Precious: Based On The Novel 'Push' by Sapphire

Another film with big hype, Oscare nomiantions, and a big reputation. This can make one rather tired of it before seeing it; don't let this stop you though, it's great.
We didn't find this quite as depressing as had been suggested. The content is, of course, beyond grim, and a few scenes are almost pornographic in their portrayal of a household and a life beyond the ken of the middle class. The tone, the dialectic, of the film is however one that lies on an upward path. Not only in the literal plot movements that, even though there are setbacks, one knows will not let despair take hold. This is Oprah-Winfrey Hollywood, after all.
It is though in that hopefulness and imagination in Precious herself that makes this film what it is. Her own dreams, and view on life, does make it aspirational. The scenes with her classmates are charming and gently humourous in their own way.
This film, we suspect (due to the lack of noticing at the time) is very well directed. Smooth, it rattles olng, scenes aren't extraneous. Without achieving visual flare the settings and shots have their own style and viewpoint that gives it an enduring image.
We should also mention that the very fact that this film ,and its subject matter, is so mainstream and has recieved such notice is a great step forward. The lack of films that portray women's lives as their lead, never mind one also obese and black, is often unnoticed. Hopefully this film will inspire more producers and directors to examine different experiences.
This is a watchable, occasionally moving (though, if we're honest, not always massively involving) and sharply directed film. It is more deserving than many of the Oscar hopefuls, and we particularly recommend Gaby Sidibe's performance in the lead role.

A Prophet

Audriard's latest picture, highly commended. It is fantastic, and it is an epic. Yes, it goes on for a number of weeks, but it just about (although, maybe, not quite) deserves the running time.
The characters, and setting, and developed and utterly true. No scenes are wasted, but that doesn't mean anything particularly happens for a lot. It would be wrong to say there is a gradual build up, as from the very off we have a sure sense of purpose about these characters as fully rounded, rather than them growing into a role. This sets out what is the best word to describe this entire film; confident. The characters and story are confidently assembled, it marches forwards with an unstoppable sincerity. The atmosphere is oppressive from the very off, and the alloances made beyond pure realism don't need to be justified; the film will do so itself.
This film is not very...hilly. This is not to say it is flat, but rather that it keeps its same tone throughout the piece. We don't realise ho gasping we are for breath, how almost literally we want to look up to the sun, until we are shocked at the difference when moments of the beach are snapped. Even the humour is not so much a break from the tone, but rather fits within the encompasssing structure and world of the film.
The non-realist scenes have there own beauty, not a transcendent beauty but rather a gritty, immanenet, peculiar one. They are beautiful in the same way billowing smoke is. The actors are not beautiful, though are, of course, brilliant painted. The performances of the leads are beyond impeccable; they are their character, just that.
To conclude, this is an epic masterpiece, which is slightly different from a masterpiece. If you kno, and are ready, to enter a dreary (not always negative world) where excitment runs at its own colour and we recognise that truth comes through puddles and grit, never to be wiped away and thus truly accessed, you will love it. A film to stay with you. And not only because the very last scene, the behind-the-back flick of the hand, is wonderful.

King Coal

A collection of sixteen documentaries, stretching from 1901 to 1984, this is a moving, powerful, and personal documentary collection that we would heartily endorse every citizen of Britain to see as soon as possible.
From the Mitchell and Kenyon films, beautiful and at times heart-rending memories of the human-ness of people we usually only read about objectively, or as numbers in the newspaper. We see happy people, sad people, ghard working people, but above all real people. People we are connected to by ancestry and geography who are just as we are, but living in such a time that seems almost unimaginable to us now. We see the incredible conditions, which seem inhuman to us now, and remind us how close we are to that very reality. We want to speak to these people, like we can talk to our next door neighbour, and ask them what they really FEEL about their work.
Documentaries add some artistic majesty, from the hympnotic and surreal cartoon of 'King Coal' to start to the Britten-scored and Auden themed celebration/condemnation of industry, an incomplarably powerful piece.
There are moments of great humour, the mix is well balanaced and does not overemohasise any one aspect of the picture. The training documentaries are pure dead-eyes comedy. Then we have the newreel holiday footage, at once hillarious and at once an evocation which, in its very unthinking ordinariness, tells us more than a hundred graphs and figures could.
And then we have footage of the 60's and 80's, so near and yet so distant, people with such different concerns who walk through the very same streets we do. The past is, truly, a foreign country. This collection of documentary lets us visit, through a dark glass, for its 80 minutes.
This is a masterpiece of documentary cutting, presenting a view of life that makes you leave the screen and see the country, and the people, differently. One of the most important documents we kno to exist, regarding this country.

Bleeder

This mildly tiremsome piece has its' fingers in a lot of pies. With some Clerks style nerd comedy, touches of romance, a good dollop of gangsterism, violence, and to round it off a bit of a slacker ambience.
The problem is that it doesn't really have a stroy, or characters, good enough to engage. The central males are all rather inconsequential (our video store worker) or coherence-bendingly schizophrenic and periodically unpleasant in their actions (We refuse to attribute bad characterisation to a postmodern sensibility) that we struggle, to drag that hoary cliche out, to CARE too deeply about the characters. It all seems rather pointless, and meandering. There is nothing for the viewer to do, just a bunch of scenes rag-tag together.
We are not a fan of the directoral style, the shaky and moving camera added nothing except an unnecessary distraction. And we get that you know alot about films, you're a film director.
This isn't awful, it never embarrases, and is written accurately with faith in the intellignece of the viewer. It just fails to go anywhere, or do anything. Only great films can get away with this.

Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes)

Probably most famous in the English-speaking world for the Tom Cruise led 'Vanilla Sky' remake, this film, which Penelope Cruz also appears in, is a decent enough sci-fi/psychological tale.
The acting is good, and the story well told- we are nicely kept off balance throughout the fractured plot twists and character developments. The story is slightly nutty, which can lead to impatience, but this is, after all, basically sci-fi (or is it....?) so we must take the rough with the smooth. Visually, it is fine enough, with a few moments of flair, and (here's something e don't think about too often) some very good work from the wardrpbe department.
All in all, a decent ride, even if it didn't quite sweep us off our feet.

Nordwand (North Face)

Not entirely satisfying mountain climbing, gripping and romping along enough, but flawed.
The start of the film is oddly old-fashioned, quick cuts failing to build up tension or really give us much characterisation. From this, the film does lack weight throughout. However, this doesn't get in the way of what is undoubtedly a well-told story, even if we never quite come to care too deeply about the characters (some fine, underwritten, performances, from the always excellent Ulrich Tukker and the male lead whose name escapes).
The lack of weight is also manifest in a film that, dare I suggest, sticks rather too close to the truth, being at times rather undramatic and oddly paced (for so by the narrative) thanks to this. Well-told, but difficult to entirely know what is being told.
The political aspect is under-played and in that sense entriely unnecessary, it would probably have been for the best if this had either been given the key role, or if it had been excercised as nothing more than the spectre of a tsunami.
We are happy that we have seen this, it was entertaining enough, but it's not a great work.

La Belle Et La Bete

The Jean Cocteau classic is over-rated, but that doesn't lower it to anything less than the level of a fun, curious fantasy with transcendentally lovely sets.
The story is well told, and the acting, especially by Belle, is charming. At the start, it looks set to be a masterpiece, with fantastic atmospherics and a wonderful (though severly budget constrained settings of the house of la bete).
The problem with the film though is that it never quite goes the whole hog; never quite t hrows the kitchen sink in. The emotional scenes are a little over-stylised, and no one seems ever quite sure, or confident enough, to truly let themselves go. The beast isn't quite dark enough; Belle seems oddly undecided as to what characterisation what to give to herself. And as for the end...I'm not sure whether to say kop-out, or some wierd self-referential experiment.
The scenes of the house are dazzling at times, though, again (perhaps due to the budget) rather under done, underemphasised.
All told, a film more than worth seeing, and we understand why some would love this. Fur us, however, it never quite makes the leap from good cinema to the transcendental.

Before Sunset

Not quite as good as before Sunset, feeling much more lightweight than the former, but still a perfectly fine, flighty piece.
Ethan Hawke is still annoying, Julie Delpy is still a cliche, and more than ever we have Richard Linklater delivering us half-interesting lectures through the means of completely inappropriate characterised situations. This jarred more than in Sunrise, and removes the realist aspect intended for.
Still, it's a sweet look at romance, and has beautiful moments that only the ambition of a true artist could create. We like, but with severe reservations.

Sous Les Bombes (Under The Bombs)

What to say of a not very good film, set and acted around an enviroment where the cinematic medium can only be inadequate to marl the horror of hat has occured? It would feel like a disparagement of the conflict and suffering of Lebanon to immediately lay into this film without first giving a strong caveat; films such as this, almost documentary-standard naturalism in an ongoing situation that should be made plain to all corners of the world, must be continued to be made. We reviewed Je Veux Voir a while back and, though that film in form was just plain wierd, the gravity of what it depicted lent it the weight of authority. This film, a poorly made and directed piece, can't quite escape its inadequacies even with the backing it has. This should make us think not a jot less of Lebanon and what occured there.
It is, compared to Je Veux Voir, a more involving film of the actual violence, showing bombs actually dropped. The demolishings and rubble though are not shot with any sense of scale, the destruction of the landscape not well rendered. It seems pathetically petty to moan that, when we see a mother grieving the loss of her children, it is acted out in an univolving and unsympathetic manner, and thus loses impact. But it does.
The camerawork is straight out of first-year-film school, and though the acting is fine it adds little to a not particularly well-paced story. The ending is an interesting twist, but a bare summary of the plot should make it far more than merely 'interesting'.
What should one do if a bad film is made of the holocaust. Is it O.K. not feel involved or sympathetic to close-to-real-life depictions of human suffering? We don't know. We do kno that this is a bad film, and that what happened in Lebanon had precisely nothing to do with what some film reviewer made of Sous Les Bombes.

Before Sunrise

Charming, uneven, and a terrific idea, this early Linklater film left us thoughtful. The film slowly seeps its way into the action, the stillness and contemplation of the shots (not dramatically beautiful, or even picturesquely so, but considered) a fine counterpoint to the nature of the pleasingly realist script and mannerisms of our to performers. Few films can match this for acuteness in contemplating how people actually act around each other.
Initially, Ethan Hawke is incredibly annoying, which is partly an intentional plot device and partly just annoying. Our appreciation of him did increase throughout the film, which surely shows dept in both the direction and acting that we can applaud. By the end, we were where we perhaps were meant to be at the start, i.e. slightly fond. Julie Delpy is, of course, lovely, if occasionally, as is the case for both characters, occasionally succumbing to cultural cliches (which may be true, after all).
The dialogue is steps above banal but not exactly original (hurt by its on imitators), and clunky every now and again. Indeed, the attempts at delivering the message can be writ rather large. Then again, is that not the case when we consider our actual interaction?
What the film lacks in the kind of relaxed romance it perhaps aimed for, it makes up for by having some fine unspoken moments, movements of the sensuous romance. It was in these, able to summon up the rush of recognition in the viewer, that left it as an impression, and a longing, to discover what the film had portrayed.
Not the most perfectly executed film ever, but the plot is so intriguing, and Linklater's style so artfully balanced, that we left the film with much more than when we arrived. A low budget success, for Vienna's tourist board as much as anyone.

Sin Nombre

This film is about a very interesting story, a very interesting issue and a very interesting state of life: that of central American immigrants making the journey to the United States, not entirely officially.
The film though, frankly, could be set in any situation. The actual contingencies of the train journey through Mexico and the reaching of the Texas border seem like a pretty generic backdrop to any road movie (as this kind-of-counts as). This is not a political film at all, and really focusses on the action and the characters caught up in it, the Mexican gang culture far more primary than any specific analyses of Spanish-language illegal immigrant culture. This is a little of a shame, there's an important film to be made about this subject; this general comment though shouldn't really be a criticism of the film itself, though the thought does stick in the mind.
What we have is a very sub-City of God portrait of gang culture. This is a bit cruel, it is fitting and there are some shocking realist scenes of violence. We never though felt truly part of the action, never quite got a sense of the suffocating atmosphere and visceral horror and macabre thrill of gang violence. Where the film is more succesful is in having a look at the characters caught in these spirals; they are nicely drawn, more than ciphers. The family, and the leading girl, are also competently put together.
For all this, not exacly subtle, characterisation, the jist of the film is really in the chasing of gangsters, and the love affair brewing in the centre of this. The story is handled just fine, the action, though never exactly gripping, is not overlong and generally chigs along nicely. There isn't much more to it really; it isn't particulalry well shot or profoundly handled, just a pretty standard chase.
This is an unremarkable film transported, seemingly almost accidently, into a fascinating and underused context. More films on this subject, e ask for, but there's no need to make too many like this.

Monkey Business

Another Marx brothers film, containing their signature archaic mixture of puns, slapstick, and physical action comedy. If not quite as intense as Duck Soup, it contains all the same familiar themes (though perhpas more of a love interest, for both Zeppo and periodically Groucho). The Brothers play well off the supporting cast, who are more than mere cyphers in this work, and the plot, deliberately hammy as it is, has a certain amount of drive. Let's see how the Brother's, individually, get on.
Chico; The punmaster, second string as a wise guy behind Groucho. Probably necessary for balance and for Harpo to play off, but rarely much entertainment on his own.
Groucho; The most modern (and famous) of the jokesters, his fast talking style is the definition of hit and miss. Physically, he is always excellent, the unexplained absurdities delightful.
Harpo; an incredible character, utterly sinister and malevolent in his mute mania. The unexplained chasing of the women is the funniest part of the production. Always a kind of sick curiousity surrounds him, Samuel Beckett is right here.
Zeppo; the pointless brother. It was likely for the best he did not feature in all the films, he truly is not able to adapt to a comic persona.
A word should also be given to the music performances, Chico's exhillarating piano and Harpo's sweetly beautiful harp, unexpected in its tenderness and given further import by its place in the otherwise most postmodern, imagistic, frenzied and kaliedoscopically inverted form of filmaking.
Again, we repeat; the Marx Brothers do not make us laugh, but the structure, the haunting chaos of the piece (wonderfully offset by the above mentioned music) leads to viewing experiences that are compelling, and stay with the viewer. True works of art.

Alice in Den Stadten (Alice In The Cities)

One of the earlier Wim Wenders films, we shall be looking for the soonest opportunity to see 'Wings Of Desire' and 'Paris, Texas' as 'Alice In The Cities' is, with a few qualifications, a masterwork.
Shot in black and white, the New York scenes are closer to the reality of the city than we can remember before coming across; this combined with some audaciously exciting tracking shots along railtracks and car bumpers makes for a visually perfect film. Every location, every city or airport or car journey, is, to use an overused term, 'stunning'. The framing could not be more beautiful, the contrasts rendered are superb without being overdone, the images captured, seemingly offhand, in the iconic black and white form, are unsurpassed. In silence, this film would still make the heart stop.
And indeed there isn't a huge amount of dialogue; yet it still manages to pack in more puzzles, images and enigmatic meanings than the vast majority of films. The photographs taken, the slow realisations and epiphanies: never spelt out, never properly understood, they stand alone not as explication, but as art. The characters are, to recapitulate a point, real people, given space to breathe and never put into slots.
Perhaps it is a little long, and the narrative rather unfocused, verging on predictable. The acting, though fittinng in langurously with the aesthetic, can seems a bit '70's' (it is a 1974 movie) and mannered.
But the form of this film is such a record of excellence, the images created and the way they are put forward so purely articulated, this is a film that deserves to be returned to by every cinema fan.