nan | 楠木

Atonement may have Oscar written all over it, but it didn’t resonate with me emotionally and I found it to be lacking a soul. Still, you can’t deny the quality of its production.

The film, as the title suggests, focuses on one question – how do you live with the wrong you did, and how do you atone for it? In this story, it’s sunny England of the 1930s, and young Briony Tallis (a young teenage girl), out of jealousy and misunderstanding, tells a lie that sends Robbie (James McAvoy) to prison, and more importantly, away from his love Cecilia Tallis (Briony’s sister, played by Keira Knightley). Fast forward a few years, and Robbie joins the army in return for getting out of prison, and gets sent to France, finally ending up in Dunkirk. Cecilia, who’s fallen out with her family (especially her sister) is nurse; Briony also gives up Cambridge to be a nurse, as part of her atonement.

The film, technically speaking, is a show-case for artsy post-production. The director Joe Wright employs a myriad of techniques, including showing a scene from two perspectives (one from Briony’s, one from Cecilia and Robbie’s), so that two versions of a story is told and we can fully comprehend Briony’s misunderstanding. The score is also noteworthy in its use of typewriter sounds (since Briony is an aspiring writer, and also typewriters serve an important place in the plot). Then there’s the 3 minute long sweeping long take showing the chaotic beachhead of Dunkirk and the dismal British troops – it is a beautiful shot.

However, despite all its glamour and appeal, I failed to connect with any of the characters. I believe this should be a film about Briony, and how she grows up to learn the consequences of her mistake, how she lives with the conscience, and how she tries to amend for it. Instead, Briony is hardly ever at the center. While it is understandable that Keira Knightley and James McAvoy gets much more screen-time, as it is the film is not about atonement but rather just about a star-crossed couple. Only during the last five minutes, where a much older Briony appears, do we learn of the couple’s fate and Briony’s struggle. The ending pulls the film back on track somewhat, but it could have been much more powerful.

7/10

Only after finishing the film did I find out that the director was David Cronenberg. Then it all made sense – that’s why the violence was so … Cronenberg.

Teaming up with Viggo Mortensen for the second time, Cronenberg has again made a compelling crime drama that is able to deeply disturb the audience – which is such a rarity nowadays. And he does it not using excessive violence – indeed you there are only 3 acts of violence in this thriller, though you will remember each one much more clearly than the alarming body counts you will find in other films. The film is disturbing because of the characters it depict, which will make you ponder simple questions such as “why could men be such sinners?”

The film is a fascinating look into the London underworld, with the focal point on the Russian mob. Here you will find a Don Corleone type, only more brutal and monstrous, in the form of Semyon (expertly played by Armin Mueller-Stahl – he steals the show in every scene). Then there’s his son Kirill (Vincent Cassel), who doesn’t live up to Semyon’s expectations and always gets into trouble. Then you have Mortensen as Nikolai, who is initially just Kirill’s driver – but from the first scene you know he’s not any driver.

If it were a film only about ruthless characters, the story would have become much more simple. Instead, there’s also Anna (Naomi Watts), a midwife who is clueless about the dark trades of London but stumbles right into trouble. The interaction between her and the aforementioned menaces provide most of the “juice” of this film.

Comparatively, Anna is the most straightforward character. She is simple, righteous, and persistent, which is a formula for disaster when she faces the mob. Semyon is the true embodiment of the demon, who could be gentle and soft-spoken on the outside but mercilessly selfish inside. The quiet, mysterious Nikolai who keeps to himself is the character which will keep audiences guessing – what drives him? What will he do? There is an answer, but even after its delivery, you will still be guessing.

8/10

This is a funny documentary on the MPAA ratings system in the US film industry. Essentially, the film is a series of arguments against the current system, and it does a good job of deconstructing the case for MPAA. However, it doesn’t provide any alternatives, and as a debating fan I would have liked to see more constructive arguments.

Anyhow, the arguments could be summarized as follows:

• The current system lacks transparency, i.e. the identity of the raters are kept secret, and the appeals process is also very shadowy
• The MPAA is basically a mechanism serving the interests of the big studios, and independent filmmakers get biased treatment
• The MPAA claims to be protecting children from harmful material, yet they do not have any child experts on their ratings board
• The MPAA finds sex to be more offensive than violence, and homosexual sex more offensive than heterosexual sex (and for that matter, female masturbation is more taboo than male masturbation, positions other than missionary more offensive etc.). In essence, the MPAA is imposing a set of morals and values on to the filmmakers

The documentary is funny in the sense that the director Kirby Dick actually hires private investigators to track down the identities of the raters, and a good part of the film is showing this process. He also sends his own film (a version of this documentary) to the MPAA, which of course provides more fodder. Ultimately, though, there isn’t anything especially insightful or original, and I finished it still waiting for answers.

6/10

For a film of such fame, Hiroshima Mon Amour is surprisingly engaging, even after nearly 50 years since its making. Like all great films, it is many things to many people – and I don’t even know where to begin to describe what it means to me. Suffice to say, I found it to be a tragically devastating love poem.

The entire film is filled with an emotional intensity, from the opening sequence where the lovers engage in a philosophical dialog of love and war, to the flashbacks where the tragedy of the girl’s first love is recounted, to the last hours of the last night in Hiroshima (which seem to be never-ending) where every minute is torture to the couple in the impossible love. And what is love, really? Is every love destined to be forgotten? Should we even try to remember? The film offers no answers, and chooses instead to let the audience ponder (painfully) at such questions.

Again, I find myself unable to express in words what the film is. Perhaps just like any poem, it is meant to be felt rather than analyzed.

8/10

I didn’t know what to expect when I popped in the DVD of The Seventh Seal. After finishing it just now (and doing some reading on this film), I’m still trying to grasp the various themes and elements. To be frank, I’m quite sure that I have yet to appreciate the subtle details of Ingmar Bergman’s film. Let’s keep a bookmark here, so that I may update this in future after further viewings.

As a initial rating, though, I’d give it a 7, again, this is how much I liked this film, not how good this film is or is not.

7/10

Bill Murray returns as a guy with little facial expression in Broken Flowers, a quirky road-trip film that is quietly comical.

The gist of the plot is thus: Murray is Don, a retired businessman who’s still unmarried. He has a girlfriend called Sherry (Julie Delpy) but she’s leaving. As she’s going out the door, the mails’ come in, and there’s a bright pink envelope. It’s a letter from a old love of twenty years past, and while she forgot to sign (and decided to type the letter), she did mention that Don’s got a 19 year old kid, and he’s looking for his dad. Don decides to do nothing; but alas his friendly neighbor Winston (a hilarious Jeffrey Wright) would have none of it, and arranges a road-trip for Don to seek out 4 old loves who could be the writer.

It’s a clever setup: essentially, this allows the film to have 4 mini-pieces, as each encounter would be separate story. And these encounters, as expected, are vastly different. Among other things, Don receives a warm welcome (and another night together) from one, while getting a punch from another.

Like most road films, the trip is symbolic for discovery of oneself. In Broken Flowers, Don knows who he is, and what he has done, but he’s never rethought his past. The trip for him, therefore, is a path down memory lane, an adventurous exploration of his past. No, there’s no regret – his youthful years have been happily spent with various girls, and he probably wouldn’t have had it any other way. But those years have long gone by, and now he’s a middle-aged bachelor and he doesn’t know what he’s looking for. Is it a son he never knew he had? Maybe. Or maybe it’s just those years that have gone by, though he knows they can never come back.

7/10

The Human Stain, adapted from the book of the same title, is a serious drama that covers a range of topics (racism, love, sex). It is certainly an ambitious film, but the end product does not carry as much impact as the source material suggests.

Anthony Hopkins is Coleman Silk, dean of Athena college, is forced to resign after being accused of racism. The incident also lead to the death of his wife (heart attack). Devastated, Coleman begins an ill-advised affair with the much younger Faunia (Nicole Kidman), a woman whose life has been a train-wreck and who’s being stalked by her crazy ex-husband Lester (Ed Harris).

The film is split into two streams: Coleman’s struggling affair with Faunia, where he struggles with the prejudices of social class, and a flashback narrative into the life of the young Coleman (Wentworth Miller, before he started breaking out of prison and into the hearts of millions of girls worldwide), who holds an even greater secret – he is actually from an African American family, but he chose to pretend to be white due to his lighter complexion.

The irony is indeed powerful – an African American fired for racism, but like most of the themes of this film, it is not delivered in an engaging format to the audience. Coleman and Faunia both lead tragic lives, but the audience is never made to care about them (or their futile efforts at changing their lives). Instead, the film rolls on in its own slow, detached pace. It is probably rude to say so, but not having read the book, I find this film more akin to an introductory piece on its source material rather than a standalone work of art.

6/10

15 Minutes can be seen as a hybrid between a police thriller and a satire. It’s a hard mix of genres, and that’s why in terms of style and tone it is not consistent throughout. But it does make an interesting film that steps out of the boundaries of the average cop flick.

Robert De Niro is Eddie Flemming, a media super star cop of the NYPD. He gets a lot of publicity, and in return he gives the media favors (such as staging an arrest for them). When a gruesome double homicide disguised as an apartment fire happens, he’s the top dog for the case. But since it’s related to arson, the fire department’s own finest also steps in, in the form of fire marshall Jordy Warsaw (Edward Burns). It’s not a very plausible setup, but the fireman and the cop team up to solve the crime.

The crime, as the audience has already witnessed, is the act of two Eastern Europeans in town looking to be famous. They have the particularly sick idea of doing so by killing people, and then plead guilty, and then selling the film and TV rights to their life story. Sound familiar? That’s the intention, since from the satire aspect the 15 minutes of fame is exactly what this film is hitting at.

The film is unabashedly violent, and while you could argue that’s for the sake of the satire, it could also be said that this film in and of itself is also an attention seeker. It’s often exploitative in nature, which of course reduces the artistic merit. That being said, the brazen satirical moments of this film sometimes do work, especially the ending.

From the acting department, there’s not much to complain. De Niro is his usual form, and this is the type of characters he could probably play while he’s asleep. Burns is competent but not outstanding. The two criminals are sick, which proves that the two actors (Oleg Taktarov and Karel Roden) did a fine job.

7/10

Another comic book adaptation, The Punisher has its memorable / enjoyable moments, but on the whole is not as good as other Marvel franchises that have made it to the big screen in recent years.

Thomas Jane is Frank Castle, an undercover cop whose family is brutally slain in vengeance after his police work gets local underworld boss Howard Saint’s (John Travolta) son killed. Castle should have been killed as well, but he lived to tell the tale, and returns to take revenge.

The film suffers somewhat from a split personality. For a while you’d say it was a very serious revenge drama, with the way that the family slaughter is committed and etc. But for many parts of film it is also very campy and full of one-liners. The film is actually fun when its campy (think Army of Darkness stuff), but it doesn’t entirely fit with the overarching theme of grim revenge. The end result is if you watched the film in segments, you might find it more enjoyable than the film as a whole.

6/10

Taking Lives looks and feels like a Se7en wannabe. It does get some elements right, but it’s nowhere close in overall quality.

The film stars Angelina Jolie and Ethan Hawke. Jolie is Illeana Scott, a FBI agent (think Scully from X-Files) who’s asked by the Montreal police to help out track down a serial killer. With some brilliant deductive logic, Scott determines that the killer kills people for their identity, whom he assumes (until he kills the next person). In short, he’s living other people’s lives by taking them, hence the film title.

Hawke is Costa, a art dealer who happened to witness the killer at work. Since he interrupted the killer’s plans, the police figure the killer will have a score to settle with Costa, which makes him the perfect bait. Meanwhile, Costa is hitting hard at Scott, but Scott decides to keep professional.

The entrapment tactic works. The killer (Kiefer Sutherland, back to what he did best before that little-known TV series called 24 happened – creepy badass roles) is quite direct and isn’t afraid of a little police company. It’s basically a cat and mouse game, but at the same time not all is what it seems.

In terms of tone and style, most of this film is reminiscent of Se7en, the 90s king of creepy, edgy psychological thrillers. Indeed, many of the police procedural scenes could arguably be deleted scenes material from Se7en. But while this film can imitate the look and feel, the authenticity is not there, since the killer and his crimes in Se7en was far creepier and that film also spent much more time building up the killer’s profile (and hence maintaining suspense and tension), whereas in Taking Lives the profile is literally spelt out to us in the opening 10 minutes.

This film also features an expected twist, which experienced viewers of the genre would have long detected. And since it’s expected and somewhat cliched, it generates a yawn rather than a WTF reaction from the audience. And the ending is quite unimaginative, and frankly too far-fetched.

5/10