Wild at Heart (David Lynch, 1990)

Well, there goes quite a weird yet strangely engaging film. I don’t think I’ve seen any David Lynch films before but I quite like this one. It’s like in a similar vein to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. The movie has really changed my views of Laura Dern (from Jurassic Park), who played the main character Lulu, as well as a youthful and playful Nicolas Cage (as Sailor), who really demonstrates his raw energy and passion in this film. The two play young lovers (whose relationship is disapproved of by the girl’s mother) and they are essentially chased around the US by her mother, a hitman hired by her, as well as the wicked witch of the west and several gangsters. Yes, it sounds crazy and was not the clear and straightforward at all. Although there wasn’t really much more in the plot, it was the various characters and personalities they encounter on their road trip. The wicked witch and the good witch that Nicolas Cage encounters at the end of the film establish this sort of Wizard of Oz metaphor throughout the film. Laura Dern’s character snaps her red heels together at one point when she is longing for Nicolas Cage’s character to return. Compared to her relatively passive role in Jurassic Park, in this film she is a rebellious 20-year-old girl, complete with criminal boyfriend, red lipstick, blonde curls and racy lingerie. I have to say the love scenes did really distance me from what otherwise was a film that I enjoyed for its originality and just plain weirdness.

And the final scene is just amazing. I’ve seen it before and was looking forward to it the whole movie but it’s when Nicolas Cage serenades Laura Dern, holding her in his arms and singing a rendition of Elvis Presley’s “Love Me Tender” which just gives me goosebumps:

I was thinking what would’ve compelled him to act in this film and I’m sure the opportunity to sing Elvis (as I know he is a huge fan), as well as sort of speak with that Elvis voice and dress in a snakeskin jacket − well, enough said. But it was definitely a film that changed my opinion, in fact, broadened my impression of both actors and I think is a film that everyone should see if they want to see some raw acting talent clearly having fun filming this movie.

3.5/5

Le notti bianche (White Nights) (Luchino Visconti, 1957)

This was the first Visconti film I’ve watched so I wasn’t sure what to expect. However, I can say that I enjoyed this film − it was a little different to what I thought would happen but I guess that made it interesting. Firstly, I have to say the character Natalia, played by Maria Schell really appealed to me. (She reminded me of Emma Watson (Hermoine Granger in Harry Potter) − she just looked so alike!) I think this lady is a great actress, full of energy and emotion − just like an innocent little child and I sort of felt I could relate to her. Actually the whole movie was really quite dramatic and expressive − I don’t know if that’s a feature of Italian films, seeing as though the language itself is full of and gestures but regardless this film was full of spirit.

On the topic of characters though, I admit I couldn’t sympathise or relate to Jean Marais, who played Natalia’s dream lover − he just seemed older and too mature for her and maybe even slightly suspicious or evil. As a result, I didn’t really want it to end with Natalia going back to him but I guess that was a twist in what I thought was an otherwise traditional narrative. I eventually sympathised for Mario (played by the amazing Marcello Mastroianni) who fell in love with her, however, it took a while at the beginning of the film to finally draw me in to his character. I just felt he kept changing from a rebellious almost womaniser-type of man to a sensitive lovesick individual. I thought at the end they would be together but it was kind of a sad ending. Even though I kept expecting to see Natalia’s dream lover walk into the scene at any moment, by the final scene I was almost convinced he wasn’t − until he came! So after expecting him to first come back for, then as a man who won’t keep his promise, I guess he did love her but it just doesn’t sit well with me. And all that we see Mario leave with is a dog, like the dog he met at the start of the film − I don’t know if that’s the company he wanted. Speaking of the beginning of the movie, I felt it took a while to bring some relevant action in and I don’t know if it was just my screen but the setting seemed really dark and maybe a little bland and repetitive. However, I’m not familiar with Italian towns so I wasn’t sure how to view it. It was a “misty, dreamlike” film and I particularly liked the flashback scenes. Also, good to see a little bit of comedy, mostly in part due to Natalia’s granny, whose amusing Italian utterances gave the film some light-hearted humour.

I’m now curious to read the Dostoevsky short story this is based on because it did seem a bit different from usual tales you see on the screen and something that I’d enjoy − also would be good to see how it was adapted for a film. A good introduction to Visconti films and I look forward to watching more of his works. Overall, pleased with this film about two dreamers, full of emotion, some poignancy and I guess the ending was more realistic showing that true love doesn’t just disappear easily whenever we want it to.



4/5

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (Terry Gilliam, 1998)

It just can’t get any better. What a strange, surreal, fantastic experience. I don’t remember liking the film this much the first time I saw it (this being the second time). I think that that having seen all the avant-garde and experimental films I have, that in hindsight this movie isn’t that crazy at all − it’s all to do with perception. (Maybe also having now finished my journalism degree I can relate more to the character?) Actually, I think it’s because I have really matured as a film-goer. While the first time I may have been a little put-off by Depp’s baldness and what was for me at the time, extreme drug taking and bizarre cinematography, now I see that the filmmaker has to take part in the movie as well. This one was genius! And it was the most thrilling feeling − probably the closest you can get to having this feeling without actually taking drugs. (Here's the trailer for the film.)

My opinion of Hunter S. Thompson has also changed. It’s like it’s suddenly dawned on me − Johnny Depp was right in admiring this novelist. Some of his descriptions, like the one about the wave crashing in San Francisco, were really poetic. While going over some of the quotes from the film, I notice that Thompson wrote in a very energetic way, using lots of questions − his style is quite intriguing. The whole film was imagination and creativity mixed with poetry. Now I really want to read the novel. I also have to mention a strong factor in my enjoyment of this film was the soundtrack. From my first time watching it, I had got the song “Viva Las Vegas” but now with Rolling Stones, a remake of “My Favourite Things” (from The Sound of Music) that played at the start, Tom Jones’ “She’s a Lady”, some Bob Dylan and plenty of other groovers, this film really made me feel like I was in the ‘70s, experiencing an almighty high.

5/5

La Vita è Bella (Life is beautiful) (Roberto Benigni, 1997)

Bongiorno principessa! Honestly, I didn’t know much about this film before I saw it. I was expecting something about a Holocaust and from the title, well, naturally I thought it was going to be a tragic drama. I’m glad to say that it is one of the funniest and most amazing films I’ve ever seen. After watching it, I see it is classified as a tragicomedy and I wholeheartedly agree. At the beginning when we see Roberto Benigni’s character goofing off almost like an Inspector Clousseau (Pink Panther)/Mr.Bean hybrid, I was starting to rethink whether I was mistaken that such a comedic performance could possibly incorporate the Holocaust in its storyline. That’s what I really admired about this film − it is in fact really heartbreaking but the film manages to deal with such a serious topic and add some life and love and spirit, yet never compromise or trivialise its subject matter. And of course, I loved the inspirational character played by Roberto Benigni, who also directed this wonderful film. He was such a lovable, warm character – we need more of this type of optimism in the world, no matter what tragedy you’re in. And to those yet to see this film who may question the humour, it actually makes it more painful to watch this innocence have to suffer – he knows and we know too – of the horror that awaits but he is one who is not willing to let the human spirit die, though his body may.

This is one of my favourite scenes in the film – when Guido (Roberto Benigni) and his son are sent to a concentration camp, in order to keep the boy's spirits up, Guido tries to convince his young son that it is all just a game:

Although, at times I doubted the authenticity of the situation, such as when the German official stops the train to let his wife on or when the American stops the tank for the boy – that just seemed a little like the world revolved around this family and really, I believe they would’ve been treated more insignificantly in this instance. Nevertheless, these are really such trivialities in an otherwise touching and – although the phrase is cliché – heart-warming tale. It’s great that it’s the second film I’ve seen in a row that has taken a spot among my favourite movies of all time but now I see the similarities in tackling a common storyline (well, nothing we haven’t heard about before) and constructing it in such a unique and clever manner. Lovely. It seems the less I know about a film the more pleasantly surprised I am but looks like I may be closer to finding a formula for my favourite films: a touch of ingenuity and a dash of humour.

5/5

Russian Ark (Aleksandr Sokurov, 2002)

Interesting film − I am a fan of films, or directors should I say, that think outside the box. This was apparently the first feature film created in a single take and it sure seemed weird. (You can watch the first part of the film on YouTube). There was something about the fluidity − it was like you constantly had to pay attention and there were no cuts or any time for a “break”. It actually felt like a documentary. And the main character we see (not the filmmaker from whose point of view we see) looked remarkably like Christopher Walken − a little freaky, yet intriguing. A lot of art was in the film. I was very tired so that may have required extra effort to stay awake and there wasn’t really a strong storyline as such. I also didn’t really get the beginning and how the filmmaker ended up there in the first place. Nevertheless, I really enjoyed the different approach. And of course, I loved the costumes and the set of the Heritage Museum! Apparently it took nine months to rehearse but it was well scripted and worth it I believe.

It was wonderful to see history come alive and just to pretend to be there at that time was great. I guess that’s why I feel as if it is more of a documentary because it is objective and showing not really telling us anything. I should probably read up a bit more on Russian history to understand the significance of some of the characters mentioned but I still enjoyed the film without all the knowledge − so hats off to Mr Sokurov for creating an engaging and original way of thinking about film and narrative (or lack of it).

4/5

Que Viva Mexico (Sergei Eisenstein, 1979)

This half documentary/half fiction film was definitely more engaging that I expected I to be. As a film that Eisenstein was originally unable to finish, Grigory Alexandrov took the task of assembling a version as close to Eisenstein’s vision as possible, many years later. It begins as a look at daily life in Mexico with the celebration and process of marriage for young women wearing gold necklace dowries, in the first part of the film called “Sandunga” (the name of a folk song). Then in the next part, “Fiesta”, we see young conquistadors battling a bull (complete with amusing constructions of shots taken from the point of view of what is clearly, a fake bull), which I have to say made me slightly uncomfortably due to my sympathy for the creature who was being prodded and poked and teased (and I mean, the real animal). Part three is “Maguey” (the cactus), where we see poverty and banal cruelty. It is almost like a mini movie involving a young girl and her lover– when he takes her for approval by the landlord, she ends up being taken advantage of by a drunk then locked away while the boy ends up killed by being buried alive up to his shoulders.

It is a tragedy and definitely not promoting Mexico in its best light but it proved an interesting look at Mexican people and the clothes and environment (those cacti looked fantastic). I can see the similarities of Eisenstein’s skill at portraying class struggle but I got the impression that this wasn’t as political a film as some of his others. Lastly, is an epilogue about the Day of Death festival, which I admire − the way Mexicans first mourn loved ones then mock death and eat sugar skulls and chocolate coffins in a demonstration of their lack of fear of death. The music, which I’m assuming was added by Alexandrov, was also great. I’m curious as to why Mexico was chosen, I mean compared to October and Strike, it just seems like a whole other universe for Eisenstein. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the film and thought it represented Mexican culture in an appealing way most of the time − it makes me wonder how much is really true and as Alexandrov points out at the beginning when he addresses the camera, how much  was acted out.

3.5/5

Viaggio in Italia (Journey to Italy) (Roberto Rossellini, 1953)

An interesting film starring George Sanders and Ingrid Bergman as a husband and wife who are facing some strain on their marriage while on a trip in Italy to receive inheritance. I say interesting because that’s about all there is to the plot but still it gets your attention in a certain way. I mean, there are plenty of long slow scenes with any action, like when the character Katherine Joyce is walking in museums and visiting historical sites in Italy. But what I liked the most was the tension between the couple. The DVD synopsis states: “a marriage is breaking up under the strains of a trip to Italy”, however I didn’t get the impression it was falling apart. I felt it was just a rough patch in a marriage. But it’s quite appealing in the way you can feel that deep down the characters do really love one another. They are both jealous when the other spends time with strangers and consequently argue about it but as the story reveals, they’ve been together for eight years and I think that’s enough to build the basis of a strong relationship. I’m also still trying to figure out its “deliberate rejection of many aspects of ‘classic’ Hollywood narrative” because although there really wasn’t any story, I think it was a conventional ending.

I liked the at-times documentary style filming, particularly at the start when they’re travelling in the car. I didn’t like George Sanders’ character − sometimes was a bit too mean, as Katherine remarked in the film (obviously I sympathised with her).

3.5/5

Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958)

Well, this was definitely beyond my expectations. I didn’t know what the film was about but I would have never guessed it. A man hires an ex-detective named John “Scottie” Ferguson (and one of his friends), who suffers from vertigo (hence, why he left the detective occupation) to spy on his wife who he believes is possessed by the spirit of Carlotta Valdes who we find out is one of her ancestors. The detective (played by the wonderful James Stewart from the Shop Around the Corner) eventually falls in love with her after saving her from drowning (first suicide attempt) but we see her end up committing suicide by jumping off a church tower. (Actually, later in the film we see that this was in fact staged by the husband as a cover up to murder his wife by throwing her out of the tower.) So Scottie (and at this point, the audience too) doesn’t know this and we see how he is scarred by losing someone he loves. However, then we see a woman who looks like Madeleine but goes by the name of Judy, and he instantly follows her and not surprisingly, falls in love with her. It gets quite ridiculous as he insists the woman dies her hair blonde and wears the same grey suit as Madeleine, as if to fool himself he is with his first love (which the audience learns it is actually Madeleine).

However, everything unravels as we see Judy put on the antique necklace Madeleine wore and suddenly Scottie puts everything together. In one last move, he takes her, against her will, to the top of the tower, where we get the sense he wants to throw her off and thus, complete his cycle of grief and anger for deceiving him. Nevertheless, she professes her love for him and it appears as though he forgives her and they embrace, when suddenly a nun enters the tower, surprising Jude, who steps backwards and falls to her death and we see the film end with the nun whispering “god have mercy” while ringing the clock bell as Scottie stares down in disbelief at his “second chance” once again turned to misery.

Here's the trailer for the film:

It was quite a remarkable film as considering the 1950s audience, I’m surprised to see the issue of suicide in the film − it’s rare even nowadays, and a nun ultimately responsible for a death is pretty much unheard of). The plot is so twisted and complex and far, far, far away from a happy ever after, that I just don’t know how to handle it. If I were to sum up the film in one word it would be obsession: obsession as in love for another person, obsession with recreating and changing the past (shown in his comedic insistence of certain clothes for Judy while at the store, to which the store woman replies, “You really know what you want, don’t you?”).

I liked the vertigo zoom shot downwards really interesting as it sort of aimed to give the impression of feeling faint, as if you were witnessing how a person suffering from vertigo would feel. Also, I liked Scottie’s nightmare sequence, which included red tinges, animation and just his head in the middle of a psychedelic swirl. Hitchcock, well now I really admire his mastery, the way he builds suspense and just you know something will happen but it’s not as predictable as typical Hollywood films and that’s why I liked it.

4/5

Happily Avatar after... or not

Looks like there is going to be not only a second Avatar film but third as well! According to this article in the Guardian, the second film will be set in the ocean, while the third one is likely to go to another planet.

It's certainly becoming almost common practice now to build on the success of films by adding a sequel... or two. I guess there's the assumption that it's more likely to replicate the success as the concept has already been largely 'tried and tested'.

Nevertheless, I'm not really a big fan of Avatar (see my review of the film here), so I'm hoping the next films will be better (though very rarely sequels are).

A Clockwork Orange (Stanley Kubrick, 1971)

Very strange yet somehow engaging. The film is basically about a guy named Alex, who is a fan of “ultra-violence” and surprisingly, Beethoven. Anyway, Alex is part of a gang who go around assaulting, stealing and raping people. One night Alex gets caught and goes to jail. There, he becomes the subject of an experimental treatment (aversion therapy) which involves him being tied up to a chair in a cinema with his eyes held open and not being able to move while being subjected to films depicting violence, rape (pretty much all the crimes he has committed). Beforehand, Alex is given an injection of a substance, which starts affecting him when he is in the cinema, making him feel extremely sick and nauseous.

Thus, we eventually (after a fortnight of therapy) see that when Alex sees or even thinks about violence, etc, his body has become so conditioned to having the feeling of sickness accompany these thoughts, that he just collapses on the ground in the state of trauma, unable to function normally − violence ends up making him physically ill. In addition, he feels sick when listening to Beethoven (which before he loved to listen to), as classical music provided the backing track to many of the violent films he was subjected to. So Alex is deemed cured and we see him become what is supposed to be a ‘proper’ citizen. In the end, after Alex attempts suicide to escape the pain, the health minister in charge of the treatment admits it was wrong to use the therapy and we see that Alex is cured − and back to his immoral thoughts.

It was a slow start − it took a bit to get me into the film, seeing as though the nudity and rape at the beginning didn’t exactly draw me into the film. However, it was a darkly satirical and slightly surreal science fiction and being quite a philosophical film, I can see why it has garnered so much attention. The character of Alex deLarge is strangely charismatic and endearing − for the most part. These are the types of films I like: complex and thought-provoking. I’m still undecided if I will see this film again, maybe not for a while.

4/5

Robert Downey Jr as the Wizard of Oz?

I read an article in the Guardian website about the possibility of Robert Downey Jr playing the Wizard of Oz.

The proposed film would be a prequel to the classic 1939 film with Judy Garland, and is tipped to be called Oz the Great and Powerful.

It's fantastic to see Robert Downey Jr back and having so much success, with films like Iron Man (and the soon-to-be-released Iron Man 2 and 3!).

No doubt seeing him play a wizard (a well-known wizard at that) would be fantastic although it could be very risky to go near such a beloved classic - mixed feelings. Although I suppose it's similar to Johnny Depp's roles in both Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Alice in Wonderland.

Avatar (James Cameron, 2010)

I have to say, despite the crowds relishing this 3D film and despite it becoming the highest-grossing film ever, I was slightly disappointed by this blockbuster. For one, I don’t know if everyone had the same reaction or just me (seeing as though I’ve been studying so many non-Hollywood films) but the plot was just so incredibly predictable! I mean, even more predictable than usual − it’s like I couldn’t relax and just be engaged by the film as I was just ticking the plot events off as they happened.

In addition, I found the 3D was poor compared to every other 3D film I’ve seen. For instance, in the 3D films at amusement parks, etc, the point of the 3D film is to make audiences jump and the film to seem realistic, as if it’s happening in front of your eyes. I don’t know if maybe it was just my seating in the cinema, but for Avatar, all that was 3D was a few plants and even then it looked like two layers of cardboard cut-out, with a background than a foreground. And that is the extent of the 3D. Really, the film could’ve taken advantage of this aspect even more. Also, I wasn’t expecting it to be quite an environmental film, but I guess that’s good as it demonstrated the importance of looking after primitive rainforests and species. Anyway, I still probably gave the film a high rating. It was ok but I probably wouldn’t watch it again. I already knew what was going to happen before I watched it the first time, so I can’t imagine how even more predictable and unengaging it would be the second time around.

3.5/5

Une femme est une femme (Jean-Luc Godard, 1961)

Only fitting to do my first review on a film by one of my favourite directors, Jean-Luc Godard:

I couldn’t resist watching this film again. So light and funny. But at the same time it really draws a thin line between tragedy and comedy. Une femme est une femme is the second Godard film I watched (Vivre sa vie was the first). After I was just gobsmacked at the pure genius and originality of Vivre sa vie (which I also plan to revisit), I was intrigued by Godard but it wasn’t until this delightful film, which has become one of my favourites, that I decided that Godard was someone I wanted to explore further and I’ve come a long way since I saw it for the first time. For one, I’m much more familiar (if that’s even possible) with Godard’s style and approach to film and although the initial “shock” may have sort of worn off, I’m still in awe of his films, even when I see a film again, but particularly when I watch one of his films I haven’t seen before (and luckily for me, he’s made so many!).

Anyway, this film is pretty much about Angela (Anna Karina) who wants a baby but her boyfriend Émile (played by Jean-Claude Brialy - I think I’m going to check out more of his films) doesn’t want a baby (until the end of the film). It’s full of cutesy expressions, even a musical piece by Anna Karina, taking full advantage of her feminine qualities. Also, I guess at the time I first saw it, I didn’t know about Jean-Paul Belmondo but he played Émile’s friend, who Angela tries to seduce in order to father her child. Of course, one of the most memorable and enjoyable scenes for me, was when Angela and Émile are exchanging insults through book titles - here's a clip from the scene:



When I first saw this film, I remember being really surprised by Godard’s inventive and different use of camera, his constant referencing but I guess watching this film again, although I saw the very cool side tracking shot (that glides across from Émile, who sort of freezes, to Angela’s expression in the kitchen), and a few times the characters addressed the camera, like Jean-Paul Belmondo’s cheeky grin, Angela’s winks and when she says to Émile, “Before we being our farce, we bow to the audience” is a classic), I didn’t feel that there was that much referencing. I guess it’s almost like this is one of his more “normal” films, compared to some of his almost abstract films, such as Le Gai Savoir - or maybe I’m just used to them? Anyway, it was a joy to watch this film once again and I look forward to more viewings!

4.5/5

Welcome!

Just thought I'd kick things off! I've been considering creating this blog for a while now and I'm glad I finally did - it just seems the obvious thing to do, seeing as though I had been writing and studying cinema for a while now.

I look forward to posting lots of bits and pieces so hopefully you'll find something interesting here to read!