Iro's Reviews

Richard Linklater's Slacker is a movie I've been waiting to see for a while, after hearing all manner of buildup over its unusual structure and massive influence on indie film. So while in America I picked up the Criterion DVD blind for $40, took it home and watched.

I was not disappointed.

Slacker takes place over the course of a single day in Linklater's home town of Austin, Texas. Lacking any conventional plot, the film instead drifts from character to character as they go about their lives. The majority of the characters are certified wackos, who spend the movie speaking at length about their personal philosophies and monomanias (ranging from pop culture and conspiracy theory to individual hopes and dreams).

Because Slacker does not feature any easily identifiable structure (indeed, one character remarks "the underlying order is chaos"), the film's strength has to come from the characters and the dialogue. On a personal level, all of the actors manage a decent job at least, coming from Linklater's own casting philosophy that the characters should come from within the actors themselves. As a result, the actors aren't really actors in the strictest sense - rather, they are being their characters. It makes the acting seem much stronger than your average zero-budget feature.

Slacker's "storytelling" style has one drawback, though. With an ordinary movie, you will feel a sort of connection with the characters - like them or hate them, you become interested in their actions within the story. With Slacker, the quickly-changing cast doesn't leave any room for you to get attached to a character before they quickly disappear around a corner. Some of the people's stories may interest you, some may not. On a single run-through, you can expect to find yourself bored with what's going on and waiting for the next interesting person to pop up. To catch everything, you'll have to watch the movie more than once.

One thing I noticed from the very first frame is how well-made Slacker actually is. The budget is often cited as being $23,000, but it looks surprisingly polished. The camera never quite stops moving - even when it focuses on people sitting at a table it still sways gently without drawing much attention. That's when it stops - most of the time, the camera is tracking characters as they walk and talk to each other before it starts tracking a new person. Even the "home-video" segments, taken by characters once or twice throughout the film, don't grate with amateur technique but even call to mind old experimental movies with their perfection of the imperfect.

I had high expectations when I saw Slacker, and it reached them reasonably well. Linklater, an art and literature buff, managed to take influence from the unlikeliest of places and craft them into a compelling tale of "nothing going on". Never before has nothing at all looked like so much.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

The film was a uniquely-structured and plotless film, which been produced, directed, written and starred by one only, Richard Linklater. A nice movie to follow which not only focus in one character and conversion with a nice concept about this movie.

I certainly appreciated that about Slacker. It doesn't strike you as pretentious, it really is just very casually done.


I haven't really seen that many of the Coen brothers' movies - No Country marks the fourth one I've seen, and it may be the best of their movies I've seen at the very least.

No Country is best described as a modern-day Western - taking place in the Tex-Mex area, it focuses on three characters and their actions in relation to a huge drug deal gone horribly wrong. Josh Brolin's Llewellyn is ostensibly the lead character, a regular Joe whose discovery of the deal (and subsequent theft of $2 million worth of drug money) drives the story. Also after the money is psychotic murderer Chigurh (a brilliant turn by Javier Bardem), who leaves a thick and bloody trail of bodies as he pursues Llewellyn. Rounding out the trio is Tommy Lee Jones as Bell, the world-weary sheriff whose presence in the film is best likened to a Greek chorus as he is very loosely involved in the movie's action.

From now on it gets tough to write about No Country - my expectations were high for this (after all the five-star reviews I'd heard about). Not only were my expectations met, they were defied. I honestly was not ready for the movie - not because it was more than I'd hoped for, but because it was less. No Country is deceptively simple - the best aspect of it is that it does not try to be overly dramatic. Unlike a large number of thrillers, mood-building music is practically non-existent; what little there is goes largely unnoticed. The suspense is built extraordinarily well - even in some of the more clichéd scenarios on offer. You'll probably spend at least two-thirds of the movie on the edge of your seat. I know I did.

If I had to find any fault with the film, I'd consider it a trifling one but I will say this - the other third of the movie. If Brolin and Bardem's cat-and-mouse arc is responsible for the more intense parts of the film, then Jones' part is responsible for the more quiet (and I may even say, slightly boring) moments. I don't see the breaks in the suspense as much of a problem - rather, Jones' philosophical musings provide much-needed breathers and, if anything, the true heart of the film - how his life as a modern-day sheriff is very different to the ways of his lawmaking ancestors, and how things now are not necessarily for the better.

There's a reason No Country for Old Men has been getting fantastic reviews everywhere you look. It's a tense affair that really does suck you in right from the very beginning and doesn't let go, hitting you with surprise after surprise after surprise. This is the breath of fresh air I've been looking for.

I'm looking forward to Slacker now - i heard about it in the clerks documentary : kevin smith said it inspired clerks

__________________

I hadn't really heard too much about The Fountain - it directed by Aronofsky, the man who did Requiem for a Dream, it was set in the past, present and future somehow, had to do with eternal life, etc. So I guessed I didn't really have much of an idea about the movie. I was right about that.

The main plot revolves around Tom (Hugh Jackman), a genetic scientist who is trying to perfect a cure for brain tumours, all while dealing with his terminally ill wife Izzi (Rachel Weisz). The movie often follows two different plots that tie in with the main one - a story-within-a-story about a medieval conquistador (also Jackman) searching for the mythical "tree of life" in South America, and Tom's future, where he lives inside a ball with a tree as it hurtles through outer space. Something like that.

It's even harder to wrap your head around the plot when it happens on screen. I'll be honest here, I spent a fairly good portion of the movie wondering what exactly was real and what wasn't. Since I review movies after one viewing, I probably missed a fair bit. This film could use several viewings.

That's a small error to worry about when you're watching everything that's going on. On the whole, any moment in The Fountain is a powerful one. Everything comes together perfectly - sight, sound, emotions. If anything really stood out about this film, it was the general look of the film. Visually, The Fountain is quite simply eye-boggling. The final 20 minutes alone are jaw-dropping in their intensity.

The Fountain was one hell of a movie to watch. Between the convoluted, thought-provoking plotline(s) and the film's aesthetics, you're in for more than just a movie - you're in for an experience.

I found that the films strong point were the visuals and not really the story. The performances were good and like you said the final 20 minutes were really well done.

I'ev been putting this film off but you've got me interested again in writing a review. I'll do one up.

Good review by the way.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

That seems to be true of Aronofsky, emphasising visuals ahead of plot. I haven't gotten around to seeing Pi yet so I'm not sure about it, but Requiem for a Dream was also a stunning visual experience (except you couldn't call it beautiful like The Fountain was) ahead of its relatively simple plot.

I give all of Aranofsky's films the same rating, and I've seen them all more than once, but I'm not you, if you haven't noticed. Shutting up now.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I'm guessing it's the latter...

I give them all . I like his films and his technique, but I can't help but feel like he needs a collaborator who will steer him a little. Then again, I find him to be one of the 2000s auteurs, and I'll watch all his films and pray he makes a great one.
Remember, I'm an old idiot.

That's all right, I'm a young idiot.

Your both too old and young - Requiem for a Dream and Pi suck

(and i'll get away with it too !)

Requiem for a Dream put it's visuals way ahead over it's boring story - and I couldn't even watch the entire movie of Pi. From the couple of reviews i've heard for the fountain it's the same thing again.

Thanks for the great reviews

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Like I said, I think that was the point - putting visuals over story. Besides, I personally don't necessarily consider that to be a bad thing. It really depends on how it's handled.

For me, it was a choice between reviewing this and Shoot 'Em Up. I think to be different I'll review The Search for Vengeance.

The Highlander mythology was always one of the coolest concepts for a movie - immortal swordsmen battling each other across the ages until one remained. Combine the potential within with the skills of Yoshiaki Kawajiri, the man responsible for Ninja Scroll, and you sound like you have quite a winner on your hands.

The Search for Vengeance is about the plight of Colin Macleod, the eponymous Highlander, and his centuries-long feud with Marcus, a Roman general who murdered Colin's true love. Time and time again throughout history, Colin and Marcus clash with each other until they come to their final showdown amidst a futuristic New York riddled with plague and war.

Like any continuation of Highlander, The Search for Vengeance crafts its own fiction by combining the original's mythology (holy ground, Quickenings, death-by-beheading etc) with several of its own ideas (in this case, demons, robots and spirits). Although some of the more fantastical elements (e.g. Colin's communication with a druid-like ghost) grated a little, they're tolerable enough changes to the Highlander world. In the end, it feels like it leans more towards the animé side of things.

As for the film itself - visually, it's pretty good. The animation is fluid and the action looks great. The constant changing of era (a staple of the Highlander series) works a treat, as you see battles of all kinds across the centuries. The showdowns look a treat as well (I expect nothing less from the maker of Ninja Scroll), as do the battles during the futuristic scenes. I will say that fair chunks of the plot are fairly clichéd and if you've ever really watched prior Highlander material, you can probably predict a fair bit of it.

The last word on The Search for Vengeance - who do I really recommend it to? It's a decent enough watch for anyone with even a passing interest in animé, and it's a more watchable experience for Highlander fans than the film sequels, but outside of those two groups, it'd be a little hard to recommend. In any case, it was a decent watch and if you need a good fix of sword-fighting or animé, this isn't a bad choice.

Show Me Love takes place in a small Swedish village called Åmål and centres on two teenaged girls - the popular Elin and the lonely Agnes. Both have their own problems - Elin is bored by life in Åmål and aspires to loftier goals such as fame and love, whereas Agnes has to deal with having no friends and being infatuated with Elin.

This was definitely a change of pace from the last few films I watched. No gun-fights, no sword-fights, no random pop-culture dialogues...what you have is a very down-to-earth film about these two girls and the situations they find themselves in. That made it all the more unpredictable - not like anything ordinary where you can easily tell whether anything ends in a good way or a bad way. I honestly did not know what to expect next, and that was definitely one of the better things about the film.

In that sense, Show Me Love managed to be a brilliant portrayal of real life. One of the things that really impressed me was how well it was paced. The pacing of the film, with gaps of varying length between important events, had me feeling anxious a lot of the time, wondering what'd happen next. I wonder if there's any other films that handle this just as well, if not better. It makes you feel connected. Who hasn't waited on something like the people in this? It only made each new event feel much more of a relief, before using that as a springboard onto an even more tense waiting game.

Onto other things - everything about this film was good. The grainy yellowish film gave the film its own unique look. The acting wasn't really spectacular, but it didn't have to be. Real people don't act spectacular, they're just them, and all the characters felt that way. The soundtrack was a real highlight. Even thought it's the kind of grungy rock you'd expect for any 90s teen movie (let alone one like Show Me Love), it really shines through.

I found Show Me Love to be a pretty good film. Yes, the words I'd use would be "pretty good". Perfect? No. Excellent? Perhaps. Worthy of wider recognition? Definitely.

Must see Show me love, sounds "pretty good"

It is.

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

Sigh...So much potential. So little delivery.

King of New York stars Christopher Walken as Frank White, a crime lord who has just been released from prison. Upon release, he works on taking over New York City's drug trade in order to rebuild a hospital in his old neighbourhood.

There are two reasons why I watched this - it was a gangster movie and it starred Christopher Walken. Neither element proved to be worth it.

First off, Walken. Like most people under the age of 25, I mainly know him for his comedic roles (like on Saturday Night Live or the Weapon of Choice video). At first I thought it would be interesting to see Walken in a leading role - I had hoped this would be something like a Scarface for Walken, perhaps a Carlito's Way. It didn't turn out that way. Compared to Al Pacino in the aforementioned examples, Walken has significantly less screen time in his own movie. This shouldn't be a problem because half of Walken's career has involved short screen time, but what time he does get is pretty much wasted. With the exception of one speech he gives near the end of this film, he doesn't deliver anything special and just seems to be playing a "murderous kingpin with a heart of gold" archetype without any real effort. If the central performance is lacklustre, then surely the rest of the movie can compensate...

Actually, it can't. There is nothing particularly special about this movie. It's about drugs in New York and how all the ethnically diverse gangs are warring over it. We've heard it all before. In that case, you've got to wonder what the movie can bring in to spice up this well-worn plot. Does it look good (insofar as these kind of movies can look "good")? Are the action sequences any good? Is the acting good?

In all three instances, no. The only thing that separates King of New York from all the other filmic portraits of New York as a fine city with a seedy underbelly is its usage of shades of blue. That's the only discernable difference it has to other movies of this ilk. Does the blue work? No. It makes several scenes unwatchable (in particular, one of the few action sequences where Frank is attacked by a group of gun-toting rivals - the saturation of blue makes it impossible to make out who's shooting who).

The VHS box I got this movie in stated that the movie was an "action thriller". What action? A couple of brief shootouts, one car chase (also affected by the overload of blue) - weak. Usually if a movie has a weak plot or characters, it can compensate with action. Not so with King of New York, where the action does not compensate for the plot. Or the acting, much of which is lamentable and clichéd (especially Laurence Fishburne as Jimmy, a walking stereotype of a black street thug). The only acting I thought was worth watching was David Caruso, only because it was amusing to see CSI's Horatio Caine be a foul-mouthed badass.

King of New York was nothing if not a disappointment. There was nothing to make this stand out in a good way. Acting that was mediocre at best, weak attempts at action and suspense, and above all an uninspired gangster plotline all came together to create this poorly executed movie. I'm out.

It's been a few years, but I have fond memories of this flick. Maybe I just cut Abel Ferrara too much slack (except for the pretentious Bad Lieutenant and Dangerous Game). In my mind, I think this is probably Ferrara's best film, and I like Walken, Victor Argo and the Bridge. Yeah, the Bridge is cool. Anyway, it's interesting to read another viewpoint.

One thing I've noticed this week is that people seem ripped off/angry when they "believe" the advertising on the movie's box. C'mon now, you already know that every movie is the best ever made. Look at Jaws, for mark's sake.