The French Lieutenant's Woman

The French Lieutenant's Woman

1981

dir. Karel Reisz st. Meryl Streep, Jeremy Irons

Let's get one thing straight off the bat: I watched this because of Meryl Streep. I had never heard of Jeremy Irons before this.

This film is two stories in one. The main story is of The French Lieutenant's Woman, taking place in the 1800s, and her descent and resurrection from madness. The second one, is of this story being filmed and the two leads (also played by Streep and Irons) falling in torturous love, even though both are already married. So you have two love stories for the price of one ticket, consisting of flashbacks into the 1800s, and the occasional insert of the filming of the story. (in 1981) The only problem I had with this technique was the first scene of 1981, for the previous half an hour, maybe it was only fifteen minutes, you saw the set up for the 1800s. And then you saw Jeremy Irons in bed and then he picks up a phone. When I saw this, I was thouroughly confused, convinced that the director or writer was stupid enough to think that there were 1980 style phones in the 1800s.

I shall first refer to the 1800s love story, and then the 1981 story, just so that we don't

The film was shot on location, so in Exeter and Lyme,( I believe this was this town.) and it was lush. The cinematography really brought out the shades of green of the English country side, and showed that it has life, but when the story was shot in the city, cool filters that really brought out the grey were used.

The 1800s love story is quite compelling, and of course, Streep is amazing as ever.

Now for the 1981 love story.

I honestly wish that either they had made this the main story of the film, and showed them shooting the 1800s film, or left it out completely. To me, it was just a hindrance to the actual story that we were wanting to learn more about. But that is just my opinion.

Les Yeux sans Visage

Les yeux sans visage


1960

dir. George Franju st. Pierre Brasseur, Alida Valli, Juliette Mayniel

After I finished this film, I found this film to be an oddity of its classified 'genre' of 'horror.' There were no quick shot montages, or squeaky violin motives (I'm looking at you, Hitchcock.) or rushing pace and consistent hysterical screams. This film also made the 'villain's' motive and drive appear less villainous and more understandable.

Maybe I should give you a quick summary of it. (From IMDB.com)


A brilliant surgeon, Dr. Génessier, helped by his assistant Louise, kidnaps nice young women. He removes their faces and tries to graft them onto the head on his beloved daughter Christiane, whose face has been entirely spoiled in a car crash. All the experiments fail, and the victims die, but Génessier keeps trying...


This sounds pretty typical of a horror story. Except you side with the father, and his reasons for wanting to restore his daughters face, despite his 'unorthodox' ways of trying to restore her face.


I don't think this film can be classified as just a horror film, there are so many undertones to this that are made apparent in certain scenes. (I shan't tell, that'd ruin the rest of the film.)


Franju, was known for his documentaries, and there some scenes in the film that do have a documentary feel to them, but those help push the story forward in a few seconds when he could have taken twenty minutes to show every nitty-gritty detail and totally lose his audience.


Can a film be classified as an artistic nightmare? Because this is definitely the category for this film then. There is no extreme blood, guts, and gore that push the story along. It's all about the brutal, obsessive love a father has for his daughter that is driving him to keep her alive, even forgoing her wants and trying everything to give her face instead of the white mask that she wears.

Babies

Babies

2010

dir. Thomas Balmes st. Babies!

A look at one year in the life of four babies from around the world, from Mongolia to Namibia to San Francisco to Tokyo.

How can anyone resist a film about the first year of four babies?

Balmes had the right idea of showing different cultures around the world, had he shown four babies from the same neighborhood or even the same country, we'd be a little bored.

There is no narrative. But no narrative is needed, because even though the babies are from different parts of the world, they all speak the same language that can be understood by anyone from any culture. And they all want the same thing: Love. and food.

I found it really interesting how the mothers in Mongolia and Namibia often left the older children in charge of the little ones, and the Japanese and American parents took their kids to 'baby play-dates' and 'Mothers and Babies dance together!' class and those events seemed to be more of an excuse for the mothers to get out of the house than for the babies to... socialize...

All in all, this film has a very sweet message of: Babies are the same, and all are really cute! (Seinfeld lovers, I don't want to hear a word out of you.) But the message ends there, it's shallow in that sense. But it's about Babies!

Conversations with Other Women

Conversations with Other Women

2005

dir. Hans Canosa st. Helena Bonham Carter, Aaron Eckhart


A film that develops more like a play than a film, Conversations with Other Women has the plot unwind ever so slowly, even coming to a complete stop at some points. Only at the end, do you realize that what you have just seen is indeed not a chick flick, but a film dealing with both emotions of the sexes. The 'chance-encounter-lovers' played by Bonham Carter and Eckhart, are so realistic, that this film is that much more relatable and you sense that you can find these two lovers anywhere on the street.


Hans Canosa utilizes split screen, so it's like you are watching two films for the price of one. This artistic aspect of the film has a love hate relation at some points, you want to see Bonham Carter on a full screen, not half a screen. But you soon realize that this idea of splitting the screen works really well when there are flashbacks involved. You can see the flashback, and yet continue with the present, which also cuts the film running time dramatically. Instead of this film being two hours, it's only eight-four minutes, which is the perfect length for a romantic film.

I will not call this film a chick flick on account of that it does not use stock characters. The writers made this film have a light aspect about it by the playful banter that is used very appropriately and in the correct places. This is also not a chick flick in the sense that this film, despite it's appearence of being one, it deals with darker sides of the human emotions and mental thought, showing both sides of the situation.

I'm now disappointed that this gem of a film has not been shown in the mainstream crowd, this is not the typical indie film of "boy meets girl, girls breaks boy heart by leaving him," and leaving you with two options for an ending: "boy meets new girl," or, "girl comes back to boy."

This is a film that must be mainstreamed for it's quality of characters, dialogue, cinematography, and storyline are very well thought out.

A Town Called Panic

Panique au Village

2009

dir. Stephane Aubier, Vincent Patar st. Cowboy, Indian, Horse


Um... yeah... so pretty much if you don't mind going, "What the hell is going on?" during the first ten minutes, then you'll make it through this film. To put it simply, this film is for the young, adventurous, and imaginative at heart. I had a smile on my face the whole time during this comedy, because this is what animated comedy, and comedy in general, should be. Fun. Pure, joyous fun. Society has lowered the standards so far as to state that if there is a lot of yelling, swearing, and a grown man acting like an infant, it's comedy.

Panique au Village is a Belgian film, which states a lot, Europeans have different standards for films, their plot lines, their character developments, and dialogue.

If I am offending any readers right now, I apologize, but I am merely pointing out the parallels of American cinema vs. World cinema.

I cannot continue on with the review of Panique au Village. I cannot discuss anymore aspects of it without unfolding the plot before you and ruining a really fun family film that actually can be enjoyed by all ages. They just have to be young and willing to imagin.

An Education

An Education

2009

dir. Lone Scherfig star. Carey Mulligan, Peter Sarsgaard, Domonic Cooper

Fresh.

I know that term has been used over and over to describe a new film with a novel idea. But I have to use it for An Education. Fresh. Clean. Pure. I'm going to stop cutting and pasting the thesaurus.

With the performance of Carey Mulligan as a sixteen year old who will latch onto any form of livelyhood after living in the doldroms of her years with her boring father and meek mother, the viewer grows quite fond of Mulligan's character. You feel that you've known her all her life and you can understand the mistakes that she makes.

My only complaint: There were points where I found myself realizing that Mulligan is in fact *not* sixteen, so her character drifted in and out of.... character.

I've only seen Domonic Cooper in one other film: Mamma Mia. And I was not thrilled to see his name in the credits for An Education. I was snarkily suspecting him to burst out in song while balancing a cocktail glass in one hand while holding a Pre-Raphaelite in the other. But I was pleasantly surprised to see that he does look quite handsome in suits and can actually act.

Peter Sarsgaard. You know, you don't get the creepy sensation of "older guy seducing way younger girl," with him. You feel comfortable when he's on screen and you grow to like him and his ways. I am definitely keeping an eye out for his future films.

The cinematography of certain portions of the film had the quality of being made on a 60's hand held camera. It kept in feeling with the film and the overexposed quality of the film made it seem as if Sarsgaard and Mulligan were living in a dream as they vacationed in France for a weekend. The film made it appear as a memory that stuck with the viewer even after the film ended.

All in all, I had heard great things about this film, I was disappointed when it played only for two weekends in my teeny-tiny town and I found out about it after the fact. If you enjoy films that aren't filled with blood, guts, and gore, (and actually has a story line that is relatable and comprehendable, cough, cough, A Town Called Panic, cough) then this is a worthwhile watch for you.

Eraserhead vs. Per. 2 Economics

So in Economics today, we were required to go complete the FAFSA application in the computer lab. A few of us had already completed this so we were excused back to class. Our teacher, not having an plans, thinking that we'd be in the lab, plugged in a film that I helped pick out.

Eraserhead.

So for those who have seen this film, this is definitely a film for the open minded crowd.

Instead of watching this film, I watched my fellow classmates reactions. It was the expected:
"This film is stupid!"
Can you explain why you find it stupid?

"What the hell is going on?"
Why do you find yourself needing to know everything at once?

"Why did you choose this film?"
Because I enjoy torturing your minds by making you watch this art.

I was pretty convinced that the class would murder me as soon as the bell rang for lunch. They were bored by the first five minutes, and phones were beginning to pop out.
But when Henry goes to Mary's house, they began to get caught up in the film, even though they were still demanding concrete answers of what is happening, and why. More than once I felt like telling them to shut up and let their thoughts fill the film, but then I realized that this approach was useless.

I had a bit of a revelation during that Econ. class, people cannot accept what they don't understand, most of my classmates couldn't accept what they were seeing because they depend on factual, concrete reasonings for what happens.

Whenever I see this film, I see it as a canvas with pre-painted outlines, we have to allow our thoughts, experiences with life, and emotions fill in the color, and then see our finished product at the end. I believe this is not how David Lynch (director) intended it to be, but this is my interpretation of Eraserhead. And I have become a better thinker because of this work.

In an English class, my wonderful teacher taught us that a good thinker allows ambiguity. I pondered this statement for a few seconds before realizing that he is absolutely correct. I saw this change of allowing ambiguity occur during my Econ. class.

And at the end of my class, some students left with their opinions of Eraserhead still the same: It's a stupid film. I can't see in their brains, but maybe they have reasons for stating why they find this film stupid. And there were others who left the class wanting to know how Eraserhead ends. (We did not finish it.)

I had a chat with the teacher at the end of the period, his starter to the conversation was:

Teacher: "Well, that was an interesting pick!"

Me: "I wanted to see their reactions."

I did see their reactions. I was given crap about my choice of film during the first five minutes. I had to bite my tongue to keep myself from calling them narrowminded. I saw their attitudes change and mine change as well as the film progressed.

Best of all? I was not murdered by a group of classmates.

Moral of the story: Watch this film, please watch it all the way through, give it a chance.

Tristan + Isolde

Tristan + Isolde

2006

dir. Kevin Reynolds star. James Franco Sophie Myles Rufus Sewell

I wasn't intending on doing a review of this film, but we just finished it in my French IV class, and seeing how I am behind in my films, I decided that I might as well write a review for this.

First off, if you are unfamiliar with the story of Tristan and Isolde, you might wish to visit this website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_and_Iseult

At first I presumed that Tristan + Isolde would be like the films that you had to watch in middle school, as it pertained to the subject that you were learning about. (in my case, French history) Most of those times, I found the films to be dull and uninteresting, as they were not what we wanted to watch. But with Tristan + Isolde, I was quite surprised at how quickly the story grabbed me up and held me captivated throughout the entire film with only a few minor laughing moments. (These are Spoiler Alert! moments, so I will not elaborate on them.)

I should clarify this pdq, this film is not just a love story like The Notebook, or Letters to Juliet and other chick flicks like those, there's actually some substance to this film and some really nice cinematography. When I saw the gentle transitions between nature to human civilization, I automatically assumed that the cinematographer was European. So I looked him up: Artur Reinhart. Polish. Win!

The acting...was made up for by the cinematography. It wasn't really bad acting, but it did appear flattish in some scenes. And Sophie Myle's accents were easy to understand, a huge bonus. And Franco's performance as Tristan was not of the "macho-Imma-stud-'n'-I'm-invincible!" variety. It was quiet, and very thoughtful, there was no over the top acting with him.

My only disappointment: Way to mess up one of the most famous love stories ever.

I would recommend this to... those couples who need a love story for the girl, and an action film for the guy, there's enough of each to keep you satisfied.

Still waiting...

Three tomatoes are walking down the street -- a poppa tomato, a momma tomato, and a little baby tomato. Baby tomato starts lagging behind. Poppa tomato gets angry, goes over to the baby tomato, and squishes him... and says, 'Ketchup.'

I am behind by five films. Please Dad, please let me start up my own Netflix account or I might just become the Baby Tomato.

Interference

Please excuse the interruption, we have approached the problem known as "Parents changed the Netflix password without notification."

This may take us a while to fix, but in the meantime, sit back, and enjoy your popcorn and watch some films.

Moon

Moon

2009 dir: Duncan Jones star: Sam Rockwell Kevin Spacey Dominique McElligott

Once ten minutes in the film, it is evident that Duncan Jones pays homage to sci-fi classics such as Apollo 13, Alien, and THX-1138, all three very successful science fiction films. Despite this, Moon is very refreshing to watch. The viewer is compelled to watch Sam Rockwell's character (or should I say characters?) face his personal crisis as he deals with both of his selves when so close to the end of his three (3) year stint on the moon by himself with the company of GERTY, his robot assistant. After three (3) years, of talking to your plants and building miniatures, anyone is likely to begin to hallucinate.

The compelled viewer quickly becomes engrossed half and hour in, once the two Rockwell characters realize that something is not quite what it's cracked up to be on the moon base. The 70's sensation grows stronger as the film continues, as in the earlier sci-fi films, the white walls of the bases become claustrophobic, and moody for the viewer as well as the character. Outside the base, the landscape of the moon is instantly recognizably desolate, and increases the anticipation of the plot and what's to come.

"Moon is a superior example of that threatened genre, hard science-fiction, which is often about the interface between humans and alien intelligence of one kind of or other, including digital." - Ebert.

After I finished Moon, I had to think about our technology, and how it may seem far fetched to believe that this scenario could ever happen. (The reason I'm so vague is on account of me not having to type SPOILER ALERT! all over this review, this may happen with future reviews.) But as this may happen in the future, and plays with the emotions of humans, Moon has found a place in the pantheon of "Science Fiction."

What I loved about Moon is that every scene has a reason of being there, there's nothing worse than watching a film and going, "Well, that scene was pointless!" But with Moon, each scene has some vital information that develops character and pushes the plot. In my opinion, the length was perfect, there was no climax and then a dragged out conclusion just for directors to be able to brag: "My film was pushing three hours!" (cough, cough, *James Cameron!* cough, cough) Moon ended where it was supposed to end. Thank you, Duncan Jones.

All in all, this film is very refreshing, and a definite classic. I find it a shame that not too many people have seen it. This was a good film to start this 500 series off with.

For those who have read this and have some ideas of how to make it better, please comment! But please keep your language acceptable.