Category: likey

I watched “Waydowntown” last evening, between bouts of grading, which came upon me like the ague. Luckily, the film was funny, often clever, even well-shot. I write about it mostly to offer up a flick maybe you hadn’t heard of that’s worth a look-see; hell, I don’t even know how I heard about it. And then a word or two about Canadian film.

The plot: Office workers, young, full of either ennui or vinegary idealism or both. The narrator–our hero–often slips into surreal flights of fancy. There’s a few flashy camera tricks. Despite all that, the film is funny, understated. My favorite bits involve one worker’s increasing claustrophobia, and her attempts to find refreshment through magazine cologne ads. (The central conceit, as much of a plot as there is, is a bet between 4 workers about staying inside the connected tunnels of the downtown area for as long as possible.) I’m hesitant to say too much–it’s pleasures are limited but worthy. One of those small independent films that actually seems to be independent of trends, hipster style, flashy attempts to break out of the indie ghetto. Instead, it’s pretty comfortable about being the slight, subtle, focused character study it is.
Continue reading O Canada

Well, I saw the controversial Sin City last night and my reaction was much closer to Edelstein’s than to Taylor’s. But, of course, that just proves I am in fact a pimply fanboy, aging badly, according to Ella Taylor. And in this aggrieved fanboy mode, can I just ask what kind of reviewer mistakes the barrel of an automatic pistol for a “dagger.” wasn’t she paying attention? The movie looks great and is thrilling. I don’t think you will find well-crafted lessons on “how we live” but something that takes the visual aspect of movies seriously—if you don’t like it, fine, but at least it is fully a movie where every element is working together in a stunning way. Manohla gives it some lukewarm praise but ultimately finds it a bore, as does Hoberman—no doubt in Film Comment both will give it one or two stars while the latest by Godard—a French-accented monologue about “the elusiveness of the past and the duplicities of cinema” accompanying a two hour tracking shot of Isabelle Huppert walking across a Parisian parking lot where all the cars are on fire—receives four. And, by the way, what’s up with skipping Sin City and watching Vanity Fair?? I mean—Elijah Wood as a silent psychopathic cannibal geek wearing a Charlie Brown shirt, man! Of course, relishing this kind of detail is going to get me another slap from Ella. Yes, I played D&D in high school, I confess.
Continue reading Sin City

i can’t tell if this show is getting more or less ridiculous, but i am compelled to watch.

apparently the west was not the jolly barrel of laughs it was portrayed as being in films such as “paint your wagon” and “blazing saddles”. season 1 established that a lot of people swore then/there, and thanks to season 2 i know that doctors did not use much anaesthesia. but where exactly is all the laundry being done? the people on this show are done up better than on masterpiece theater. perhaps season 3 will clear this up.

This is a well made, well acted film that I would recommend to most poeple on here, though it would likely offend some of the more moralistic types, like the late Bruns. I watched this more than a week ago, and have been thinking about it since, but I dont know that I have much to say about it. The point of view is through the eyes of a fat 13 year old girl, watching (being dragged along like a dog sometimes) by her beautiful, slightly older sister.

The director has taken a lot of heat for her films over the years – I remember “Romance” being pretty well loathed, but after enjoying Fat Girl, I will look for more of her stuff. If anyone else has seen Fat Girl, and has thoughts on it, I’d like to hear them. Also, it contains a small, but strong performance by Atom Egoyan’s wife, Arsinée Khanjian, whom I always love to see. Continue reading Fat Girl

I watched a reasonable but not-great Spanish noir called “Lisboa”. Really good cast (Carmen Maura, Federico Luppi from Men with Guns) with the standout star Sergi Lopez. The film itself, again, is mediocre: a traveling porn salesman–and, note to Mark, that may be the color of your parachute, my job-seeking friend–runs into a woman on the run, dreadful husband and family in pursuit. Will the salesman act, will he be moral, will he save her… or… well, it’s a noir film. So you guess.

But Lopez is what I wanted to post about. Damn, the guy can act. In “Dirty Pretty Things” I’m told he spoke his lines (in English) phonetically, yet he oozes a smug confident sleaze. In “With a Friend Like Harry,” he burns a hole in the screen–his eyes are just a little too close together, and they brim with possibilities going on behind whatever dialogue he’s been given. Lopez looks unassuming–he looks short on film, so in person he’s probably 2′3″. And he’s a bit lumpy. And he slouches. And yet I’d say he’s one of the most seductive presences on film today. The guy can act…

mike mentioned this in the “time of the wolf” discussion–an earlier film by the same director–and it recently washed to the top of my netflix queue (i keep finding excuses for not watching “hidalgo” but i can’t bring myself to remove it from the queue). we watched it tonight. i liked it but don’t quite know why. i’m guessing this film is trying to make audiences question (acknowledge?) their relationship to cinematic violence. of course it is trapped in being exactly what it critiques and its pleasures finally are those of the genre it seems to want to make the viewer feel bad about enjoying. i am too tired to think of anything smarter to say about it–mike, please tell me why i liked it.

I’d heard much about this — Fritz Lang’s 1933 updating of an old serial, adapted from a novel about a criminal mastermind. The film uses its lovingly-reiterated generic conventions to take potshots at the Nazis, then ascendant in Germany.

I won’t say much about all this significance–I watched the Criterion disc, which comes with all of these important extras which someday, maybe, when terribly bored or in prep for a poorly-thought-through decision to teach this film, I need more background. Political allegory, censored film, genre/pop film as subversion, etc.

But I will recommend it on the merits. Despite (because of?) its antiquated plot techniques, there’s this dazzling melodramatic aesthetic: Continue reading Mabuse — insert “abuse” joke, preferably prefixed by “self-“, here