Reviews by Alexander

All reviews - Movies (311) - Books (1) - Games (1)

The future is history.

Posted : 18 hours, 50 minutes ago on 25 November 2009 12:47 (A review of 12 Monkeys)

''There's the television. It's all right there - all right there. Look, listen, kneel, pray. Commercials! We're not productive anymore. We don't make things anymore. It's all automated. What are we *for* then? We're consumers, Jim. Yeah. Okay, okay. Buy a lot of stuff, you're a good citizen. But if you don't buy a lot of stuff, if you don't, what are you then, I ask you? What? Mentally *ill*. Fact, Jim, fact - if you don't buy things - toilet paper, new cars, computerized yo-yos, electrically-operated sexual devices, stereo systems with brain-implanted headphones, screwdrivers with miniature built-in radar devices, voice-activated computers...''

In a future world devastated by disease, a convict, James Cole is sent back in time to gather information about the man-made virus that wiped out most of humanity on the planet.

Bruce Willis: James Cole

Madeleine Stowe: Kathryn Railly

Brad Pitt: Jeffrey Goines

Terry Gilliam's twisted tale of a virus/illness destroying all but a handful of people across the Planet, forcing them to move beneath the surface while one man is sent back in time to gather information about the causes of said illness.
Haunting, mesmerizing, and highly stylized film that also boasts one of Bruce Willis' best performances ever.
What sets 12 Monkeys apart from most time-travel/sci-fi films is that Bruce's character actually has to cope with the psychological effects of time-travel, that is, not knowing what reality is actually happening, the place that the time-traveler comes from or goes to is in question.
Also, the film recognizes that things that have past cannot be altered and that the prevention of a cataclysmic event, in this case the release of said virus, cannot be stopped or changed. As Willis asserts "It's already happened," while he's in a mental hospital, the major dilemma the film trudges into is not a trite, overdone plot to save the world; instead it's Willis' inner struggle to simply survive himself. It's a fresh, innovative concept, and it works beautifully thanks to a well written script by Peoples and Gilliam's unique brand of dementia.
Besides this, 12 Monkey's storytelling is totally non-linear and instead opts to distort and bend the way the story is told skillfully incorporating a bevy of different time sequences: flashbacks, dreams, memories, the present, the past, the future, and even a scene that is lifted out of Hitchcock's Vertigo. All serve to envelop the viewer into its disturbing cacophony of madness and futility.

Visually, Terry Gilliam is a master of desolate umbrage and shadow rivaling Tim Burton in his strikingly despondent scenery and imagery. With cold, wide, and immersing cinematography, Gilliam plunges into the colourless surroundings and darkness of his characters. The scenes are often bathed in a strangely antiseptic, dead white and help serve as a contrast to the often veering-on-madness scenes and characters.Performance-wise, Brad Pitt steals most scenes, filling them with a loony, off-the-wall performance that deservedly earned him an Oscar nomination. As mentioned, Bruce Willis gives a mighty performance of his career, not reverting to his heroic cliches and cardboard hero roles and instead portraying Cole as a simple, poignant, tragic everyman. Equally good is Madeline Stowe as Willis' psychologist. She holds her own, injecting her character with both wild energy and strength as she collapses under the weight of what she comes to believe is a false religion.

Gilliam's expert, overwhelming, and complex handling of what could have been a routine action/sci-fi film, makes 12 Monkeys a compelling vision of a nightmarish, futuristic landscape that has not been since Gilliam's Brazil. Its rich, well-thought out, intricate storyline along with bravura performances from the entire cast and its brooding, bleak cinematography make it a masterpiece of madness that spirals into one hell of a looped paradox.

The future is history.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Every Woman Will Have Her Day.

Posted : 2 days, 16 hours ago on 23 November 2009 03:23 (A review of Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day)

''Not everything comes along just when we want it. There are times when decisions just have to be made, or you certainly will miss out.''

Guinevere Pettigrew, a middle-aged London governess, finds herself unfairly dismissed from her job. An attempt to gain new employment catapults her into the glamorous world and dizzying social whirl of an American actress and singer, Delysia Lafosse.

Amy Adams; Delysia Lafosse

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day is a lovely, quaint film breathing life into the romantic comedy genre. The film shows the benefit of submerging to literature for inspiration and it develops its characters well because of it. Miss Pettigrew and Delysia both possess the characteristics the other lacks and compliment themselves, throughout the entire 90 minute period. Miss Pettigrew effortlessly slides along it's run time, the film utilizes its running length well. It doesn't have to tack any extras on and finishes succinctly on a positive note.
Jazzed up with an all star cast to boot; Frances McDormand, Amy Adams, Ciarán Hinds, Shirley Henderson, Lee Pace, Mark Strong, and Tom Payne.

The story (all of which takes place in a single day and the following night) follows Miss Pettigrew, a presumably troubled yet effective nanny, as she assists a young actress, Delysia, choose which of the three men she is seeing to marry. I felt compelled to tell you the story because it was difficult for me to follow. Fortunately, this wasn't because the film was convoluted, but it moved quickly. The opening sequence when two of the three men are shown is nearly impossible to follow until one realizes Delysia's promiscuity. This is representative of the film's greatest strength: it's simply fun to watch. One generally doesn't know what will happen next or how poverty-stricken Miss Pettigrew will react in the various wealthy-class social gatherings to which Delysia leads her. As odd as it sounds, Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day is a romantic comedy period piece, a commonly used strategy but a rarely effective one. In most films which attempt this, the primary character finds a love interest and the supportive friend, eventually finds romance as well. The story focuses on the primary romantic interest in the friend instead of the titular character. So, we really hope Miss Pettigrew finds someone and when she does, we feel even more satisfied. She not only helps Delysia, but herself too. Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day can easily be interpreted as a lesson on the virtues of giving, or placing others' needs ahead of one's own gains.

''I am not an expert on love, I am an expert on the lack of love, Delysia, and that is a fate from which I wish more fervently to save you.''

The production quality is crisp and clinical, and Director Bharat Nalluri, did a great job creating the elevator as a symbol of the distance between the two women and their lovers. This is cleverly applied as one sees Delysia in the elevator hiding from Phil, unsure about which man she wishes to marry, and then one sees Joe through the elevator which is symbolic of Miss Pettigrew's distance from men. The lighting is mostly high-key, but low key during the bar sequences with carefully placed spotlights. There are few long shots in the film, but a key one occurs when Edyth sees Miss Pettigrew at the beginning. It's a wonderful way to accentuate a scene and heighten its importance for the entire film.

I highly recommend this film to anyone, whom enjoys romance, comedy or light hearted period films. The witty dialogue, costumes and settings can be appreciated by any film lover.
I marvel at how such a lovely book published in 1938 receives a film adaptation 70 years later, thus it has even enchanted me enough to hunt down the book due to it's clever storytelling. A definite charmer.

''I've been looking for you all night, and I believe, all of my life. If you'll have me.''

0 comments, Reply to this entry

The pursuit of truth.

Posted : 2 days, 16 hours ago on 23 November 2009 02:54 (A review of State of Play)

''You're just seeking the truth. You're a truth seeker. You can't help it, that is just who you are.''

A team of investigative reporters work alongside a police detective to try to solve the murder of a congressman's mistress.

Russell Crowe: Cal McAffrey

Many investigative thrillers focus on detectives digging around for the answers, but State of Play chooses to center around a complex story focused on by a newspaper. Cut a long story short, the forces and pressures motivating a reporter are not altogether the same as a lawful detective, which makes for a much more unique plot with characters an audience can view as more like themselves. A detective must identify a suspect, or catch a murderer is doing their job; a journalist who puts the pieces together himself in the pursuit of truth, is a hero on an entirely new level.

Oscar winner(2000, Gladiator)Russell Crowe stars in one of his certainly unique roles; partaking as a seasoned investigative reporter named Cal McAffrey. Crowe somehow more easily portrays Americans than any Australian or British actor working in Hollywood and he brings a light-hearted spirit to his serious role. His character finds himself in a dangerous place when his personal friendships with a congressman and his wife (Ben Affleck, Robin Wright Penn) come at odds with his job when news breaks that the congressman was having an affair with a girl who recently died in a DC subway accident. McAffrey first tries to protect his friend, but when he sees trends leading to conspiracy, his professional instincts take hold of his obssesive nature.

Cameron Lynne: Well, I happen to like miss Della Frye... and yes, I did send her down there to winkle something out of you. She's hungry, she's cheap and she churns up copy every hour.
Cal McAffrey: Yeah, I now... I'm overfed, I'm too expensive and I take way too long.

State of Play brags a diverse but star laden cast. Crowe is the dependable star vehicle, Ben Affleck the sometimes under-rated acting talent, and Rachel McAdams makes a triumphant return to the screen as a young journalist/blogger who assists Crowe. Also appearing in the film are (Oscar Winner 2006 The Queen)Helen Mirren as the editor, Jeff Daniels as fellow politician to Affleck and even Jason Bateman makes a cameo. All of them are talented and have proved so in many different genres, but never have they been together to make a thrilling puzzle of politics and journalism.

It's also the first experiment in the genre for the director, Kevin Macdonald (The Last King of Scotland) Macdonald keeps this film slick and exciting, generally refusing to use a tripod but not distracting us with shaky camera-work either. He mixes lots of close detail shots with scene setters that tell the story at a provocative angle. There are numerous albeit typical thriller movie conventions used; but he makes it his own; He's a director certainly worth keeping an eye on.

Credit must also go to an incredibly well-assembled writing team. Although based on a BBC mini-series of the same name, State of Play boasts Michael Clayton creator and penner of the Bourne series Tony Gilroy for the drama and action, Shattered Glass creator Billy Ray for the journalism expertise and Matthew Michael Carnahan (Lions for Lambs, The Kindgom) for the political/military end. It's amazing to see how that all plays together so nicely with so many reputable writers. Some of the twists might be more on the extreme side, but it's mostly convincing and exciting the whole way through.

State of Play hooks you and keeps you guessing. It tries to keep the characters intimate and worth caring about while also making sure the story picks up velocity. Subplots occasionally get in the way (McAffrey's personal connection to Wright Penn's character among them) but you become pretty easily invested in what's going on and are frightened when what seemed like a nice mystery suddenly gets serious. This is a thriller that is smart and quick and never blows itself out of proportion. It holds its ground and it does so with much talent.

Lastly, the film questions the necessary extent of hard edged reporting, but also revels in its necessity. Watergate is alluded to as a building where a couple key companies are located. The connection is purposeful; we're supposed to see the scandal as a fictional modern recreation of Watergate in terms of how it's reported and uncovered. While films in the vein of All the King's Men praised the work of journalists, Play is too stubborn to give them full attention and glory, bringing into the discussion the idea of selling papers and not waiting too long to get all the facts or how the Internet/blog-sphere twists the news in various ways; for sales and profits disregarding the truth if necessary. It might not be at the front of your mind while enjoying State of Play, but it sets it above the many over baked detective thrillers out there any day.

Stephen Collins: I thought you didn't call them yet?
Cal McAffrey: I lied.



0 comments, Reply to this entry

A story of brotherhood and war.

Posted : 4 days ago on 22 November 2009 07:06 (A review of Taegukgi hwinalrimyeo)

''Jin-tae: [pulls out Jin-seok's pen that he lost] I found this in the fire. I've been holding onto this for you.
Jin-seok: Give it to me... when I see you again.''



I wish this was all just a dream. I want to wake up in my bed, and over breakfast, I'd tell you that I had a strange dream. Then I would go to school, and you and mom would go to work.



Early, one Sunday Morning, in late June of the year 1950, was the beginning of a terrible turbulent conflict that would rip a people apart. Thousands of casualties, a whole unity of a nation being the biggest of all. Korea, a country still plagued by a guilty past, divided even to this day.

Told through the eyes of Jin-tae Lee, played by
Dong-Kun Jang and younger brother Jin-seok Lee played by Bin Won , who go to war and are cruelly ripped from their family and become embroiled in a war North against South.

The acting is sensational, the cinematography perfect, the battle sequences rivaling Saving Private Ryan and Letters from Iwo Jima possibly even surpassing them.

How do you criticize a masterpiece?
Answer is you can't.

Raw brutality, compelling humanity and even inhumanity. Emotional, powerful, shocking and some of the greatest scenes that had me getting teary eyed and come the film's climax crying my eyes out.
Ideologies, communism and capitalist imperialism. This film shows them for what they are, dangerous. There's always some cause of war be it religious beliefs/persecution or idealistic propaganda.

A gripping tale and account of two brothers and the meaning of sacrifice.
In my opinion it's the greatest brutal raw emotional film seen recently.
Still haunted by Jin-seok standing over the bones at the end and all the senseless killing, families divided, this demands to be watched.

For brotherhood, for family, for love shining through and a journey of emotion and epic proportions.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Laugh and the world laughs with you.

Posted : 4 days ago on 22 November 2009 06:59 (A review of Oldboy)

''Laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone.''


After being kidnapped and imprisoned for 15 years, Oh Dae-Su is released, only to find that he must find his captor in 5 days.

Min-sik Choi: Dae-su Oh

Ji-tae Yu: Woo-jin Lee

Oldboy is overly violent, hallucinogenic and drenched in bloody revenge. Which means I absolutely loved it!

Whats more compelling than a man trapped within a room for 15 years, slowly eaten up by madness.
Oldboy has some intricate, slick cool music which is at times modern then classical to set the mood, it's all a fascinating study, and evolution of a character who after this ordeal escapes his captors then pits to find his kidnappers.

Highly surreal from eminent director Chen Wook Park Oldboy is epic and vast. There's something ethereal and dreamlike in it's confines.
Fight scenes, shootouts roar with energy and power.
There's love at it's heart, Oldboy is very cool and this can't be stressed enough.

Classic music with torture, one man against whole swarms of men, Ants symbolizing loneliness, a tentacled being on a subway train...all this combined with soulful melodies which melds together effortlessly.

Question is, what will Dae-su do when he finds his kidnapper? will his enemy kill himself as promised or is there more to this than meets the eye? Watch it and find out!

A twisty tale of revenge, Oldboy was alot of fun, full of ideas.

''With the energy of a green pine tree, The great Sangnok High...

0 comments, Reply to this entry

The weight of a hummingbird.

Posted : 5 days, 12 hours ago on 20 November 2009 06:54 (A review of 21 Grams)

''How many lives do we live? How many times do we die? They say we all lose 21 grams...''

A freak accident brings together a critically ill mathematician (Penn), a grieving mother (Watts) and a born-again ex-con (Del Toro).

Sean Penn: Paul Rivers

''God knows when a single hair moves on your head.''

Director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu throws out a line of tension and keeps it incredibly taunt from beginning to end while exploring the most fundamental human emotions: fear, love, lust, and tragic loss.
Capturing intense performances from Sean Penn, Naomi Watts and Benicio Del Toro, not to mention from Charlotte Gainsbourg and Melissa Leo also.
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu uses in 21 Grams a technique being seen more and more in film, a technique in which the story is not told in chronological order, but temporarily scattered. This technique is similar to that used by, for example, Christopher Nolan in Memento(2000) in which the story is told in reverse chronological order. Here there is a mixed pattern as the story unfolds, sometimes in sequence, sometimes out of sequence. At first it is disconcerting, then intriguing, and finally everything begins to take shape and focus into understanding in our minds, as an audience. I don't feel this technique is necessary, but it does have the virtue of forcing the viewer to become engaged in trying to figure out what they are experiencing and watching, and perhaps this heightens the cinematic dilemmas which arise throughout.

''You know what I thought when mom died? I couldn't understand how you could talk to people again, how you could laugh... again. I couldn't understand how you could play with us. And no, no that's a lie, life does not just go on.''

There are three stories strung together on a single strand of fate. First there is the story of Jack Jordan (Del Toro) a petty macho criminal who has found Jesus and is a born again, enlightened soul. Secondly, there is that of Paul Rivers (Penn), a college professor of mathematics who is dying because of a defective heart. Thirdly there is that of Cristina Peck (Watts) who has found what she wants in life with a husband she loves and two young daughters. Lastly, the catalyst which occurs, the tragic accident that seals their differing fates, and brings horror into their lives. The story is told in starkly realistic scenes spliced in jarring complexities, shifting from one character's story to the other. The effect is to give us relief from the terrible events of one part of story, only to lead into another thread, and then to pull away from that story and into a third until the stories merge into one.

I cannot say enough about the performances of the three leads. Sean Penn is brilliant in an understated way as he projects charm and tenderness, desperation and hope, and a kind of hopelessness headed for a flat line. Naomi Watts is electrifying in the intensity she brings to the most emotionally-wrought scenes. She is one of the most amazing actresses working today, and if you haven't seen her, see her here. You won't forget. She was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actress (losing out to Charlize Theron in Monster), and much the same can be said of Benicio Del Toro who was also nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor (losing out to Tim Robbins in Mystic River). Del Toro's portrayal of a fated man who both found and lost his faith because of tragic events and his own failure of character was totally convincing, and very tragic, ultimately emotional for us watching him.

''The earth turned to bring us closer. It turned on itself and in us, until it finally brought us together in this dream.''

If I had to criticize I would say that Cristina's initial feeling that she couldn't be bothered to help prosecute Jack Jordan for killing her family did not square well with her later feeling that she wanted to kill him. Yet, I suppose, one's feelings can change; emotions can alter. I also didn't think Jordan was the kind of character who would hit and run. He takes responsibility for his actions; turns himself in and says that he has a responsibility to God.

As far as the ending goes, note that Cristina is dressed in bright, almost happy colours because of what was discovered when she donated her type O-positive blood to save Paul's life. Obviously I can't reveal what was discovered, but I'm willing to assume many found it redeeming and hopeful while others labeled the affair as ironic, then the minority whom classed it as cheap and easy. Personally I thought it worked because everything in 21 Grams revolves around these seemingly random people, all connected by this one tragic incident, which ultimately destines their lives all to be entwined; leaving them with no choice to the contrary.

''How much did 21 grams weigh?''

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Your mouth says no, but your beard says yes.

Posted : 5 days, 13 hours ago on 20 November 2009 06:28 (A review of Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant)

''Vampires don't need cellphones.''

A young boy named Darren Shan meets a mysterious man at a freak show who turns out to be a Vampire. After a series of events Darren must leave his normal life and go on the road with the Cirque Du Freak and become a Vampire.

John C. Reilly: Larten Crepsley

It's very easy in this day and age to dismiss any film based on a successful young adult book series as just a studio's attempt to throw something up against the wall that could effectively begin a franchise and seeing if it sticks. You have every right to be suspicious of that, based upon the number of fantasy books that have tried it and been mostly unsuccessful - The Seeker, The Golden Compass, Narnia, The Spiderwick Chronicles, The Bridge to Terabithia, Eragon(Shudders!), thus the list could go on and on and on.
One begins to feel as if the studios are really becoming desperate to attempt to launch something new into the genre thus make more profit from it. I'm sure that's what everyone is thinking about this adaptation of Darren Shan's Cirque du Freak books.

It probably doesn't help that the movie features vampires that don't have fangs and seem to have one side not wanting to kill humans and the others do. Believe me, I'm getting tired of this story-line since Twilight. But that's pretty much where the comparisons end here, all the alternative vampires featured in the film definitely have a lust for human blood and the main bad guy, Murlough, actually files his teeth into fangs. This is also not just a story about fighting vampires; Yes, the main conflict in the film is between two groups of the bloodthirsty undead; factually there are many different types of characters that we run into on our way through the film. You've got Patrick Fugit as a snake-boy, Salma Hayek as a bearded lady with psychic powers (and an amazing rack/body I might add!), Tom Woodruff, Jr. as the Wolfman, Orlando Jones as a guy with his skin missing and his ribs exposed, and an extremely evil fellow that seems to play everyone against each other to get what he wants named Mr. Tiny. He seems to have some kind of bizarre magical powers that weren't completely explained.

''College! Job! Family! And one day, if you're really lucky, you'll be standing here yelling at a teenager of your own.''

Just with the names above, you can see that there was no expense spared in pulling together a pretty impressive ensemble cast. Then add to that Willem Dafoe as a rather eccentric acting vampire and a very unexpected John C. Reilly as the freak show vampire Larten Crepsley. Reilly really delivers in the role, being witty and slightly scary in the as Crepsley. He almost veers completely off his normal path of the idiot friend or relative that he has paved for himself by being in Stepbrothers, Talladega Nights, and Walk Hard. The reason I say almost is he still retains a sense of humour, but in a more traditional manner confined to the storytelling.

I found Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant to be a pretty enjoyable, and entertaining film. It had a darkly comic, richly sarcastic vibe that many of the films based on these types of books seem to miss out upon. I haven't read the books of this series, but this film definitely seemed to incite me to do so.
Will this be one of those times where the film will make enough money for the studio to kick off a new franchise? Who knows.

Darren Shan: So do I turn into a bat
Larten Crepsley: NO! NO! That is Bullshit.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

A Carrey Carol.

Posted : 5 days, 13 hours ago on 20 November 2009 05:44 (A review of A Christmas Carol)

''Humbug!''

An animated retelling of Charles Dickens classic novel about a Victorian-era miser taken on a journey of self-redemption, courtesy of several mysterious Christmas apparitions.

Jim Carrey: Scrooge

''I'm light as a feather!...''

Disney's A Christmas Carol is a solid adaptation of the Charles Dickens' classic, although lacking sometimes in the emotional connection to humanity; inherent in some of other previous versions of this timeless story.
The plot of the film obviously comprises of the traditional story of Ebenezer Scrooge, the grouchy old miser whom is in turn visited by the Ghosts of his friend Jacob Marley, Christmas Past, Present, and Things Yet to Come. Thus all spirits proceed in giving him visions of his life and the consequences of proceeding in his greedy, unemotional way. One path being of financial materialistic glory, the redeeming road comprising of selfless acts; kindness and consideration for others less fortunate.
The legendary role of Scrooge is played by Jim Carrey (where as he also voices the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and other characters). I was a touched with Carrey giving this character life with his voice alone. With this being an animated film, his portrayal is a very faceted performance from Carrey, and were this a live-action adaptation, he would have truly breathed even more life into the main protagonist, with his inane comedic skills.
Gary Oldman provides his talented voice to Bob Cratchit, Marley, and Tiny Tim. Bob even looks like Oldman albeit a tad shorter and rounder than the master of change.

A Christmas Carol was directed by Robert Zemeckis, whom here continues to try and refine his favoured medium of production, animated motion capture. Disney's A Christmas Carol is on par, animation wise with his previous projects, The Polar Express and Beowulf, but it still doesn't manage to look as good as live-action would, nor as polished as other CG-animated products; though I will say in it's defense, there were certain shots where the lighting was so well designed that I was fooled momentarily believing some of the characters on screen were real.

Ebenezer Scrooge: What do you want with me?
Jacob Marley: You will be haunted by three spirits.
Ebenezer Scrooge: I'd rather not.

I saw this film in 3D, the first time I've ever seen a full feature length film in 3D at the cinema, and I came away impressed with certain aspects, while a touch frustrated with others. A simple dolly shot in 3D has a marvelous look resonating from it's use, simply beautiful and truly enticing me into this world, as well the depth of field in a simple shot where two characters are in frame is astounding, but then whenever a shot of someone's hand flying out toward the audience is shown, that impressiveness previously disappears.

Zemeckis has definitely made a visually intriguing film, a highly original take on this classic story, while also being faithful to the source, and there are many good times to be had within. I think the best way to sum up Disney's A Christmas Carol is that it's style over substance, often taking liberties with the story and skipping vital detailed parts like it's racing through Charles Dickens tale. The film seems to be more interested in being a showcase rollercoaster of impressive visuals rather than one of creating emotional connection with the characters. It's just, whenever a sequence begins to evolve really intriguing emotionally, it pulls away into another crazy storm of fast paced flying.

As a whole, Disney's A Christmas Carol is a jolly experience at the cinema, though it's less of a sentimental, character building piece of story and more of a high octane effects ride, valuing entertainment rather than Dickens story, but there again, isn't that why most go to the films in the first place? I know I certainly expect something deeper, meaningful usually but this being Disney and a family supportive project it succeeds in showing the children and even adults amazement visually.

''God bless us all...every one!''

1 comments, Reply to this entry

Hate humanity but love the humane.

Posted : 1 week, 1 day ago on 17 November 2009 05:23 (A review of The Elephant Man)

''I am not an elephant! I am not an animal! I am a human being! I am a man!''

A Victorian surgeon rescues a heavily disfigured man who is mistreated while scraping a living as a side-show freak. Behind his monstrous facade, there is revealed a person of intelligence and sensitivity.

Anthony Hopkins: Frederick Treves

''My life is full because I know I am loved.''

If one was to turn on David Lynch's The Elephant Man midway through, without knowing what it was, one might be startled at the appearance of the main character. One might even be tempted to make fun of the character. But if one was to watch the film from the beginning, sympathy with John Merrick (John Hurt), The Elephant Man, would be strong enough to deny that the former situation was ever a possibility. Lynch does not allow his audience to glimpse Merrick albeit mask, until his appearance has been built up substantially. When we the audience are at our zenith of anticipation, we see him: no dramatic music, no slow motion; a simple cut and he's there. There he is. And it's not made out to be a spectacular introduction.

This is the beauty of Lynch's direction. We are led through our morbid curiosity at the same rate the characters in the film are. We develop alongside them. More specifically, we develop alongside Frederick Treeves, played with an astounding sublimity of emotion by Anthony Hopkins. Next to Treeves we pity Merrick, respect him, pity him again, and then ask ourselves with him, 'is he just a spectacle to me? Am I a bad person?'...
Lynch certainly doesn't let us bypass this question easily. Are we bad people for being intrigued or are we good people for pitying? Certainly there is a mix of intrigue and pity with every character who first meets John, and we are not excluded. However, as with almost every character who truly comes to know John and confer with him, we learn to respect him as a human being and not as a spectacle. Nonetheless, this issue never finds close in the film, nor do I feel it ever can be closed in actual life. Hopkin's Treeves is never fully sated in how he feels about this dilemma, and so, neither can we be.

''People are frightened by what they don't understand.''

Technically, The Elephant Man is a beautifully shot piece. In crisp black and white, the film recalls the cinematic technique of American cinema circa the 1930s. The scenes dissolve into one another; there is no brisk editing. The lighting is kept low-key during dark scenes, balanced during daytime scenes-this is standard film-making of the era. The one digression from this form are the distinctly Lynchian surrealities-pseudo-dream-sequences of commendably original imagery that break up the film and serve as distinct mood-setters for the audience. These are, for the most part, fairly intimidating side-notes. We as an audience are caught off-guard because in these tangents we are not identifying with Treeves, we are put instead into Merrick's shoes. It is unsettling.

But Lynch has never been a director to flinch at unsettling prospects. We must watch Merrick beaten, abused, harassed, humiliated, and tormented. We may feel a surge of happiness when he finally stands up for himself, but by that point we still have to cope with what we've already, what he's already, experienced. I suppose that is the greatest and most devastating aspect of the film-empathy. Every moment is heartbreaking. Yet no matter how hard it gets, and how much better it then turns, there is always the threat of another jab. And those jabs only get more and more painful.

The Elephant Man is a perfect film. It is sorrowful but it doesn't apologize for what it is. It is a film about where our empathy stems from, a film that asks you to feel sorry for it's victim but rebukes you for your blind pity. It asks you to respect Merrick, not cry for him, alas you cry anyway. The Elephant Man is a film that treks you through despair and asks for your hope in the end. It asks you to hate humanity but to love the humane. It asks you to look at a man who appears sad and know that inside, he's righteous, he has a soul.

''Never. Oh, never. Nothing will die. The stream flows, the wind blows, the cloud fleets, the heart beats. Nothing will die.''

0 comments, Reply to this entry

They had a date with fate in Casablanca!

Posted : 1 week, 4 days ago on 14 November 2009 01:47 (A review of Casablanca)

''Kiss me. Kiss me as if it were the last time.''

Set in unoccupied Africa during the early days of World War II: An American expatriate meets a former lover, with unforeseen complications.

Humphrey Bogart: Rick Blaine

Casablanca, what other film can evoke such powerful feelings of nostalgia, can exemplify so completely the golden period of Hollywood film-making? The year was 1942, and the world found itself in the midst of the bloodiest conflict in modern history. Unlike anything our generation could possibly imagine, citizens were faced with an incredible uncertainty about their future. The Nazis marched across Europe, an astonishing, seemingly-unstoppable enemy, and the United States watched with bated breath from across the Atlantic. Most Hollywood productions responded to such ambiguity with fully-fledged, unabashed patriotism, and war-time filmmakers became obsessed with validating audiences' beliefs that the Allied forces would inevitably win out against Germany, and, indeed, many often concluded their pictures with unnecessary epilogues in which we've apparently already won. Such propaganda, while no doubt ensuring commercial success from war-weary cinema-goers, has regularly tarnished and outdated even the most otherwise impressive contemporary WWII pictures, as the directors' willingness to simulate a happy ending strikes distinctly false from an era in which the overwhelming atmosphere was that of uncertainty and insecurity(see Billy Wilder's Five Graves to Cairo(1943).

''Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine.''

This is not to say that Casablanca(1942) is not a work of American patriotism; indeed, it might just be the greatest example. The film owes its enduring legacy to how seamlessly director Michael Curtiz, and his troupe of writers and actors, was able to encapsulate the sentiment of the time in which the picture was made. The story ends with Rick and Renault strolling resolutely into the thick mist, their futures obscured by the fog of uncertainty that hovers before their faces. What will the next few turbulent years have in store for these heroes? Will they be overwhelmed by the enemy, or continue their noble fight for freedom? Following Operation Torch, the 1942 Allied invasion of North Africa, there were plans to film one of those dreaded propagandistic epilogues, showing Rick, Renault and a detachment of Free French soldiers on a ship. Owing to Claude Rains' fortuitous unavailability for filming, the original ending was left intact, and producer David O. Selznick was never more correct than when he concluded "it would be a terrible mistake to change the ending."

When Casablanca was first conceived, the filmmakers apparently had little idea they were about to produce one of cinema's best-loved pictures. A prime example of the studio-bound exotica that was popular at the time, and obviously a war-time off-shoot of Howard Hawks' Colombian aviation adventure Only Angels Have Wings(1939) – perhaps also John Cromwell's Algiers(1938), which I unfortunately haven't seen – the film reproduced the stuffy, humid climate and seedy, corrupt personalities of Morocco on the Warner Bros. sets, which ironically communicate more romantic charm than the real location could ever have provided. The film was shot by veteran cinematographer Arthur Edeson, who had previously worked on the wonderfully-atmospheric All Quiet on the Western Front(1930), Frankenstein(1931) and The Maltese Falcon(1941). His perfectly-framed photography suggests a mixture of stuffy melodrama, glamorous adventure and shadowy noir, though, interestingly, he avoids the sordidness of the latter style's successors, despite the wealth of suitably-seedy characters to be found in Casablanca. Framed through Edeson's lens, it seems that even the most squalid and repulsive of personalities can take on a curious facade of nobility.

''I love you so much. I hate war so much.''

No less than six people had a hand in the film's justly-celebrated screenplay. The story was based on a then unproduced play by Murray Burnett and Joan Alison, ''Everybody Comes to Rick's'', and was adapted for the screen by Julius and Philip Epstein and Howard Koch, with uncredited input by Casey Robinson. The Epstein twins were initially keen to give the film a few comedic elements; this would, no doubt, have made for entertaining viewing, not unlike a Howard Hawks picture, but might have detracted from the story's core themes of love, loyalty, regret, moral responsibility and self-sacrifice. Koch had perhaps a clearer understanding of the director's preferences – another wonderful film from Curtiz, Angels with Dirty Faces(1938), also poses a vital moral dilemma – and chose to focus largely on the politics and melodrama of Burnett and Alison's play. That so many conflicting artistic ideas somehow melded together, not only into a cohesive narrative, but also into history's greatest screenplay, is a miracle to be credited only to the cinema gods, particularly in view of the fact that Curtiz commenced filming with an incomplete script that was updated daily.
The screenplay, in a word results in being excellent, and it also compliments the whole directing. It progresses with scenes that are just so phenomenal, so legendary and so nostalgic. It includes one of the most legendary quotes in the history of motion pictures, for example; "Play it once, Sam", "We'll always have Paris" and "I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship". Even when I had never seen the movie, I just immediately recognized those sentences with a wry smile, as they are among the sentences everybody knows even if they've never seen Casablanca before. The whole plot is also surprisingly exciting, comparing to the plots nowadays it would definitely work in any movie, as it is just so thrilling from the beginning till the end and you just can't know how it ends before the last minute of the movie. The final climax is simply genius and it's actually so satisfying that I had to start clapping my hands in appreciation for the climax.

Perhaps another possible explanation for the film's unlikely legacy lies with the distinguished cast, borrowed from all over Europe. Humphrey Bogart, Dooley Wilson and Joy Page were the sole American imports, and assorted supporting talents were plundered from the United Kingdom (Claude Rains, Sydney Greenstreet), Sweden (Ingrid Bergman), Austria (Paul Henreid), Hungary (Peter Lorre) and even Germany (Conrad Veidt). Bogart, who had been typecast throughout the 1930s as a lowlife gangster, had been given the opportunity to show some humanity in Raoul Walsh' film noir High Sierra(1941), but it was Casablanca that proved his first genuinely romantic role, and, with several notable exceptions, the remainder of his acting career would comprise of similarly-noble yet flawed heroes. Bergman, despite having a rather passive role, was never more enchanting than as Ilsa Lund, and, photographed with a softening gauze filter and catch lights, positively sparkles with gentle compassion and a tragic sadness. Perhaps it's just the romantic in me, but Casablanca represents one of Hollywood's most unforgettable accomplishments. Even as the film draws to a majestic close, and two men forge a lifelong friendship in the fog-ridden uncertainty of War, we immediately feel like asking Sam to play it again… just for old time's sake.

''I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.''

4 comments, Reply to this entry