using Treadwell's own footage combined with interviews and a personal, heavily-accented voice-over narration, filmmaker Werner Herzog traces Treadwell's life, transformation and, especially, his time spent in the wilds of Alaska living with bears—all while ruminating on the greater meanings behind these things as well as on the nature of cinema itself.


Although it perhaps doesn't seem like it at first glance, Grizzly Man is actually Werner Herzog in familiar and comfortable territory: exploring the struggle of man against nature, and the struggle by man to understand his own nature, through a crazed protagonist. The difference, quite simply, is that, this time, Aguirre is a real person. And this changes a lot. For one, there's an immediate tragedy to the narrative, as Treadwell, we find out at the outset, will not survive the film, and is, in effect, speaking to us out of the grave throughout. Talk about film rendering immortality: he's on screen, but actually dead! Second, the documentary format, which can be more straightforward than the narrative feature, allows Herzog to come out and tell us how he feels about the themes he's been ruminating on for the last few decades. Which is not to say that Herzog condemns or glorifies Treadwell—one of the film's strengths: it's refusal to take sides. No, instead, Treadwell acts as a pivot for Herzog who, at the same time as he's commenting on bears and nature, is commenting on himself, and on the role of the camera in acts of creation (does Treadwell act differently, recklessly because he's constantly filming himself; does he create a special persona for "the screen" that is different from the "real" Timothy Treadwell?). Plus, even if you're not interested in any of that, there's also wonderful wildlife and nature photography in the film to hold your interest, even as Treadwell's tragic story will have you choking back tears.

Grizzly Man is one of Herzog's greatest films—and not as different from his others as you may think.

Sweet Movie



director: Dušan Makavejev
year: 1974


Two plots, told in episodes, intertwined. In the first plot, Miss Canada (Carole Laure), the most beautiful virgin in the world, wins a contest solidifying that great distinction and is rewarded with marriage to Mr. Kapital (John Vernon), American industrialist and richest man on Earth. However, Mr. Kapital's golden penis scares Miss Canada away on their honeymoon night, whereby she thereafter engages in a series of destructive and humiliating relationships with various shady men before ending up in a commune of fecal-rubbers. In the second plot, a woman by the name of Captain Anna (Anna Prucnal) falls in love with a French extra from Potemkin while sailing down a river canal aboard her Karl Marx-mastheaded, Italian communist-anthem blaring ship Survival. Along the way, she becomes a corrupter of youth. German documentary footage of Soviet mass murders and Nazi baby-rearing sometimes interrupts.


Dušan Makavejev was crazy in 1974. There is no other way to justify the creation of Sweet Movie. Anything other than insanity cannot explain how anyone could make as wild and disturbing a film-attack on censorship—whether on political or moral grounds—as Mr. Makavejev has made. Take, for example, his sudden insertion of film footage depicting the exhumation of the Katyn massacre site: in 1974, this was a slap in the face of Soviet thought-policy, which, straight through until 1989, asserted that it had been the Germans, not the "Allied" Russians, who had killed 20,000 Polish officers and intelligentsia and buried them in mass graves in a forest! Or, if you'd like, take the scenes in the film of a commune engaging in what could only be described as an orgy of bodily functions and fluids, which, for reasons it is hard to justify, is more revolting than the bloodiest Hollywood war movie! However, provocation alone does not a good film make; and Sweet Movie is not just provocation. Notice, for example, the parallels Makavejev draws between sweets and ideology: both corrosive when taken in large doses, and both equally capable of enticement. In one outstanding pair of shots, he illustrates these parallels by cutting from a pan over a row of colourful candies to an identical pan over a photograph of political leaders. And all under the watchful eyes of Stalin! Finally, add to provocation and substantiation excellent technical filmmaking—and Sweet Movie is often deceptively beautiful—and arrive at the only inevitable conclusion.

Sweet Movie is so delicious that it'll make you sick, but please don't vomit on me.

Tokyo Drifter



director: Seijun Suzuki
year: 1966


Tetsu (Tetsuya Watari), the right-hand man of a Yakuza boss trying to go straight, finds himself embroiled in a conflict between his boss and a rival when one tries to scam the other out of the deed to a much-wanted building. After several people end up dead in a related gun scuffle, Tetsu takes the blame for at least one death, and hightails it out of the city to become: the Tokyo drifter! In the course of his drifting, he engages in a few adventures and meets a few old acquaintances, and, finally, return to his starting point to settle one, final score.


Uncharacteristically enough, Tokyo Drifter starts on a scene shot in extremely high-contrast black and white: Tetsu gets beaten up by thugs, refusing to fight back because he doesn't want his boss getting lured into a gang war. After that scene, everything will be in wacky and splendid colour (yellows, blues, purples!) and Testu will be the one doing the beating up! Which is where Tokyo Drifter works best, in its set design, in its attention to details simply because they look good, in a very lively and cartoon quality. The problem, however, is that there's not much beneath that goofy surface. The plot, weak as it already is, makes little sense when watched, as well-shot scenes are merely strung together with little narrative momentum; the characters often act without motivation and, other than being well-defined visually (like Tetsu's nice blue suit), are there simply because they add colour; and even much of the film's style gets by more on sheer craziness than on polish or inventiveness. All things considered, Tokyo Drifter is a short film that feels too long. And that's never good.

Tokyo Drifter is a loose, jazzy, energetic film. Sadly, it spends much of that energy running in circles.

All the King's Men



director: Steven Zaillian
year: 2006


Demagogue Willie Stark (Sean Penn) rises on a populist wave to become Governor of Louisiana. Following close on his footsteps are narrator Jack Burden (Jude Law), an ex-newspaper jack-of-all-trades now working for Stark, and the general stench of corruption. As the plot unfolds, the personal rise and fall of Burden parallels the political rise and fall of Stark. Also starring Anthony Hopkins, Kate Winslet, James Gandolfini, Mark Ruffalo, and Patricia Clarkson. Based on the novel by Robert Penn Warren.

Robert Penn Warren's novel is an American classic for two reasons: it was published in 1946, when political corruption was still a fresh topic; and it's superbly, beautifully written. Steven Zaillian's adaption, on the other hand, merely restates the obvious in 2006, and bastardizes the novel's style by extracting from it only the most basic elements—which it then renders in the most literal and crude way possible. What All the King's Men ends up as, therefore, is a turgid Southern melodrama with a stale political message pounded to death by symbol after symbol after bloody symbol. Even the plethora of big-name actors can't save the film, with most doing just enough to remain above sea level, and Sean Penn splashing, kicking and flailing like an angry baby trying to draw attention to itself. That being said, if there is a reason to watch the film, that reason is a performance: Jude Law's. Even as all around him Zaillian's wrecking havoc, Law plays his part so well that he shows just how overblown and unnecessary much of the film's preaching and explanation really is.

All the King's Men is bloated, irrelevant, and rolling around like a pig in the mud.

Sweet Movie

Dusan Makavejev, what do you eat in the morning?


Then what do you brush your teeth with, what books do you read in the afternoon when you're waiting for the bus, what do you think of when you see an attractive woman on the street, and what time, if ever, do you go to sleep?


Also, how much do you drink—alcohol or otherwise—and if you use street narcotics or household cleaning products to get high, which ones and how much?


Does it say something about me, as a person, as a moviegoer, that I can watch gruesome war films without so much as a flinch, and yet be caught off guard and repulsed by a scene in which a mass of people rub their own feces—collected beforehand during what could be most correctly termed a "shitting contest"—onto a naked man who's rolling around like a baby and peeing on himself?

Clearly, peeing and defecating and vomiting and lactating should be less repulsive than murder and violence and exploding body parts. Right? Right?


Miss Canada, the most beautiful virgin in the world. She won the TV contest, at least. Her prize: marrying Mr. Kapital, an American industrialist and the richest man on Earth. On their first night together, right after he's scrubbed her down with isopropyl, she'll see something that'll send her screaming: Mr. Kapital's golden penis!

Well, it's obviously spray-painted gold (the paint comes off on the actor's hand when he's holding it for us to see), but the fact remains. Oh, and did I mention that Mr. Kapital is played by John Vernon?


Before that happens, however, Miss Canada has to be inspected by a medical professional, to make sure she's still a virgin. And is she ever! The doctor says: "In all my years of practice, I've never seen anything so sweet. A rosebud."

So that's what Charles Foster Kane meant!

By the way, Sweet Movie also has little references to King Kong, Battleship Potemkin, and Triumph of the Will.


When Kapital's golden penis scares her away, Miss Canada gets sent to this guy: Kapital's servant, Jeremiah. As he boasts to Miss Canada, he's a certified psychopath and wanted for display at the Museum of Natural Sciences. He also lives in an empty water tower that has a milk commercial on the outside (and looks like a giant penis). This is where he is now, showing off his muscles.

In a few minutes, he'll show off something else ("...and, my size is superhuman"), then whisk the poor girl away to Paris by packing her in a suitcase.

At the airport, he'll say that his suitcase weighs so much because it's filled with books. Marcuse, Supek, Vranicki, Sartre: "You know, it's heavy!"


In the second of Sweet Movie's two stories, the woman captain of a ship with a Karl Marx masthead blaring Italian communist anthems meets a sailor who just walked off the set of Potemkin: a real sexual proletarian, as she calls him.


It's just a tower, and that's egg on her face.


Time for a deadly serious interlude. I'm not kidding. Makavejev actually does this! Right in the middle of the film, he sticks some German documentary footage of the discovery and exhumation of the Katyn massacre.

For those unfamiliar with the event, it was the killing of 20,000 Poles—about 8,000 military officers and the rest an assortment of intelligentsia—by the Soviets. This type of thing, the elimination of a nation's most-educated people, is actually quite useful when planning a take-over. Try it, if you ever plan on invading another country and staying past dinner.

The kicker, though, is that the Soviets claimed the Germans actually committed the murders. Right up until 1989! Hence, when Makavejev broached the subject in 1974, it was more than a little subversive.

Some images from the footage:


And one more, of some personal effects found on one of the bodies:


Workers of the world, unite!

But, first, a message from the British. After all, we wouldn't want to offend Uncle Joe, now would we?


There's another, similar interlude a little later. It's more German footage. But, this time, of something called "baby gymnastics", which is apparently a process whereby a German doctor manhandles a scary-looking blonde baby to make sure it grows up strong.

The message communicated by these two interludes, if I may be so bold, is that communism and fascism both suck.


Back to the film: in Makavejev's world, people really do get off on Lenin!


And you know Stalin, the dirty old man's always watching!


He particularly likes Captain Anna (seen in the furry image above), played by Polish actress Anna Prucnal. For her turn in this film, Prucunal was exiled from communist Poland for a time. Stalin really was watching. But, inexplicably, this exile was supposed to be a punishment!


Here's a better picture of her, in her favourite sailor's Potemkin hat.


Meanwhile, our other heroine, Miss Canada, is having a harder time. She's fled from Jeremiah, lost her virginity to a crooning actor, and then been dropped somewhere like a piece of garbage. Thankfully, some members of a commune (the fecal-rubbers) picked her up a wheelbarrow, and are nursing her back to health. I mean this in the most literal way.


They've also invited her to eat some sausage with them, though she did refuse it. They, however, didn't mind, and ate, vomited and peed on each other with glee.


This image probably best describes Sweet Movie: it's beautifully-shot, but you're never quite sure what it's beautifying! And, yes, that thing in her hand, that she's rubbing against her face, is what you think it is.


Another effective series of shots is the one that starts with this, a long pan across a myriad of sweets which fades into a long pan across an old photo of politicians. Ideology, Makavejev tells us, can easily become the corrupter of youth. And it can rot anyone's teeth if it's printed and marketed as sweets.


Following that theme: a suspended box filled with sugar that functions as something like a hammock. Here, Captain Anna and her sailor have just finished making love.


Incidentally, a sugar bed is very convenient if, after making love, you want to drink coffee. I admit, I would like to try the whole scenario, if only once. I wonder where you can buy sugar in bulk like that.

But, I digress, we can go yet sweeter.


One of the film's final scenes: Miss Canada rolling lusciously in chocolate. It's for a TV advertisement, and apparently they want people to taste her when they taste the chocolate. I think that's actually the slogan.


The director really likes his chocolate pies!


Still, one has to be wary when indulging in too many sweets or swimming in chocolate. Indulge too much, and you may very well end up consumed by the sickly sweetness you so much crave. The revolution devours its own children?

Though this is not the final image Makavejev gives us, it is the most striking in the final part of the film. The actual ending, however, has a terror of its own. Again juxtaposing documentary footage with his own footage, Makavejev compares corpses: the fake ones all wake up, but the real ones stay dead—forever.

Dusan Makavejev: batshit crazy in 1974.

Sweet Movie: it's so delicious it'll make you sick to your stomach, but please don't vomit on me.

Shoot the Piano Player



director: François Truffaut
year: 1950


Pianist Charlie Kohler (Charles Aznavour) works at a low-key bar, where he splits his time between playing the film's haunting theme and hiding from his past life as a famous concert pianist named Edouard Saroyan. He's content—if not exactly happy—with this state of things and he doesn't foresee any immediate changes. Changes, however, foresee him! They come in a pair: Charlie's hood brother (Albert Rémy) has pulled a heist, taken the all the loot for himself, and now has two gangsters on his tail; and the pretty, young waitress at the bar Charlie works at, Léna (Marie Dubois), has fallen in love with Charlie after figuring out his real identity. All in all, Charlie Kohler's life just got a little more exciting and a lot more complicated.


François Truffaut's Shoot the Piano Player is the French director's second feature and his most "New Wave" film. It abounds in little touches of creativity (one action of ringing a doorbell is cut into three shots), not-so-small narrative digressions (a flashback in the middle of the film tells us how and why Edouard became Charlie), and an overall feeling of virility, speed, joy. Although the source from which Truffaut adapted his script, a noir novel by American writer David Goodis, deals with serious issues and could easily be described as "dark", that's not an adjective that sticks to the film with any real determination. Instead, Truffaut imbues the film with a lot of himself, his own personality. A notorious lover of women, for example, he turns nearly every conversation into a conversation about the fairer sex: how they look, how they act, how their thighs rub together when they're wearing skirts. Tell me, in what other crime film do two gangsters force a couple into their car, and then proceed to talk about stockings! Still, one of the characteristics of the New Wave and its young French practitioners was a delving into the unexpected, a mixing of what were then cinematic conventions. Hence, while Shoot the Piano Player is playful and personal, it does, finally, also pack an emotional punch—an emotional wallop, even: the film's final shot may just leave you breathless.

Shoot the Piano Player is a New Wave screwball noir with heart and a genuine obsession with women.

Compact Cinema

In what will soon become a new hobby, I've opened up a third blog. This one's called Compact Cinema and is a place for me to write and stick plain-Jane film reviews under an alter-ego: Czaro Woj.

I try to keep the reviews fairly short and limit myself to using only one still. I was initially going to post both reviews and ramblings/criticisms/image-rolls in one spot—namely: here—but I decided that, quite simply, reviews aren't all that interesting to read. Which doesn't mean that I think my little disquisitions here are interesting to anyone but me; but at least here I put pictures, which are interesting. Maybe it's just a personal quirk that makes me think this way, but I like to read criticism for its own sake (and to help me understand a film), whereas a review, even if it's interesting, just makes me want to email its author and discuss the film: reviews don't satisfy me by themselves.

However, I would like to practice the craft of reviewing—because I was never very good at it—and, at the same time, keep something like a film log, with short entries about every film I see (I'm also notoriously fond of lists and reorganizing things ad nauseum and spreadsheets, which feeds into wanting to have a database-type site of film reviews).

Hence, Czaro Woj and Compact Cinema are born!

Although I've disabled comments on this other blog (kind of: I don't know how to turn them back on, so have been forced to leave them off), if you happen to surf across the blog and a review of a film you've seen, and that we agree or disagree on, shoot me an email if you'd like. I'm finally joining the Internet and starting to use email on a regular basis. Getting an email, and especially one about cinema, is a pleasant novelty.

Anyway, here's the link:


Compact Cinema


Inspiration comes from Daniel Kasman and Dennis Grunes, whose well-organized collections of reviews constantly send me into "let's talk film" mode. They don't know how lucky they are that I usually refrain from indulging!