NEW YORK FILM FESTIVAL AND OTHER MOVIES I’VE SEEN RECENTLY…

It’s been a minute, but i’m back.  Since my last update i’ve been hitting up as many movies as possible, and i even got a few sneak peeks at this years 2009 New York Film Festival.

enjoy…

(oh, dont forget to check out “Where The Wild Things Are” and “Black Dynamite” which open this weekend)

TRASH HUMPERS (New York Film Fest Day #1)

The movie’s called “Trash Humpers”, its directed by Harmony Korine, so you can only imagine the possibilities. The film walks the line between fiction & documentary, in the same vein as Orson Welles’ “F for Fake” or Werner Herzog’s “The Wild Blue Yonder”. I guess you could label the movie as a mockumentary. At the Q&A for Trash Humpers, Korine called this movie a “found object”, in the sense that he tried to make it seem like an artifact, or a lost videotape dug up or discovered after 20 years. The barely plot less story follows the day-to-day adventures of a group of (whom i assume to be) mentally disturbed friends who dress and act like old people. Through the course of the movie, they hump trashcans (hence the title of the movie), order obese hookers, murder of a few people, steal a baby, teach a little kid to put razor blades in fruit and eat pancakes with dish detergent instead of syrup. …yeah. Imagine the last 10 minutes of “the blair witch project”, mixed with ALL the disturbing shit from Korine’s earlier film; “Gummo”, in the form of a feature length film. The movie was shot on old home camcorders, to make it appear as if what we’re watching is real. Although the “plot” of the movie is somewhat different, the whole idea of what Korine was trying to do isn’t all that different from what blair witch did a decade ago. Bottom line, if you’re a Harmony Korine fan and you’re familiar with what he’s capable of, you’ll probably go see it. If you aren’t that familiar with Korine’s work (like the 2 women who sat next to me at the screening), i would NOT recommend this. I mean, before the start of the film, Korine himself said; “If you’re prone to walking out of movies, you might as well walk out now.” And plenty of people did in fact walk out before the end of the movie.

THE WHITE RIBBON (Day #2)

Just as i was shaking off the horror and all around weirdness of “Trash Humpers”, another movie came along and totally fucked my head up. I gotta say, in the four years i’ve attended the new york film festival (inland empire, the wrestler, cache, etc) this is by far the most memorable movie i’ve seen so far. And i STILL have one more movie to see (Todd Solondz’s latest, so i’m sure i’ll be in for some dark comedy about pedophilia and dysfunctional suburban family life). This new film proves that Michael Haneke has become one of the very few directors to NOT make a “bad” film (…yet). In Michael Haneke’s latest film; “The White Ribbon”, he channels the spirit of classic german cinema (specifically; “Young Torless” and “Coup De Grace”…two movies you all should see if you havent) in both; subject matter and beautiful black & white cinematography. He gives a slight nod to the filmmaking style of Carl Theodore Dryer (a director i just recently got in to) as well as Tarkosfky. Haneke also revisits some of themes of one of his most recent films; “Cache”. ”The White Ribbon takes place in a small german town just before the start of WW1. The town starts to change after a series of mysterious and often gruesome (somewhat sadistic) events occur one after another. By the end of the movie, two of the townspeople start to put the pieces together as to who’s responsible. Through out the movie until its chilling end, you start to slowly see the seeds of violence within youth grow, and how they were planted. Seeing that the youth in this movie are of a particular age, set in a particular time period (early 1900’s), this film is also a look at the growth of fascism and the how those seeds were planted as well. One major hint are the white ribbons two of the children are forced to wear around their arm at the order of their father. Do the white ribbons foreshadow the swastika armbands that nazi soldiers will be wearing in the future? And similar to “Cache”, Haneke hints and lightly pokes at major events that make you wanna dig further. For example, one could look at “Cache” as a movie about “white guilt” and race issues in society. In the film he just casually mentions the algerian massacre, which serves as an important backstory for the 2 main characters in the film (also, is it any coincidence that the random person the main character gets in to an argument with outside the police station is a dark skinned african? for those of you who havent seen “Cache”, and don’t know what im talking about…make it a priority to see it). “The White Ribbon” now has me quite interested in the birth of fascism, and germany’s history leading up to WW1 (i was on google & wikipedia after i got home from watching the movie, lol). This is easily one of the 3 best movies of the year so far, and puts Haneke up there with all the “masters of cinema” (in my opinion).

LIFE DURING WARTIME (Day #3)

It pains me to say this, but i did NOT like this movie. Todd Solondz (one of my all time favorite directors), did not finish the finish the year off well. In fact, this hasn’t really been his decade. He went from finishing off the 90’s as one of the most important american independent directors with movies like; Happiness & Welcome To The Dollhouse, to having to finance his movies himself because no one would give him any funding. And lets not forgot 2001’s “storytelling” had to have 1/3 of the movie taken out due to legal b.s. While Solondz’s previous film; “Palindromes” is only slightly connected to “Welcome To The Dollhouse”, “Life During Wartime” is a true sequel to “Happiness”. The first major problem is, if you havent seen Happiness, you’ll be totally lost from the very beginning of “Life During Wartime”. The film picks up with the characters from “Happiness” a few years later. Bill is released from prison for child molestation, Joy is still screwed up. Trish is trying to maintain as a single mom and erase her past (being married to a convicted a child rapist) and Helen is on the verge of a nervous breakdown due to her overwhelming success as a writer. There are also a few new characters introduced; like Joy’s crakhead, ex-con husband. All of the characters from the original “Happiness” are played by totally different actors. That right there is one of the biggest mistakes of the whole film. “Happiness” is a pretty memorable film, with quite a few memorable performances (especially from Dylan Baker and John Lovitz). A lot of the actors owned the roles they played, so when you see “Life During Wartime”, it kinda takes you out of the story. For example; Paul Rubens plays John Lovitz’s character; “Andy”. Ciaran Hines plays the role Dylan Baker played. Ally Sheedy plays the role Lara Flynn Boyle played, etc etc. And then there’s the other problem…WHAT WAS THE POINT OF MAKING A SEQUEL TO “HAPPINESS” IN THE FIRST PLACE? This instantly reminded me of “Fay Grimm” (Hal Hartley’s sequel to the far superior; “Henry Fool”), in that i think the director (Solondz) became too attached to the characters he created, and didn’t wanna let them go. Personally, i would’ve liked to have seen the cast and certain scenarios from “Life During Wartime” in a totally different story. Now, for fans of Todd’s work, there is plenty of solondz-esque scenes and dialogue (like a mother telling her son how her fiancee makes her wet). If you’re a fan of Solondz’s work, i’m sure you’ll see it, but don’t expect Dollhouse or Happiness.

BROKEN EMBRACES

Well, i got the jump on some of the new york film festival goers by checking out one of its main selections a few weeks earlier while i was in London for the DMC world finals (shout out to shiftee for winning the world title). This isn’t “Top 5″ Almodovar by any means, but its still an enjoyable movie. I guess you could say its better than “Volver” but not on the level of “Talk To Her”. “Broken Embraces” tells the story of a crazy love triangle between a director, his star actress, her jealous boy friend, and the shitstorm that develops during the making a movie (which is very similar to Almodovar’s earlier movie; “woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown”). The majority of movie is told in flashback from the point of view of the (now blind) director, who spends his time writing novels and sleeping with random women. “Broken Embraces” falls more in to the noir genre than his other movies (the voice over narration, the lighting, the soundtrack, etc). The movie is also full of other Almodovar signatures like; open homosexuality, overly dramatic music (which always set the mood and work so well in his movies), dysfunctional families, etc.  It starts to get kinda predictable towards the end, but nevertheless, its still an entertaining movie.

BIG FAN

I know its a little late, and most of you have probably seen this already, but i’ll still give my thoughts. Recently, theres been more and more writers taking a stab at directing. From Paul Haggis’s shitfest; “Crash” to Charles Kaufman’s all too convoluted for its own good; “Synecdoche, NY”, they havent been that great. In my opinion there hasn’t been a GREAT writer-turned-director since the likes of Paul Schrader (although he hasn’t made a good film in quite some time either). Lemme know if you think otherwise. Anyway, for a first time effort, “Big Fan” is pretty solid. Its very reminiscent of Scorsese’s “King of Comedy”, in the sense that it deals with the dark side of celebrity fanatics. A lot has been made of Patton Oswald acting in a more serious role, but in all honesty, the movie’s not as “dark” as people are making it out to be (although the movie does have its share of serious parts). In “Big Fan”, Patton Oswald plays a lonely football fanatic that lives with his mother, who gets beaten up by his favorite football player (ficticious New York Giants linebacker; Quantrell Bishop) at night club, over a simple misunderstanding. Things get complicated, because he doesnt want to press charges, due to the fact that it could cost the Giants a good record and a spot in the playoffs if they lose their star linebacker. The film is shot in a more “natural way”, similar to last years “The Wrestler”, which the first-time director also wrote. Patton Oswald does a great job, but Kevin Corrigan and Michael Rappaport (in a small but memorable role as a die hard eagles fan) give the standout performances in my opinion. Im almost certain Kevin Corrigan will be nominated for an independent spirit award for best supporting actor (you heard it here first). This movie also came out at peculiar point in time. I wonder if its any coincidnece that a movie about a rich black athlete in legal trouble came out around the same time of Michael Vick’s prison release and the Plaxico Burress incident. The film even touches on the fact that the only reason the public wants to crucify these althetes who get in to trouble is because they’re black (say what you want, you know its true. Rich Black Men anger a lot people. And the minute they slip up, that’s all the public needs too hang ‘em). So yeah, good movie, but its not as “serious” as you think.

BRONSON

“Bronson” tells the story of “celebrity” criminal and former bare knuckle boxer; “Charlie Bronson” (not to be confused with the actor). The movie takes us from his birth to the present day, where Bronson is still a prisoner. Through out the movie, we follow his violent history from bank robbery and bare knuckle boxing to his stint at a mental hospital for the criminaly insane. The movie has its share of great fighting scenes and other random acts of violence, but the problem is, depending on your tolerance level, you might fall asleep before you get to those scenes. I’m a Tarkofsky fan, so i can sit through just about anything, but i don’t see the average movie goer sitting through some of the tedious, drawn out parts in “Bronson”. For example, there are some parts in the film where the camera stays fixed in one position, and NOTHING happens for about 30-45 seconds. You expect something to jump out and happen, but after those 30-45 seconds of nothing, it just fades to black, and transitions to the next scene. Kind of a rip-off. Over the last year, ive been exploring the work of the films director; Nicholas Refn (”Pusher” “Fear X”), becasue they bare a striking resemblence to Stanley Kubrick’s work.  This movie is even being dubbed; “A Clockwork Orange for the 21st century” by some critics. Now, at first glance i could see why someone would make a generic statement like that, but “A Clockwork Orange”, is pushing it. The more i watch his films, the more i think Refn gets too caught up in trying to be like Stanley Kubrick. The narration in “Bronson” is reminiscent of clockwork, and the director even comes quite close copying Kubrick’s famous “glare” shots, which can be found in almost all of Kubrick’s films (noteably; Malcolm Mcdowell in Clockwork, Vincent D’noffrio in “Full Metal Jacket” and Tom Cruise in “Eyes Wide Shut”).  If you’re a fan of violent, british gangster movies (”the krays”, “football factory”, “the firm”, etc etc), chances are you’ll give this movie a shot, but might have to fight off sleep in a few parts.

-Marcus

Comments are closed.