Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

after much serious debate, i'm finally starting up a proper ash review thread. i don't promise consistent reviews or even anything overally interesting or insightful, but i promise the reviews i do bother to write up will be sparked by a real interest in the author, always.

oh, i'm also probably going to refrain from reviewing anything terribly mainstream, because i want to write reviews in hopes that maybe at least one person finds something "new to them" new.

cool, right?

I went into this one the best way: without reading the book first. It's too difficult for me to evaluate a movie on its own merits if I have a book to compare it to. Anyway, for some reason I can’t put my finger on, I’ve been thinking about this movie, like, non-stop since I watched it. That happens to me sometimes. In this case, I’m not sure why (or maybe I do and it scares me to admit it or something, I dunno). I wasn’t even going to write a review about it, but I’ve thought about it so much it seems a waste not to.

Told mainly in hindsight, the story unfolds through snippets of memories – Tilda Swinton is Eva, a young newlywed who gives birth to a son she names Kevin. As the movie progresses and Kevin ages, he exhibits what appears to be construed as early signs of sociopathic tendencies, but this is mostly left up to viewer interpretation. It’s interesting the way it’s done, though, I’ve never seen it from this angle. Most movies I’ve seen about serial killers’ childhoods has always been more one-dimensional than this. As it’s told from the mother’s POV, it shows her anxiety over her son’s lack of communication and detachment from other people. The strange part is while he rejects any affection she tries to give him and seeks out ways to be cruel towards her, he adores and seeks affection from his father much like many young boys would.


The mother/son relationship here was easily the most fascinating thing about this movie. It's like Eva tries to be maternal and loving, but it never comes off genuine or relaxed; her every action is forced and resentful. This in turn made her a very unsympathetic character - and that's saying a lot, because her son is awful to her. The ongoing power struggle between mother and son is so unsettling that it makes for awkward viewing, to say the least. I'm wondering if it's the intention of the author to make the viewer think that Kevin's contrary cruelty is a result of his own mum's lack of real emotion. It's like the harder she tries to coddle him and love him, the more obvious it seems she wants nothing to do with him.

Kevin, even from an extremely young age, continuously challenges and psycho analyzes everything his mother does. Since the narrative jumps back and forth a lot from the present day to about 10 and 15 years prior, the viewer is actually shown the end result without context. This being the case, I initially doubted that the person we need to talk about was actually Kevin, but rather the mum.

For what the movie lacks in straightforwardness it more than makes up for it with the use of symbolism. I suppose one could say a lot of symbolism isn’t ever really straightforward, since it’s something which represents something else entirely, but We Need To Talk About Kevin is so in-your-face with it that it actually gets really sickening. No joke, I’m pretty sure there is something red in every frame of the film. It seems pointless to have blatant symbolism – isn’t it supposed to be sort of vague and hidden, like a sort of poetic backdrop to the story at hand?

Anyway, since I'm not really sure what this movie deserves exactly, I'm going to rate it based on how much it's made me think and how unsettled it made me feel (answer: a lot).

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

great, now i'm not going to be able to read the title of this thread without humming the Gypsy theme song. sheesh.

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

Nice to see you've started this up Ash. :yup: I look forward to reading what you've got to say

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

Thanks ash, I'm definitely gonna check that one out.

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

Been waiting to see this movie for a while, now I really can't wait. Hurry the hell up Netflix.

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

thanks, guys. :)

akatemple: you ever consider using other means to watch movies that Netflix doesn't have?

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

yes I consider it quite often, but I am broke and just can't afford anything else, I can't afford Netflix.

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

I have such a backlog of movies I keep meaning to watch in my queue........

Thanks for that great review, now I want to see this one!

Okay, I'm pretty sure I'm going to fall short majorly when trying to capture the real 'essence' of this movie, so forgive me. The plot focuses on Mija, a sweet, gentle Korean woman in her late 60's who makes a meager living as a caretaker for a rich old man a few times a week, and also takes care of her teenage grandson, whose mother lives in Busan. After experiencing a tingling sensation in her right arm, she goes to the doctor and they do some tests and a cat scan. Turns out Mija has something a lot more serious than a few muscle spasms - she finds out she's in the early stages of Alzheimer's.

Rather than tell anyone about it, she carries the weight of this news on her shoulders in secret, and instead throws her mind and soul into a poetry class she has recently signed up for. Her instructor promises that each student will write at least one poem by the class end, and Mija is determined to write something especially inspiring. She is convinced she has a poet's vein after her daughter tells her "she likes flowers and says lots of odd things, therefore, she must be a poet", heh.

A lot of tragedy and tumultuous happenstances take place in Mija's life over the course of the film. She learns she has a fatal disease, yes, but she also finds out that her grandson had something to do with a school girl's depression and suicide (I shall refrain from getting specific to avoid spoilers). On top of that, Mija must come up with an extremely large sum of money to appease the mother of the dead school girl, which is something she feels she should do, but cannot bring herself to do it out of sheer disgust.

Though I have been explaining the main plot of the movie, I'm probably doing a piss poor job of really capturing what it's about - that's because the movie is mostly about Mija's own journey of self-discovery as she comes to gripes with her own conscience and begins to see things as they really are for the first time. Above all else, her fellow classmates and poetry teacher help her along with this. On the first day of class, her teacher brings in an apple and tells them all they have never really seen one because they have never looked at it through a poet's eyes. There are also a couple scenes of open poetry readings, which were especially fun to watch, as was Mija's transformation and realizations about herself and those around her. Supposedly, Jeong-hie Yun was a pretty popular Korean actress during her prime (I wouldn't know, I've not seen much Korean cinema), and I have to say, she was an absolute joy to watch - really charming and lovely and realistic.

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

Love this director, good review too. You might also like Hirokazu Koreeda's stuff

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

i don't think i've seen anything else by Chang-dong Lee. :indifferent: have you seen this?

i have Still Walking and Nobody Knows on my list, actually. thanks for the head up, maybe i'll bump them to the top.

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

Yes I've seen this and Secret Sunshine, the humor and grace of the two is charming

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

Funny, I just recently noticed Secret Sunshine and thought I'd check it out. Now here it's mentioned again.

Might be a sign. :)

http://www.nlcafe.hu/data/cikk/9/86161/17.jpg

Her poetry teacher tells the class the essence of what poetry is: seeing something for what it really is. The moment of inspiration is when she holds up "the apple" and looks and actually "sees" what is happening in her own life.

A good first Koreeda film is After Life. When you die you're given a week to choose and film (you're given a film crew) one memory of your life to take with you for all of eternity.

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

And check out Maborosi. I'm not a fan of Kore-eda but that's quite a good film as well.

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

Wow it's conversations like that which make me feel so clueless when it comes to my film knowledge! :D Not heard of any of the films mentioned in the last few posts. I used to think I was so knowledgeable until I cam here! :p

You know what my problem with Woody Allen's films really are? The damn characters. I try so hard, I really do, every time I watch a Woody film, to like it. Because everyone else always seems to really like his stuff. Not just regular Joe Schmoe's, either - but people whose opinion I generally really respect and stuff.

It's all an exercise in futility, though, because I can't do it. They always start out on the right foot, too - in this case, the main couple, Gil and Inez (played by Owen Wilson and Rachael McAdams) start out pretty well. The upper-class, poetic white Americans on Holiday in Paris with their parents shortly before they tie the knot - their chemistry and interactions came off cute and casually realistic to me. Sure, they were pretentious and intimidating, but then, there wasn't anything overly unrealistic or grating about them at first glance.

I don't think it's as simple as, "I hate Woody Allen films because his characters are pretentious and unrealistic or annoying and ridiculous" - I have a large amount of suspension of disbelief, and I can often get lost in the story telling or suspense or beautiful imagery so that any other qualms I might have would melt away. I think the thing that really bugs me is that I always feel like Woody Allen's characters are being sold to me - almost like he's putting them on an ornate, delicate platter for me to observe and size up. It's like I look at the life of a typical Woody Allen character and I know it's not realistic, but I'm supposed to think it is because there's a sign right under the platter that says, "This is how humans really behave! This is how people really talk!" and I'm like, "No, they really, really don't."

In fact, I probably wouldn't have watched this at all, but the roaring 20's/Fitzgerald storyline appealed to me a lot, and I knew it'd probably look pretty, if anything. And I was right. There's actually two parallel stories being told here: one, Owen Wilson is engaged to Rachael McAdams and they are vacationing in Paris, supposedly antique shopping for their house and also doing typical Paris-tourist stuff. Owen Wilson's character is also a Hollywood screenwriter who's been working on a novel; 2, the roaring 20's/Fitzgerald storyline, which comes about because Owen Wilson somehow manages to travel back in time when he's out strolling the streets of Paris after midnight half-lit. He gets to meet all his icons: Zelda and Scott Fitzgerald, Gertrude Stein, Picasso, Ernest Hemingway, etc. At first, I thought we were supposed to believe he was hallucinating the whole thing, but about halfway through the film I figured out you were supposed to actually believe he was traveling through time - ok, whatever, I didn't much care if it was make-believe or not, because really what you're supposed to be focusing on is Wilson's adventures with his favorite contemporary writers and how it makes him start to question the direction his life is taking. This was the most interesting part of the whole story. I just wish the whole thing had been told in this old-timey golden age rather than skipping ahead and making me suffer through the present-day storyline which only managed to make me roll my eyes so much I feared they'd be stuck that way. I mean, the golden age characters were kind of Woody-ridiculous, too, but I was a lot more forgiving of them because they looked so pretty and I didn't take it seriously - like, they were supposed to be sort of silly and ridiculous. Plus, the main girl he falls in love with, Adrianna (supposedly Picasso's girl) was absolutely charming and pretty easy on the eyes, too. The story was much better when she was apart of it.

Taking all of this into account, I'd say this is probably one Woody Allen film that wasn't a complete failure, but it still makes me extremely wary of anything else with his name on it. Oh well.

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

This is as direct, honest and uncondescending as I can get. I still don't understand what it is you don't like about it, besides the fact that you're completely prejudiced against Woody Allen; the fact that you actually watched it? Is that the main problem?

It's true thatr Woody's characters are often the idle rich, but they weren't in the mid-1980s when he made Broadway Danny Rose, The Purple Rose of Cairo and Radio Days. My wife has an extreme distaste of Woody because of hs personal life. My daughter adores him because she believes he was about as funny as she thinks somebody could get for most of his career. Anyway, we convinced my wife to watch this, and she said she really liked it and wished Owen Wilson had ditched the "bitch" and her family about ten minutes into it.

Anyhow, it's quite obvious that all the characters do "hallucinate" where they go, whether it's the Owen Wilson one, the Marion Cotillard one (traveling back to La Belle Epoque) or the Private Detective who gets in trouble in his own "period of choice".

I don't think it's a great film but it's the most original thing he's done in over 15 years, and I'd rate it a . I'm not exactly sure why you feel his characters are being sold to you any more than any other characters are, but hey, that's obviously not up to me. Happier viewing in the future. I'm not trying to be a dick, but maybe I just can't help it.

i don't think you can help it, either, but i won't sweat it. besides, i totally expected this. i've never been able to express anything disdainful for Woody Allen's films without someone either telling me how wrong i am for it, or how one-dimensional my thinking is.

:shrug:

having characters that are idle rich don't bother me, i don't think i said that. did it sound like that's what bothered me? because that isn't what made them unrealistic to me. i probably wasn't very good at explaining it, but it isn't the lifestyle really, it's the dialogue and their actions and reactions to things.

yeah, like i said - whatever. whether it's all in his mind or it really happened doesn't make a difference to me because there's no explanation for this and that's not the focus.

anyway, i guess i am prejudice against Woody Allen, but writing off what i say and why i dislike it with a wave of your hand and a, "oh, you just hate the guy" is unfair. i tried to look at it as objectively as possible. i guess you can choose to believe that isn't true if you want to, but there's not much i can say to that.

Thanks for that great review, now I want to see this one!

hm? which one?

No long review for this because it can be easily summed up in a short little sentence or two: basically, this is the perfect film to watch today of all days, from the 4 star performances, to the two-sides-of-the-world thing, to Jude Law finally gets it right, to the ending scene including all four actors dancing around a fire place on New Year's eve shouting HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! while a bunch of corny, peppy music plays. it's perfect.

HAPPY NEW YEAR, MOFOS!

a much longer, better review featuring something of higher quality coming verrasoon.

- ashley

Oh man, this documentary is made of so much win, I feared my heart would swell to the point of bursting.

I went into this film thinking I was going to see a study on how a chimp can be taken out of its own environment, brought into ours and proven to understand and accomplish real communication with a human being... and I did. Sort of. However, the overall consensus seems to say a lot more about people than it does about animals. For those of you who have ever watched James Marsh's previous documentary (Man on Wire), then you're probably already familiar with the style in which he craftily tells a story. Project Nim is wonderful for its heart and soul, but also brutal in the way it really exposes human nature.

Specifically, Nim was a chimpanzee who was the subject of scientific studies to do with animal language due to their DNA being identical to a humans to a crazy degree (98% or thereabouts). Herbert Terrace, the head of the study, wanted to challenge Chomsky's thesis that "only humans have language" by raising Nim in a human family treated like a child. Two weeks after he was born, he was separated from his mother, Carolyn, and put into the hands of a young couple with several young children of their own. The year was 1973. Funnily enough, the family who initially adopted Nim didn't really seem to take the study too seriously. The LaFarge's were sort of your typical liberal, hippy family of the mid-1970's, and Stephanie (Nim's "mom") wasn't very keen on keeping charts or notes or journals on Nim's progress. Therefore, there's lots of uber cute footage of little Nim running wild through the house, being curious and insanely lovable to the LeFarge's, but not a lot of "depth" beyond that. She didn't want to treat him like an experiment; it was pretty much like having another baby for her. She was excited to show Nim the world, but not to restrain him in any way. In fact, she wasn't even keen on teaching him language because she thought it would make him less unique.

Eventually, Nim was taken away from the LaFarge's to be put into a more controlled environment. This is when he started to learn sign language. He was still in a really nice environment, though, and it looked like good times. He was surrounded by young, bright teachers who would take care of him and teach him and basically treat him like one of them. Nim got to go on hikes and talk to them about what they could hear and see; he was able to ask for food when he saw it; they even let him take a few puffs of their joints. :D And Nim did learn over 125 signs - various food signs, basic verbs like "want" and "get", and others like "hug" and "kisses."

Unfortunately, though, as Nim grew and became less cuddly and more like an animal, they had to put him in an even more controlled environment. He was aggressive, often biting and scratching (and we all know the affects of that by now) to the point that Herb had to face facts and treat Nim like what he was - an animal. It's really heartbreaking watching little, trusting Nim being drugged up and led by the hand through the gates of some pretty horrific places, even at one point being brought to an animal testing centre. It was around this time that Herb began to run out of funding for his project, and coincidentally enough it was also around this time that Herbert Terrace admits to the world that his experiment had failed - not because he ran out of funding or because of any action on his part, but simply because he decided that all the signs Nim learned didn't really prove that Nim was communicating at all, but merely mimicking his teachers, and the only communication Nim would really take part in were instinctive ones to get him what he wanted (apple me eat, drink me Nim, for example).

I'd say the end result is probably up for interpretation, but it sure did seem like in the end, no matter how pampered and attended to Nim was in his life, it was always for the benefit of the doers and the thinkers, not Nim himself, and therefore, it really does say just as much about humans as it does about chimps.

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

I don't know if I'll like it. Looks too "sweet" for me. Heh.

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

:mad:

This movie kinda reminded me of Synecdoche, New York in that there were several instances where I was laughing heartily but I wasn't sure if i was "supposed" to actually find it all that funny; though I suppose that's a ridiculous thing to say. The way one feels about a film is always open to swing a great deal of ways. Either way, I enjoyed it much more this way.

The Future is about a couple in their mid-thirties, Sophie and Jason, who have a mid-life crisis of sorts upon discovering that the cat they are soon to adopt will be ready to take home in 30 days. Their reasoning is since in 5 years they'll both be 40 (I guess the cut-off age representing all things liberal) this window of time up until the cat is theirs is really the last chance either of them will ever have to be "free". In other words, the movie takes place over the span of about 30 days, which this odd twosome decides are their last days to accomplish something great. The idea that the age of 40 is the last year in one's life to do something great is beyond strange, but nevertheless, this is the mind-set of both of them.

Anyway, they both end up quitting their jobs (him an IT Tech from the house, her a dance instructor for children) and focus all of their attentions on things they have deemed "worthwhile causes" - Sophie has a goal to "create a dance a day" in hopes of creating a solo dance masterpiece, while Jason begins soliciting door-to-door on behalf of an environmental group, asking people if they would like to buy a tree to help reduce global warming. MEANWHILE, there is also a running commentary sandwiched in between by the cat that is waiting to be adopted. The cat, Paw Paw, speaks to the audience in an extremely delicate, fragile voice about how it's patiently waiting for its owners to come for it, how it knows that once it is theirs, it knows it will be loved and secured for life, and "will never spend a night outside again". This is probably by far the strangest part of the film but it kind of grows on you as the film progresses.

There are lots of good, surreal bits to enjoy here: a crawling security blanket (t-shirt) that stalks its owner, a narrating cat, an old man philosopher and his dirty-talk greeting cards, a discussion with the moon, a young girl who buries herself in the backyard with the approval of her dad, and a couple who believe they each have special powers: Sophie can move things with her mind (!!!!) and Jason can stop time (???), and has to help the moon bring the tide back in so that time will be righted again.

Hanyway, overall this was an enjoyable experience of a movie. It's probably something I'll have to watch at least twice more to get the full experience, but it's a definitely good enough for that. Miranda July, who directed and starred in it, was absolutely brills to watch. Definitely gonna watch Me, You, and Everyone We Know now.

rating: (undecided)

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

Sounds like all that randomness in the movie is trying to speak of some larger message, probably to do with how to face your future. The cat sounds like it's representing time itself. The young girl burying herself in the backyard sounds like a death reference -- facing death in the future. I dunno - I haven't seen it. Sounds a little too wacky in a cutesy way, but interesting. Wondering what dirty-talk greeting cards are - I'm imagining those cards that play songs when you open them, but these say things like, "I'm so horrrrrrny."

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

it's pretty wacky, but also just really funny. the acting also seems almost slowed down in a forced, deliberate way. i'm unsure if it'd be your cup of tea. you seem unpredictable when it comes to these things.

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

It's not 'wacky', per se. It's odd-ball, but I never found it too wacky or quirky the way I have some other films in this vein. All the odd stuff seemed totally normal in this, in a way. Sort of like Synecdoche, New York: the burning house scenes in that were really strange, but it felt kind of like it was just another part of the film.

I DONT KNOW.

Project Ni was excellent too. No quite Man On Wire, but up there.

Project Ni? is that Monty Python speak?

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

**** you

After the death of their mother, two sisters go back to their childhood home to tie up lose ends and make peace with their past and end up discovering some unsettling and disturbing secrets about the mother and the house they grew up with.

Been awhile since I did this! So, I watched this last night at 1AM. I was in a really bad mood, and thought maybe a movie that would scare me sh**less would be a good distraction. Further to that, I watched it under my covers with my ear buds in, which made it even creepier because I could hear every little sound.

So I know the ghost story sub-genre is probably the most cliche of the horror genre, but it's always been my favorite because when done right, it forces the audience to use its imagination to fill in the blanks, which is way scarier than anything they could do visually. Ghost stories seem to be the best at showing barely anything at all and yet still managing to be scary, which I love.

This film sticks close to the rules, but manages to lift itself above mediocrity with a surprising narrative and some genuinely creepy imagery, all soaked in a creepy atmosphere that just doesn't seem to want to leave. And that's the thing, when I'm grabbed by a ghost story's atmosphere without constantly getting my face rubbed in it, it tends to get under my skin. This film did just that and allowed me to relish in that wonderful 'I'm scared but enjoying it' state. I was also pleasantly surprised by the climax and the reveal of what was exactly going on.

From the opening scene, it immediately disarms its viewer within the first 3 minutes, and you spend the rest of the movie feeling uneasy and tense. There's hardly any blood or guts, or soundtrack to speak of, and whole bits where there's barely any dialogue, but it manages to build just the right atmosphere and keep you on your toes.

The mystery is compelling and holds the story together in an efficient way before the very tense last twenty minutes, even though there is no 'pact' to be seen in it. The only part I didn't really care for at all was the ending, which was kind of silly and I wish the movie had ended just a couple minutes sooner, instead. It does leave things just vague enough to keep it open-ended, though, and while there are a few scenes that were unnecessary, overall, it's a fun, creepy ghost story worth a watch.

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

No reviews in three years, I thought I was neglectful. ;) Glad to read a review from you and hope your back on the wagon Ash.

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

lol, thanks. i took a really long hiatus from this place. i plan to add a few more soon.

You take a simple hiatus and come back only to find an ass like me has taken up residence. Must be disconcerting. :)

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

ha, not at all actually, i've enjoyed the discourse we've had so far

Wow look at this. Didn't see this coming. Been a long ass time Ash. Welcome back to the reviewing game.

A struggling young starlet becomes involved in more than she ever bargained for and discovers the price of fame and beauty come with the most grave consequences.

The main theme of this movie is transformation. Just how far are you willing to go to acquire your dreams? Would you be willing to sacrifice everything, including life as you know it? As we follow the story of Sarah, a young starlet/part-time waitress at a Hooters-esque diner, desperate to make it in Hollywood, we can feel her desperation and deep desire to break out of her failed attempts as she travels from audition to audition, hoping to finally catch her big break. She has very little support, as all her 'friends' are fellow struggling actresses who begrudge and resent her for any success she might acquire, and she also suffers from low-self esteem and depression as seen in her Trichotillomania (yep, that's the mental disorder where people compulsively pull out their own hair. eugh.)

Lady luck seems to smile down on her, however, when she has an audition for Silver Scream,
a seemingly low-budget horror film being backed by a prestigious, well-established production company. Originally, she thinks the audition has gone horribly as the casting director seems unimpressed, and she runs into the bathroom and has a fit, ripping her hair systematically from her head. As luck would have it, one of the casting directors sitting in her audition happens to be in the bathroom and overhears her fit, and intrigued, asks her to come back in the audition room and re-enact her fit in front of them. Reluctantly, she does, and it goes from there.

As Sarah rises steadily from a call back to meeting with the producer of the film, things go from exciting to creepy, to downright scary. The film has that feel to it where you feel like everyone else seems to know something else is going on except the main character, sorta like the husbands in The Stepford Wives, the townsfolk in Wicker Man, or the creepy upstair neighbors in Rosemary's Baby. The film does a good job capturing that feeling of isolation and helplessness as you watch Sarah literally transform and deteriorate both mentally and physically right before our very eyes. The film does get extremely graphic and bloody, a bit overkill, to be honest. However, the ending is pleasantly satisfying and unexpected and worth waiting for.

Overall, it's a mediocre film. The lead girl does a very good job, and the story is intruiging, but there's nothing here that is ground-breaking or hasn't been done before.

A young, female, earthling space traveler is introduced to the world of sex, kinks and other antics when she travels to a nearby planet in search of an astronaut.

This movie has me torn. Easily my favorite things about it are its beautiful technicolor backgrounds, exquisite costume and set designs, and the fun 60's pop soundtrack that pretty much made me grin every time, but the dialogue is stilted and sometimes off-putting. Between the music, the sets, and the nonsensical dialogue, the film does a good job keeping everything light-hearted enough for me to never take it too seriously, but I'm still trying to decide if it was trying to be lighthearted. Is the comedy intentional? Surely, some of it clearly must be (the earthling-styled sex, for example, is similar to the sex that takes places in Demolition Man where there's never any actual physical contact because "it's too dangerous" and the scene that takes place from this is obviously very tongue in cheek). But then there's other scenes that are absolutely terrifying (see: doll scene and bird scene. This movie is obviously used as homage to many others).

I found the vignette-styled plot to be slightly frustrating, too - it's like the writers wanted to jump from one silly situation to the next without giving any closure or explanation for what just happened. When I read up on this film last night, I learned there's 7 writing credits on this film... which is only a little over an hour, by the way. Still, despite the ADD writing, with each scenario being more outlandish and silly than the next, it was kinda hard to hate the film.

Probably my biggest grievance, and the thing I'm most torn on, is the political side of it, which was the sex, and how this 'brave new world' has evolved to a no-sex approach. A young Jane Fonda plays the voluptuous Barbarella, and is clearly supposed to be a strong female character, but she's objectified at every turn. It seemingly creates a world where Earth has been pacified and its inhabitants have supposedly been purged of their insecurities, while at the same time characters make suggestive puns about meeting Barbarella "in the flesh" and having her give "mouth to mouth." It's like it wants to have its feminism and objectify it, too, and the feminist in me couldn't help but roll her eyes at that.

Still, though, despite all its flaws, it's hard to deny that I enjoyed Barbarella. It's hokey, it's campy as all hell, and at times downright ridiculous, but it's fun, and even Jane Fonda's awkward acting is charming in its own right. I can see why it's considered such a cult classic.

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

Great review! I enjoyed reading it and we're on the same wave length on Barbarella. I love the camp, the costumes and the humor, but the story gets quite inane....still a fun flick to watch.

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

For some reason the pics in this thread seem to bust outside of the borders.

well, i am larger than life

Starry Eyes is mediocre like you said, but I did like the crazy ending, so that made it worth watching for me.

Barbarella was too campy for me, but it's a little bit of fun.

Awesome reviews!!

A young girl from a Paris housing project comes out of her shell when she joins a girl gang and is introduced to the vibrant world out from under the controlling fist of her older brother.

This film's title loses some of its meaning in the English translation - its literal translation Bande de filles, or Gang of Girls, is more indicative of what this film is actually about. This female centric, coming-of-age drama focuses on Marime, a young girl from a housing project suburb in Paris. Marime is shy and inward, though over the course of the film we see her come out as she navigates through her day-to-day life and deals with issues surrounding her race, class, gender, and sexuality. Marime's world would probably seem outdated to the typical American audience of today - in Marime's world, a girl can't have sex with a boy she likes lest she disgrace her whole family, though the young boys can pretty much do whatever and whoever they want. Struggling with rigid sexist rules and the limited educational and job options offered to black youth, the young women of color in this film literally fight to escape poverty. They find strength, kinship, and safety in their gangs, and are often drawn to them to begin with because they are lacking those things in their own homes.

The gang that this film focuses on, Lady's gang, reluctantly accepts Marime as one of their own after she accompanies them on a trip to the city for a day of shopping/stealing, drinking, smoking, and doing whatever they like while having very little consideration or regard for anyone else. Marime, who becomes bewitched by this way of life, finds herself becoming stronger, more assertive as she slowly climbs her way up the status quo, from gang fighting to stealing, sex, and drugs.

While on paper the tale is repetitive, this execution is anything but. Marime may not know who she wants to become, but she knows what she doesn't want to be, (her mother is forced to work such a strenuous schedule as a maid that she is basically raised by her brother, forced to protect her younger sister, and look after them both in the meantime).

The director, Céline Sciamma, has said her inspiration for making this film was to give voice to women of color, specifically lower-class, French women of color, whose stories are very rarely told. This is exactly what she does. From the beginning, we see that these girls find their strength in numbers. From the opening sequence, we see Marime's sense of comfort after playing a spirited game of football with her friends before walking the gauntlet back to her apartment building. These girls may be uneducated, poor and have very little control over their lives, but they've learned how to survive and adapt in the streets of this poor suburb where you don't look a man in the eye while at the same time, holding your head high if he calls out to you.

Actually, it reminds me of Charlize's advice on 'how to walk like a queen."

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a44...psvsjsyrep.png

Girlhood is as much of an emotional journey as it is visual. One scene in particular reminded me of some of the electronica dance sequences in Harmony Korine's 2013 Spring Breakers. In the scene in question, the girls, after having dressed up in beautiful, expensive dresses they never could have afforded to pay for, dance around their hotel room in carefree unison with one another to Rihanna's Diamond, a song I'd never heard before watching this film. While these girls obviously dream of a better life, they are, at least in this one instance, making the most of what they have now. It's a very moving scene, and with the song, the bluish tones and hues, and the actresses themselves, this couldn't be more fitting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJcYFGTvb4o

Do yourself a favor and watch Girlhood. You won't regret it.

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

i'm gonna get back into writing reviews. and i'm posting that here as motivation, cause now there's proof i said it.

well, unless no one will bother to read it, i guess. i kiiinda want to, though. i'll never be Iro or anything, but...

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

Do it or I`ll whip you
https://67.media.tumblr.com/dd835676...rja5o1_500.gif

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

And a week later...

Re: Let me entertain you: reviews by ash
 

Agree with what you said on Barbarella. It's plot is pretty over-the-top, but the great visuals, chimerical spirit, and humorously bizarre characters make up for it.

Plus, a young Jane Fonda's smokin' hot physique. Nuff' said.

...you finally sign on? :D

no, but seriously, i was planning on doing one tonight. i actually watched a movie today. so HAH in yo face ho kid