Zotis' Film Watching Diary

I wonder how I'll feel about the acting after a rewatch. I didn't get an impression that it was campy at all, but I doubt it would hold up to the standards of excellence I have gained from recent arthouse exposure. Are you sure that's not just because it's a 1970 movie? Why did you make it out like the movie should have been about the aboriginals when it was about the Americans for an audience that naively idolises it's military? Why do you think that Candice was politically correct? Maybe by today's standards, but by 1970's standards? I guess I wouldn't call the movie deep, but it did handle it's subject matter in a meaningful way.

I probably wouldn't love it for technical mastery, but because it handled it's subject matter so differently from anything else I've seen and especially because it did that in 1970. I could probably find a modern movie that handles similar subject matter better, but not an older movie.

An incredible tale of tragedy by Kenji Mizoguchi, the director who made Sansho the Bailiff.





Another by Mizoguchi; this time two men from a small village have ambitious dreams set off to fulfill them. Their wives pay the consequences for their husbands' foolish choices in the troubled times of war-torn medieval Japan.




What I really love about Mizoguchi in both of these movies is his incredible ability to deliver entertaining fantasy, historical fiction, and profound insights into life.



This movie didn't have much in the way of narrative or character development, but there were a lot of beautiful shots. Despite having little in the way of character development the characters felt very much like real people. Perhaps that is actually what made them feel so real. In real life you don't get the sense that people's characteristics are being revealed with any sense of "development." Rather you just interact with people and see them and gradually get to know them. That's more what this felt like.





I really did get the feeling that this was made by the same director as Sicario. It had that potent vibe of polished visuals and sound that delivers what I would expect from a high-budget industry standard film. Fortunately this was much better than what I actually expect from the high-budget industry standard films, but this is exactly the kind of movie that I feel people getting paid millions of dollars should deliver. I also felt like Villeneuve polished out some of the less-than-perfect aspects of Sicario. At least in terms of visuals, editing, and music, this movie felt flawless. In terms of writing it was good, but not profoundly insightful. I found it to be a very entertaining movie. I mean, it was insightful as far as interaction with aliens might be, and much more interesting to me than Close Encounters of the Third Kind by comparison. But it didn't have insight into life like the story-telling of Mizoguchi or the realism of Still Life and Maborosi.





This movie had no conventional narrative, or notion of character development. The camera work focused on picturesque portraits. The lighting was so dim that I felt like even when it was bright it was dark. Every frame felt like a painting. It was hard to relate to the characters, and often it was hard to even see them. Perhaps it was the quality of the lens, but characters were often too blurry or too far away to make out. A lot of shots were from a distance to capture landscapes and environments rather than people's faces. The story revolved around a young woman happily married who's husband tragically dies. She moves to a small village with her young son to remarry (and I gather that the marriage was arranged, though they didn't explicitly say). There seemed to be more of a focus on atmosphere and feelings than characters and plot. The scenery was beautiful, and even though I couldn't relate to the main character I felt her sorrow and the awkward, forced way that she carried on with life.

I've seen four Mizoguchi movies now; those two along with Sansho and Street of Shame, all terrific. I still have Crucified Lovers on my watchlist; have you seen that?

I haven't seen Street of Shame or Crucified Lovers. Mizoguchi is so amazing though. I'll definitely be on the lookout for the rest of his filmography.

I would put Street of Shame at the bottom of what I've seen, but it's still well worth watching.

Although the plot was a little convoluted I did appreciate that when they retreaded their steps they shot the scenes from new angles and added more perspective to them. There was a lot of nudity, so I missed some of the subtitles while I was diverting my eyes. I liked the characters, acting, and cinematography, but I thought the ending was a little weak.





Mel Gibson directed this movie based on a true story about a man who went into battle as a combat medic during WWII without a weapon. It's quite a heroic tale about a man's conviction against adversity, and bravery in battle. Although the drama was a bit forced it was still a very entertaining movie. At the end of the movie they actually showed some brief interviews of the real people the story was based on.





It was cool that they made a movie about the legendary Soviet war hero Lyudmila Pavlichenko, A.K.A. Lady Death. I just wish it had been better executed. The acting from the lead, Yulia Peresild, and a few of the supporting cast was alright, but unfortunately a lot of the smaller roles were poor especially the English language actors. You could tell the movie was being marketed to a mainstream audience by its superficial nature and focus on visual entertainment. At least they succeeded in making it entertaining and had a talented lead.

I'm looking forward to Hacksaw Ridge. I'm usually a sucker for movies like that, although I'm not a big fan of Saving Private Ryan.

I wouldn't say it's as good as Saving Private Ryan though, at least not in terms of visuals, battle scenes, and character design. It had perhaps a better story than Saving Private Ryan.

These two movies are great. I even had Ugetsu in my top 10 although now I find The Life of Oharu more memorable.

I got them both on DVD when a video store went out of business. $15 each, and they're Criterion Collection.

My second Refn, starring Mads Mikkelsen as a barbarian warrior enslaved and forced to fight in gladiatorial combat. There is a commentary on Christianity and some interesting symbolism in the movie. The cinematography and acting are especially potent, and the music helps to deliver an atmosphere of chaos and supernatural insight. It was quite a profound movie-watching experience, but I also felt like there were some things missing. Perhaps the cast was not large enough to reflect the scope of what was going on exactly. A handful of Christian knights go on a crusade for the holy land. They sit in a boat for a week or so and then suddenly arrive on shore and start wondering if they've reached the holy land. How can they expect to go from the British isles to Israel in a single week by a small boat with one sail? It took the actual crusaders like a year to make the journey, it would have taken a couple of months minimum, and they would have had to travel very far by land. It's pretty absurd to think approximately ten people are going to go on a crusade by their selves. At one point one man says he's going to build crosses everywhere and convert the heathens and build a great city... by himself... While everything they did in the movie was done well, and focusing on the ideology is incredible, they either needed more extras on set to resemble the numbers of what they were suggesting, or they needed to modify the scope of what the characters were setting out to accomplish. They could have done everything the same way and had their goal changed to joining up with other crusaders instead of conquering another nation with ten people. Mind you, if anyone could have conquered an entire nation single-handed it was Mikkelsen's character, possibly the greatest warrior who ever lived. Overall it was a really cool movie that was both entertaining and intellectually stimulating.





This wasn't anything like what I was expecting. I saw Michelle Williams and wanted to go in blind. For some reason I had the impression it was going to be a romantic drama, but instead Williams played only a small supporting role in a drama about loss, life, death, and people. Casey Affleck was the lead, and his character drove the plot. Character interactions were particularly realistic, which is something I absolutely adore seeing in movies. I love it when two characters try to talk over each other, interrupt each other, argue, and other conversational quirks that happen frequently in real life but rarely in cinema. This movie had three people talking over each other multiple times. It was full of realistic social quirks and conversational turmoil. I could feel the characters' stress and sympathise with their dilemmas. Kyle Chandler plays Affleck's character's recently deceased older brother in flashbacks and as a corpse, and Lucas Hedges plays the orphaned son that Affleck must help situate. I haven't talked about the most potent aspect of the movie though, but let's let that be a surprise for whoever reads this and still hasn't seen the movie. The camera work entertained me with its composition. I thoroughly enjoyed everything about this movie, and I can find no fault in it.

For the first time ever I was actually impressed by Tom Hardy. I loved him in this role. I love Refn's style of filmmaking. The visuals, the music, the writing were all proficient and creative. The story was a compelling tale of Britain's most expensive and most violent prisoner. Hardy plays a man who goes by the alias Charles Bronson, after the famous actor, and becomes a celebrity in his own right. He loves prison, treats it like a hotel, and does whatever he wants (which is mostly related to fighting the guards and causing chaos). There were a lot of interesting characters throughout the movie. Refn has a flare for character design. I can see that clearly by this now my third of his films. He puts a lot of attention to detail into his movies, so there is plenty to thrive off while enjoying the audio/visual ride. I also thought the way they handled voice-over was very well done. Instead of having dialogue while the camera is focused on background or something else, they had him sort of breaking the fourth wall by talking to an audience on stage about his life and the events of the film. It gave more than just background information, it gave insight because it was from his character to the audience in a personal way.





Virginia Madsen was an enjoyable lead as Helen in this atmospheric mystery/thriller. I was very pleased that the buildup towards violence wasn't full of mundane filler content, but had interesting characters and interactions that enhanced the atmosphere and helped me relate. The cat and mouse game between killer and victim was also done in a unique and interesting way. I never found myself rolling my eyes at methods of escape and delay, but rather enjoyed every moment of it. Admittedly the acting overall could have been a lot better, and it was no artistic masterpiece, but it was a very entertaining movie. I especially liked the urban myth element and how it was handled.

Valhalla Rising is a movie that I watched that was quite an experience. Although I felt disappointed at first since it was so memorable I still remember many scenes and I watched it in 2010 or so.

The atmosphere and philosophical/spiritual suggestions were quite compelling.

Robert Bresson's art masterpiece was a movie I was looking forward to watching for a long time. The cinematography was beautiful, especially for being shot in black and white. The whole movie, visually, was very well composed and picturesque. The story was compelling and rich with interpersonal drama. If it wasn't for the wooden acting, it would have been a near perfect movie. It was still a captivating experience. Anne Wiazemsky plays Marie, a teenage girl coming of age who cares for a donkey named Balthazar. The movie intertwines Marie's story with Balthazar's as the donkey exchanges hands and hardships while she also goes through her own painful experiences. Francois Lafarge plays Gerrard, a delinquent who abuses Marie and Balthazar. I found it easy to relate to the emotional pain the characters experienced. The overall tone of the movie was pretty sad, yet soothing and beautiful at the same time.

Beautiful landscapes, regal costumes, and lovely cinematography made this a visually stimulating movie, but I have my gripes. The camerawork was lovely with its pans, framing, and composition. I especially noticed the excellent use of wind in many scenes. They set the camera up in creative locations. I didn't find any major flaws in the camerawork. The sound was probably my biggest issue. I liked what they did at times, having birds chirping, rustling wind, distant drums, and lots of background noise, but some sound effects were just disproportionately loud. For example in one scene a man is being fed soup from a bowl and his slurping and breathing were extremely loud even though it wasn't a close-up shot. That to me felt awkward, because it made him seem closer than he actually was, and it made me focus so much on the slurping that it completely took me out of immersion. I like the way cutting scenes were done, but I frequently felt like scenes were missing. I didn't understand what was going on most of the time, and I couldn't tell who was who half the time. Partly that's because it's hard for me to tell a lot of Chinese names and faces apart, but also there was very little in the way of explanation for anything going on or who people were. By the end of the movie some of my questions were answered, though those answers felt like they came too late, and I still had many unanswered questions. The costumes were another concern. While the wealthy characters were beautifully dressed and the palaces and rooms of lords were intricately ornate, even the peasants had pristine clothing that looked like it had never been worn before. At least make the peasants dirty and worn-out please. That's not the kind of flaw I expect to find in a Cannes award winning film. Overall it was an interesting and unique movie. I especially liked the way they handled wushu. It was the first time I ever actually liked wushu.

Now it's Liam Neeson's turn to be missing. Don't worry though, if you thought Taken sucked, there's still a good chance you'll love Silence. Neeson, who plays a missing priest accused of denouncing the faith in 17th century Japan, gives a performance put to shame by most of the extras on set, but fortunately his role is fairly small. Garfield is the central character, a young priest who, along with Driver, was mentored by Neeson and is eager to uncover the allegations against him as slander. The two young men set out for hostile Japan where the Christian faith faces intense persecution. I was particularly charmed by Nana Komatsu, her character was well written, and her performance was strong. She played a relatively small role as a villager who's faith in the face of imminent death even put the priests to shame.

One of the strongest things I came out of the theatre with was an overwhelming sense of guilt and awareness towards my own materialism. These people had nothing, and suffered, but their lives had so much passion. Scorsese did a great job getting strong performances from his cast.

Weirdos was a coming of age story about a pair of young Canadian hitch-hiking teens, set in '76, artsy, delightfully awkward, and filmed in black and white. Author's plays Kit, a 15-year-old boy in love with Alice played by Stone. Together they embark on a journey to go live with Kit's mother, played by Parker, in Sydney, Nova Scotia. I have family in Nova Scotia, and I didn't get a Nova Scotia vibe from the movie. It could have been anywhere. I didn't even get a particularly Canadian vibe either. Bevan-John plays Kit's imaginary friend, who resembles Andy Warhol. The movie focuses pretty much equally on Kit and Alice. Both Authors and Stone give solid performances full of the charm of adolescence.

Kristen Stewart starred in a Cannes selection film that combined drama with horror elements which reminded me a little of The Exorcist. What I enjoyed most about this film was the cinematography and everyone's acting except for Stewart's, who's performance was what you might expect from a not-so-talented, but popular, actor/actress who makes an attempt at an artistic film project. I do appreciate that she tried to do a more respectable film, but she just isn't talented enough to be the lead. This movie would have done better with her in a supporting role and a more capable lead. There were a lot of awkward aspects to this film. Stewart pretending to smoke by doing things like lighting up cigarettes, holding lit cigarettes, putting them to her mouth, etc... but never actually taking a drag on camera, were glaring distractions for me. Why have the character smoke at all? It just felt weird, and she wasn't the only character they did this with. Then there are the supernatural aspects. I'm not sure what they were trying to do, but it felt very convoluted. Stewart looked cool riding around on a motorcycle through Paris leather clad until... it turns out to be a hideous moped. Other than that there was some decent atmosphere, and engaging conversations.





Brie Larson and Cillian Murphy crawl around a sandy abandoned warehouse along with about a dozen other people shot in the leg/arm/insert non vital body part here. A flashy trailer and a pair of celebrities sell a bland meaningless film about flesh wounds and eventual deaths in a very simple plot drawn out for way too long and lacking any meaningful content whatsoever. Brie Larson sure is hot with an exploded blood pouch on her thigh though.

An extremely artistic look into evil, human nature, and the struggle between faith and lust. I would compare this with Jodoworsky's The Holy Mountain in it's religious symbolism, complexity, and insanity, but this was a little more clear. An extremely potent film, and not for the easily disturbed, it's full of blasphemy, vile perversion, and contempt. Amidst all this film's chaos is a priest struggling with lust and striving to hold onto his faith. This film is a masterpiece.