Piddzilla's Reviews

Guy Ferland's BANG, BANG, YOU'RE DEAD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My roomie's girfriend made us rent this film tonight and I am glad she did.

The film which was originally produced for television is from 2002 and if I have understood it correctly it was inspired by a play with the same name. Apparantly the play Bang, Bang, You're Dead has been played by students in schools all over America and I believe it is in some way about the Columbine tragedy. The american memebers probably know more about this than me.

The main character in the film, Trevor (played by Ben Foster), is an outcast that is being bullied by the members of his high school's football team. He's spent the summer in summer school and therapy for seriously threatening to blow up the football team. When he comes back the daily terror continues and he ends up with a group of kids, called Trogs, that spend their free time shooting guns and preparing for a war with the football team, a war that soon becomes reality and that threatens to turn real ugly. At the same time Trevor ends up playing the leading role in a school play - that's right, in the play Bang, Bang, You're Dead - because a new girl in school, Jenny (Jane McGregor), who is also in the play catches his attention. His film teacher, Mr Duncan (Tom Cavanagh), is the one directing the play and he is also the only one who really understands what is going on with Trevor. He knows that Trevor has a talent for acting and since the part is actually about Trevor in a way Mr Duncan appears to be thinking that doing the play will make Trevor realize some things about himself. Because of the topic of the play together with Trevor's past and the worrying things that goes on in school lead to the play being stopped. And when Trevor makes a film about killing one of his enemies, a guy on the football team, things look pretty bad for him. Meanwhile, the Trogs are preparing for the final revenge in the school cafeteria.

The film is about how Trevor who's being abused physically and mentally in school every single day, yelled at by his parents and treated as the root to all evil by most teachers and the other students in school is being driven to commit terrible actions to end his hell. It is about how the cruelty of kids and the ignorance of adults together with the easy access to guns and explosives can and does lead to catastrophic events.

The film that is more than inspired by what happened in Columbine treats that tragedy with great intelligence and understanding for what is really important and without the sensationalism that you would probably expect. You would also expect, because of what the film is about, that it would leave you with a hopeless feeling in your gut, but without any Hollywood cheesyness I was left with a positive vibe in me by this very powerful movie.

The actors, who actually looked like they were high school kids rather than teen models, were all great. Guy Ferland, the director, has really succeed in making everyone do a really inspired job and the main guy, Ben Foster was amazing. (Does this guy look like Justin Timberlake or what?). The script is really good and it delivers a really important message. At the same time it was a very thrilling experience to watch it and it contains several moments filled with suspense.

I saw Donnie Darko the other day and these two films make me wonder if we are killing (physically or intellectually) our greatest talents. There will always be a set norm, something that most people are expected to follow, I guess. But when the norm starts to exterminate everything that is different, then we are really in trouble....

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Aki Kaurismäki's THE MAN WITHOUT A PAST

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Man Without a Past/Mies vailla menneisyyttä (2002), Finland, is as far as I can remember the first film by Aki Kaurismäki that I've seen. It has won a lot of prizes, including the Grand Prize of the Jury in Cannes, as well as being nominated for an Academy Award in the Best Foreign Language Film of the Year category.

It is an amazing litte remarkable film. I say "little" because not only does Kaurismäki believe that a film should not be longer than 90 minutes (70 mins are ideal), but it is also a film that does not bother with spectacular scenery or effects, glossy cinematography or moviestars. The actors are filmed while speaking their lines in a very harsh environment while the camera is doing not much more than register the dialogue. The editing is very effective since there are just a few more cuts than there are scenes. The first reference that comes to mind is the swedish filmmaker Roy Andersson, whose films often look like filmed paintings. But The Man Without a Past never quite get that extreme.

The film is about a man who gets badly beaten and ends up in a coma. When he wakes up he has lost his memory and does not know who he is or where he comes from. He has to start his life over again without nothing; no money, no home and not even an identity. Depicting how the man deals with this situation Kaurismäki manages to criticize today's (capitalistic) society beautifully.

Imagine how easy it would be to get a job, a home, applying for welfare, or starting a bank account without knowing your own name. We get to follow the main character, "The Man Without a Past", while dealing with all these things. The difficulties leads to a lot of absurd situations that are very humorous but at the same time very tragic.

The finnish characters are harsh but with a lot of warmth inside at the same time, and how they deal with emotions and the tests that life brings with it is amazing to watch. Most of the characters in the movie are very poor and live in different kinds of containers, but the film never gets sentimental. The focus is never explicitly on the social injustices but instead, believe it or not, on the love story between the main character and a woman who works with helping homeless people. But the misery and the criticism lie in the background all the time.

The minimalistic filmmaking that goes through everything from acting to editing in this film doesn't feel forced or awkward. Maybe it is because I so stereotypically think it suits the finnish temperament. (Those of you who has ever met someone from Finland perhaps know what I mean). The way that Kaurismäki gets to the point instantly without any unnecessary digressions is very refreshing and the sparse but effective dialougue (the sparse everything, really) results in a lot of smiles and a few "laughing out louds". At the same time you can't help to feel the seriousness and the sincerity in the social criticism that Kaurismäki delivers. It is a warm, funny and tragic film...



.... but with a happy ending.

I recommend it to all of you.

Masaki Kobayashi's SEPPUKU/HARAKIRI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before I went to work yesterday I watched the extraordinary film Seppuku (english title: Harakiri) (1962) by director Masaki Kobayashi. It's a great piece of work.

I don't know really if this is a review, I just wanted to catch your attention because I think you all should check it out, especially the Kurosawa fans of the site.

Just as a in a lot of Kurosawa's films you can see the references to american westerns as well as you can see from what films directors like Sergio Leone and Quentin Tarantino got a lot of inspiration from.

Seppuku is set in Japan during the 17th century and peace is prevailing in the Edo province. A good thing, you would think, but the peace has lead to that a lot of samurais are actually out of work and it has driven them to poverty. The samurais weren't allowed to take ordinary people's jobs, and to beg for money or food is disgraceful for the samurai who lives by a very strict code of honor. A samurai would rather commit suicide by harakiri (ripping your own stomache open with a sword) than degrading himself to beggary. Some samurais, however, went to wealthy clans and asked for permission to commit harakiri inside the clan's castle just so the master of the castle would feel sorry for them and give them some money and send them away again. This misuse of the samurai code of honor was of course loathed among the proud samurais and this is what the film is about.

I won't tell you much more about the story itself. Just like in a lot of Tarantino films, it is told in flashbacks. An old and poor samurai veteran comes to this wealthy castle and actually tell both the castle master and his samurais the story at the same time as he tells the audience about it. Very cool. It is masterfully constructed so the first impressions you get of the characters in the beginning of the movie is completely changed as the story is revealed. As I mentioned before, the film has the feel of a western and especially a spagetti western (which came first?) but the japanese style is always dominating. Just as in Kurosawa films, if not as obvious, the director uses symmetric positions and compositions a lot, which is typical for japanese cinema.

It is not really an action movie and it is rather slow paced. But the supsence is increasing as the film moves forward. And there are a couple of really cool sword fights in it. Everything is accompanied by really simple and effectful music. (Once again a reference to spagetti westerns and Morricone). It is about the code of the samurai and the hypocrisy surrounding it. It is at the same time a celebration of the "real" samurais who, in spite of their poverty, always put honor and unselfishness in the first room. The film also brings a timeless social criticism into the picture in a way.

Think Sergio Leone meets Reservoir Dogs, scripted by Akira Kurosawa.

Sam Jones' I AM TRYING TO BREAK YOUR HEART

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't know if this is a review really but I couldn't decide what forum to post this in.

I always thought that Jay Farrar who formed the band Son Volt was the real talent in the late 80's/early 90's band Uncle Tupelo. But after having seen this film I realize that Farrar's fellow band member and singer/songwriter in Uncle Tupelo, Jeff Tweedy, that fronts Wilco is of the same brilliance. And he seems to be a real nice guy too.

I Am Trying to Break Your Heart (2002) by Sam Jones is a documentary about the american rock band Wilco and the making of their album Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. It is also about what went on in and around the band during the recording and mixing session as well as the time almost up until its release.

You don't have to be a Wilco fan to appreciate this film really. It is about so much more than their music. In the beginning of the film the band is very optimistic about everything because of the artistic freedom that they've been given by their record company for the making of the album. Then the tension between the band and the company increases as the film progresses and we are shown how wide the gap between the executives and those who work closely to the band really is. In a painful way we also learn about the total ignorance about artistery that the big music industry companies show towards the artists they sign. It's a clash between creativity and artistery on one side and commercialism and profit on the other side. The film also shows how weird the industry has become since a few big companies pretty much control the entire business. In the film this is manifested by events where the big company actually ends up spending more money instead of less money when they are trying to cut down on acts that aren't being as profitable as desired.

As I said, in the beginning of the film the band is optimistic about the future but just as the relation with the company the tensions within the band also increases along the way. We get to see what it is like when there is actually too many talented individuals but with different visions in the same band and also that just like in any reality show or contest it is also about being socially talented, not just being good at creating and playing music. It is about friendship and how it changes over time and how true the cliché "it's just like being in a family" actually is.

I think everybody that is the least interested in music or documentaries should see this film. Because this is a great documentary about great music made by great musicians. If you are interested why it sometimes takes ages before your favourite artists come out with their new album even though you read somewhere that they went into the studio like two years ago - see this film. If you think that that the music industry is just about writing a couple of decent songs, record them in two weeks and release the cd - see this film, you will be very surprised (and possibly depressed). If you like great music straight from the heart and like seeing and hearing it live rather than watching the video on MTV - see this film. In short, see this film. It's a gem.


Guess I wrote a review after all........

Larry Clark's KEN PARK

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allright, so I saw Larry Clarks latest, Ken Park, this evening. Has anyone here seen it?

I have always been of the opinion that the criticism of Clark's depiction of teenagers' sexuality is uncalled for, but in this case I'm thinking about going with the flow. Let's just say that I understand why this film is more or less banned in the USA.

I'm not saying that it should be banned, absolutely not, but the question is whether or not the scenes of teenagers actually having sex - for real - are making the film better or not.

Every time Larry Clark makes a movie there's a line of people saying he has crossed the line. Personally, I don't think there should be any lines or unwritten laws when it comes to art, but the more extreme you get, the more prepared you have to be to thoroughly explain why "you did it".

In both Kids and Bully (I don't even count the terrible Teenage Caveman) I never once thought the violence or the sex or the drugs were unnecessary for Clark to get his point through, and in Ken Park I don't have no problem with the violence or the drugs either. It's the sex that I am not certain about. To me the very explicit sex scenes kind of ate the film up. The "message" were lost in all the close-ups. I guess that Clark wants us to feel the realness of these characters and the stories, but I couldn't help to think "Jeez, these young pretty unknown actresses and actors do anything to be in a movie!". And I mean ANYTHING!! Maybe Clark wants to kick us in the head - to show that his stories aren't just stories but reality. These teenagers aren't just playing teenagers - they are being teenagers, i.e. themselves, on the screen, performing these pretty far out sex acts. Maybe it's to make us realize that it's not made up. Teenagers today really have wild and wicked sex like this.

My big dilemma though is, what will this do to the movie business? We all know that people do almost anything to be in a movie nowadays and are we going to accept that actors actually have real sex with each other on the screen? Isn't that to erase the line between porn and "ordinary" movies? I don't know. I think it's perfectly fine to show more or less anything in a film - because it's fake! It's a movie!

I just don't know... I haven't really made up my mind about this film yet. I just think it's a pity that everything will revolve around the sex scenes when there actually are a couple of really good drama scenes in it too. It is far from Bully and especially Kids though.

David Cronenberg's SPIDER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have just finished watching the film Spider (2002) by David Cronenberg and with Ralph Fiennes in the leading role as a very mentally ill man.

This is a pretty complex film since we get to follow the story kind of through the eyes, or through the mind really, of the character Spider (Ralph Fiennes). Just as the schizofrenic man, we are not sure about what has happened in the past and what goes on right now. We are sure about when the film jumps back to the past and Spider's childhood, but all of a sudden the characters from the past start to appear in the present as well. The events that we were sure had really happened in the first half of the film all of a sudden seemed to be fabrications of Spider's ill mind. In the end of the film I realize that I can't be sure of anything that has happened in the film, because Spider isn't sure himself. Because Spider is completely mad.

I read an interview with Cronenberg when he said that Fiennes wanted to prepare himself for the role by visiting different asylums and meet schizofrenic patients. Cronenberg told him that he didn't care whether or not he did this because it wasn't a case study they were making. He preferred that Fiennes looked deep within himself instead of trying to illustrate classic schizofrenic symptoms. The film was supposed to be a portrait of a human being, not a clinical study - it's film art, not science.

This is kind of interesting since I find this film a whole lot more believable than films like A Beautiful Mind. Ron Howard, the director of A Beautiful Mind, made use of the illness that John Nash suffers from to gain the sympathy from the audience, and he used it as an excuse to make a sellable Hollywood story. A Beautiful Mind is about a true person with a real illness, but it totally fails to convince me. Spider is not about portraiting schizofrenic people as realistic as possible, but rather to tell a remarkable story which is realized only because the storyteller (because that's what Spider really is, a storyteller) is mad. And this results in a film that at least I think is a hell of a lot more convincing in its portrait of a schizofrenic man than A Beautiful Mind. We understand what a confusing and frightening everyday life Spider is living because we are told this remarkable story. So, at the same time as we get a really interesting and original film, we learn about what it is like to be completly nuts.

Piddzilla, I watched Spider, I didn't like it.

But you did, so you might want to check out Neil Jordan's The Butcher Boy (1997).

It has a similar plot, I found the kid to be extremely irritating in the film.

i didn't get much out of Spider except what's-his-name laying in the dirt mumbling something incoherently
strange strange movie this was...i shall send good ol micheal meyers to kill this man and then i'll feal better

__________________
The wold is full of kings and queens
Who blind our eyes and steal our dreams
it's heaven and hell

I will watch it if I get the chance.

I’m sorry that it has taken me so long to reply to your review thread Piddy. Truth is, I haven’t seen any of these movies before, so I didn’t really know what to write.

I remember when Spider first came out. I was so pumped to see it because Ray Fiennes is one of my favorite actors. He really shines playing men who are unbalanced or dangerous. Unfortunately I missed my opportunity to see it. I need to get it on DVD when I have a chance. I appreciate your review of it because it had very little mention here at MoFo.

I also wanted to see Ken Park when it was new, but yet again, I was unable. Your review for it has made up my mind to make up my own mind about it. It is another title that’s on my list of purchases.

As for the others on your list, I will definitely be looking to rent them or checking them out from my local library. Thanks for consolidating your reviews, and keep them coming man. I would like to see what your actual "ratings" of them are as well, maybe you could start doing that. I would also be excited to see you write reviews for the sight whenever possible. I know it is difficult due to the late release dates you have to put up with.

On a personal note, I’ve read in the paper about the severe ice and snow storms plaguing Northern Europe. I saw that parts of Sweden have been hard hit. What has it been like for you? I’ve noticed that you haven’t been on as much lately, have you been dealing with power outages? I certainly hope you’re not suffering there.

Anyway, thanks again for your stellar reviews, I look forward to reading more of them.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Thanks for the encouragement, Slay! I will try and write more reviews later on when I have more time. The reason to why I don't rate them is that I don't want people to stare themselves blind on a couple of stars instead of actually read what I have to say about the film. And a rating is so definite.

About the weather here in Sweden. Right now I think everything is cool in the whole country except for the cold - which isn't a problem. I am also "lucky" to live in the extreme south of the country in a part that was spared from the power outages and the snow storms. Actually, I haven't seen snow yet this year. Here in my parts it doesn't snow much at all and if it does it only stay on the ground for a couple of days usually. But just a little bit further to the north the problems with losing the power due to heavy snowing has been huge. That has been one of the big things on the news so far this winter because prices of electricity is going up but the companies are kind of slow to fix and compensate for the outages. People are .

Hope everything is cool with you and everybody else around here!

Oh good. I wasn't sure what part of Sweden you are living in. I'm glad you're out of harms way.

Thanks!

Damn Piddy, you have some unique and interesting taste in film. I definitely want to check out I am trying to Break your Heart and Seppuku. You're reviews make them seem very interesting and well done.

Thanks for the reviews!!

__________________

Nice to know that you liked my reviews... I've been kind of lazy lately about watching films and especially writing about them. The last few films I've seen (for the millionth time) are Das Boot, Apocalypse Now Redux and The Godfather Part II. Not saying that I'm not enjoying them though.

Nice reviews Piddy. I just noticed The Man Without a Past at the video store closest to me. Because of your review, I'll put it on my 'must see list.'

Ken Park...from your review, I'm glad it was banned from the US. I have pretty strong views when it comes to teenagers and sex. That's whay I haven't participated in some of the debates. My views definately would not be popular. Anyway...back to the movie. I could see a movie like that being seen by teenagers as acceptable and the norm to have wild sex. As a mom, I think kids are already exposed much to early these days to sex. Oppps...I feel I an incrediable urge to rant off subject, so I'll stop.

Anyway...nice reviews. You got me all charged up.

By the way, have you seen The Cuckoo (2000?) by director Aleksandr Rogozhkin? If so, what did you think of it?

"We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write f*ck on their airplanes because it's obscene."
...and, no, I haven't seen The Cuckoo.

As I said....I know my views aren't popular. Once you have a daughter of your own, you'll understand.

Thanks for the reviews, great stuff, Oh and yes, thanks for making my 'must see list' 'to infinity and beyond', cop this,

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

Oliver Stone's COMANDANTE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In February 2002 Oliver Stone made a trip to Cuba and the film Comandante is the result of a three day long meeting with the cuban dictator, Fidel Castro.

The film is a documentary but has really the nature of a filmed interview mixed with old footage. In the beginning of the film we learn that Fidel during Stone's visit at any time he felt like it could break off the interview but that he not once chose to do that.

As a documentary this is an awkward experience. It is all very raw with no narrator and the things that happen in the film seems to happen rather impulsive. Even if we get to see cheering crowds of people here and there (and even some teenage girls going nuts after Fidel having kissed them on the cheek) it doesn't feel as we're being set up or exposed to a kind of propaganda apparatus one could expect in for example North Korea. If there is any bias here it is instead provided by Stone through his skillful and effective editing and use of music and score. It is as if the conversation wasn't exciting enough for him so he felt he had to spice it up a little with JFK-like editing and use of music. The thing is, what worked in the brilliantly paranoid conspiracy epic does not work in a documentary about Fidel Castro. During the first, I don't know, 10-15 minutes I fear that I will not make it to the end of the film which is so nervously composed that MTV looks like a rest for the eye. Images of a ragged Havanna anno 2002 flashes by together with old archive footage of Batista, Che, Castro, several american presidents and so on. This together with new images of Castro and Stone and his team and music that effectfully adds on to the nervous feel makes it almost unbearable for me to watch. Fortunately it calms down a bit after a while, even though the film never allows us to focus too long on something. I just read that Stone used only two cinematographers but it feels like it's ten of them in there. One camera can be filming Fidel speaking then all of a sudden we see him from anohter angle, we still hear him speaking but he is not moving his lips. Then cut to old footage and then back to Castro speaking again. Maybe the intention was to depict Castro as the immortal living legend as he is sometimes portraited as. As if the past and the present were one and that the words of Castro will never become silent. I would have prefered to in peace and quiet listen to what the man had to say instead.

The conversation itself has the same nature as the cinematography. Maybe that is why the film looks the way it does, because Stone never is allowed to sink into the mind of this pretty extraordinary man. The conversation touches on a lot of subjects, some touchier than others, but never goes deep into any of them. For example, the relationship between Fidel Castro and Che Guevara interests me a lot but when Stone and Castro finally start to talk about this we don't learn anything that we didn't allready know. When they talk about the really interesting stuff like Bay of Pigs, the Kennedy assasination, the US embargo, the lack of free elections etc we more or less get Fidel's personal viewpoint on the subject but without Stone challenging him in any way. Only at one occasion it does get a little tense; when Stone brings up his old ghost Vietnam. The two discuss whether Cuba had agents in Vietnam, if they were really agents or just observers, how many they were and most importantly if they took part in torturing american POW:s. Castro's voice gets sharper when he say that Cuba absolutely does not support torture and that Vietnam did not torture their prisoners. Stone, clearly bothered on a personal level, says "There was some brutality going on" (or something like that). Then the two seem to realize that they would rather be pals and start to talk about other things.

Maybe Stone knew that if he went to far with his questions there would be no questions at all and that is why this is all we get. Three days is not much time if you want to talk to a dictator that has ruled a country isolated by the West for almost 45 years. Stone was probably happy because he was allowed to interview "the Beard" at all.

Even if the film leaves much to wish for in terms of "the big issues" it is quite amusing to learn about Fidel, the man, not just about the dictator. Stone talks to him about religion, his family, his relationships, cigars and exercise. In a segment of the film we learn that Fidel is fan of Hollywood films like Titanic and that he used to have crushes on Sophia Loren and Brigitte Bardot. Stone asks Castro about what he thinks about McDonald's and quite surprisingly the old marxist leninist doesn't seem to think that fast food restaurants in Havanna would be too bad at all. If I understood him correctly, Castro also says straight out that he doesn't view himself as a communist but his view of The New World Order breathes some very old fashioned, though honestly good intentioned, idealism. Castro believes in the revolution wholeheartedly and his love for Cuba and the cubans appears to be very sincere. It makes you wonder what he could have done with free elections and without the trade embargo. Stone does bring up the question about free election and Castro dribbles it away like something he could do in his sleep. This together with the fact that the team was constantly under observation in one way or another makes it very hard for anyone to defend the cuban model as something to take after. At the same time the effects from the draining embargo seen in the images of Havanna is saddening.

This film leaves out to much of the basic information to be a good introduction for those who don't know much about Fidel Castro and the cuban revolution. At the same time, those who knows a little about the man and his history will probably find some interesting things in the documentary. There is a possibility though that these people will also be a bit disappointed that they didn't get to know more about some things. I think that this conversation would have been an excellent addition to a thorough and lengthy documentary (perhaps a tv series?) about Cuba and its Castro years. But more voices need to be heard to make a deep and objective study on this.

It is interesting to see some of the more intimate sides of Castro, because even though pretty reluctantly, he does show a few of those sides too. It is also very interesting to see the relationship between Castro and Stone who seem to share a mutual respect for one another. I wish that Stone had made a more neutral documentary without his charachteristics like shaky cameras, paranoid cutting and stressful music. The film doesn't lack humor though. In the middle of all the messy cutting and serious talking about socialism and revolution, one of the photographers zooms in on Fidel's shoes. What is the red old devil wearing? Nikes of course...