Umberto D.Possibly the most sincere of the Italian Neorealist films, Vittorio De Sica’s Umberto D extracts many of the best qualities from the movement and in return presents audiences with an effort of rare genuineness. Taking advantage of the medium’s specific facilities, De Sica capably exhibits his character’s past by simply showing. The little exposition that is given is presented by way of mannerisms, routine, mise en scène. Using images, not words, Umberto D is a classic and a perfect example of cinematic storytelling.
And if for no other reason I love Umberto D because of Flick, the protagonist's Jack Russell terrier and best friend.
This is Flick: Umberto D. Flick
And this is my Jack Russell Buckley:
Now, can you understand why it was impossible for me not to love Umberto D.?
If you were to ask 80-year old Dr. Yoshiro Nakamats if he invented eccentricity he would undoubtedly, and without hesitation, answer with a “yes.” In fact, if there is something out there even a tad bit unconventional or unique, Nakamats either thought it up or is already thinking of a way to evolve it and make it even better. “Better” of course is subjective in this case. For instance, does having a notepad that can be used underwater in fact make it better? With over 3,357 inventions; many similar in approach and convenience as the underwater notepad, or the wig adorned with weights that females can use for self-defense by vigorously swinging their heads at would be attackers, Nakamats has made a name for himself in Japan for being an outspoken advocate of himself.
The Invention of Dr. Nakamats PosterAside from his myriad of clever and mostly ridiculous inventions, the Dr. is also a devout misogynist and a genuine egotist. He is affable to the general public, but only when they appear to be as enamored to be in his presence as he is with himself. For the most part the Japanese do seem to at least admire the prolific scientist, but that could also be a mixture of respect and intimidation. He carries a cordial demeanor that just waivers above a mild contempt, but a few choice scenes show the man in what I could only assume is his more natural, contemptible state. For example, in planning his own 80th birthday party he is in negotiations to rent out a floor in an upscale hotel, and modestly desires to have the floor renamed to the “Dr. Yoshiro Nakamats Floor.” When the owner sends one of his subordinates to inform Nakamats that this will not be possible, the Dr. can no longer restrain his true derision for the weak minded that surround him and for a brief moment let’s loose his frustration and anger on the poor helpless messenger. It is an uncomfortable scene, but also in an odd way a relief. Like exhaling a breath that had been held in for too long, Dr. Nakamats’ expulsion of ire is a wonderful look behind the mask (that I am sure he invented). His narcissism has evolved into an expectation that all should share his self-admiration.
This expectation includes director Kaspar Astrup Schroder. The film never pushes Nakamats, never attempts an investigation into the twisted psychology of the man that honestly believes he will live past 140. So many questions are raised and not answered I am surprised The Invention of Dr. Nakamats was not produced and edited by the Dr. himself. Sadly the documentary is self-serving and harmless, further placating a man that has without a doubt earned the right to be diabolically disingenuous.
Please leave any comments you may have and click the "share" button below and help get the word out!
Warrior 2011 Film PosterWarrior is an amalgamate of almost every big boxing movie made in the last 30 years or so, painted over with a nice new coat of blood and viscera that only mixed martial arts (MMA) could provide. It tackles the powerful relationship between brothers similarly to last year’s The Fighter or to a lesser extent Scorsese’s Raging Bull. The down-and-out coach that comes back to train the underdog like Million Dollar Baby. The has been father that must put his marriage and body on the line to provide for his family is a major them in both Warrior and classic fight films like Cinderella Man and The Champ. Hell, they even throw in some Russian villainy to remind us all of how Ivan Drago must break anything in Rocky IV.
Originality may not be the film’s strongest asset; but Warrior was still a blast to watch. While I prefer the sweet science of boxing to the bloodlust provided by the MMA, the choreographed battles inside the octagon were thrilling to watch. The premise of two brothers unknowingly entering a tournament to prove once and for all who the “toughest man in the world is” was as engaging as any sports film can get. Couple that with emotionally fractured family dynamics that elevate the film past genre drudgery, and what is produced is a truly gripping piece of melodrama.
Like the best boxing films, the intensity found outside of the arena is even more engrossing and intense than the physical bouts themselves. I hate discussing plot on this blog, and I definitely think going into Warrior without knowing the main plot points will be a great service to your experience. Unfortunately the trailer, perhaps unavoidably, does give away much of the drama found in the film, going so far as to give you a pretty good idea on how the entire film will play out. That being said, this is a heavy film. The main performances by the brothers Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton along with their rehabilitated father played by Nick Nolte are some of the year’s best. Heartbreaking and affective without ever being sentimental, the scenes showcasing the three disconnected family members hit harder than any punch thrown in the film. I really enjoyed my time with Warrior.
Click the "Share" Button Below and Help the Site Out!
Red State - BannerIt seems quite rare to witness an actual turning point in a director’s career. Sure many directors perhaps stray from what brought them initial acclaim, I immediately think of Alfonso Cuaron following up his critically heralded and sexually charged Y Tu Mama Tambien (2001) with a Harry Potter sequel. A decision no one could have seen coming, and yet his Prisoner of Azkaban is considered by many to be the best of the series. Robert Rodriguez has his successful Spy Kid series, a shock to those expecting only El Mariachi pulp fests. But for every Azkaban there is the heartbreak film nerds feel when a good director turns hack. After the surprise impact Hard Candy had on the film universe in 2006, David Slade went from being one of the most exciting premiere directors in Hollywood to message board troll bait when he signed on to helm one of the Twilight sequels. People think they want artists to venture out of their comfort zone and explore foreign characters, situations, and themes, but in all honesty those artists (be it in film, music, or any other medium) are not only putting their identity and fan-base on the line, but their integrity as well. Not moral integrity mind you, but that creative rectitude that seems to be so important to the devotees of all things indie. That solidarity teenagers and twenty-something hipsters feel with their band that no one has heard of or the director of that amazing film no one will see.Red State Film Poster
For a filmmaker like Kevin Smith fan base is everything, and he knows it. Hell, I am pretty sure he just legally changed his name to @thatkevinsmith and for good reason. He has been the trail blazer for bypassing the middleman that has controlled the movie industry since the 1950s and went straight to the consumer. And for the last 15 years or so Smith has been comfortable hocking his familiar wares to the same base he built with Clerks and Mallrats, consistently cranking out recognizable comedies set in the View-Askew universe, quietly establishing a particular genre of R-rated comedy that Judd Apatow and company have exploited in the last decade.
Apparently not one to be stifled, Smith’s new film Red State is unlike anything the Jersey born auteur has attempted before. There are very few pop culture references (Star Wars or otherwise), not a single Quick Stop in sight, and no one even resembling Jay and Silent Bob – although Caleb, a prominent character in the film played with surprising ferocity by Southern California radio legend Ralph Garman, does not speak a single word throughout the film. No, this is not a traditional Smith effort, and he would probably be the first to say that is a good thing. He wanted to try something different and fresh, at least for him, and in the process gambled his image and his fanbase for a new chapter in his career. Luckily for everyone involved, Smith bet on Red, and it paid out big time.
Red State Film BannerRed State is many things; a dissection of the ever cracking wall of separation between church and state in this country, an (hopefully) exaggerated interpretation of the hyper-religious leaders consistently making news with their doggedly desperate reactionary protestations against anything they deem immoral or against their God’s will, and it also makes interesting assertions to our post 9/11 government locked and loaded with the Patriot Act and how the power granted them has absolutely corrupted. Red State is a heavy film, and succeeds at reaching its lofty goals of social and political criticism.
Red State Michael ParksTo find out this has been a grass roots style labor of love from Smith should firstly be of no surprise and secondly be of no consequence. Red State is as biting and relevant as his more regarded films from the 1990s, specifically Clerks, Chasing Amy, and Dogma. He has always been a man with something to say, and while the camera has not always been his most effective means of communicating his point, words empowered by a unique incite coupled with sheer bluntness have been the director’s greatest weapon.
The film’s set-up is generic, but not to a fault. It is obvious that Smith has affection for the horror films of the late 70s and 80s. After three Middle American high school friends turn to the Internet for an anonymous hassle free hook-up, they are quickly captured by Abin Cooper (Michael Parks), the leader of a fundamentalist church looking for fresh sinners to sacrifice in the name of the lord. Again, not exactly groundbreaking, and yet it must be said Smith’s take on the punishment of teenage deviants is an interesting one. Traditionally evil has been personified in the form of psychotic madmen on film. Donning a mask and a machete, these horror villains hunt down sexually corrupted teenagers and brutally dispense with their own unique brand of punishment. Red State is more terrifying than any other film dealing with the subject of righteousness because it is those that look to God for guidance that are the most malevolent.
Red State The Boys PosterWith more pizzazz than any other Smith undertaking, what he achieves here along side his usual cinematographer David Klein is an honest accomplishment. As the film’s intensity ramps up, so to does the camera, aiding Smith’s narrative drive and thematic campaign to achieve an illustrious cinematic crescendo. Red State does tonally trip up from time to time, but honestly I think that is more of an issue of the genre than the script. Any faults with the screenplay or Smith’s less technical directing style is quickly compensated by the acting, particularly that of Parks. Like what Blue Velvet did for Dennis Hopper, Sin City for Mickey Rourke, and Kill Bill for David Carradine, Red State will be remembered for reintroducing the world to Michael Parks.
With so much build-up to my viewing of Red State, my immense enjoyment brings more relief than surprise. Kevin Smith is a director that should never be discounted; he has done more for the evolution of not just comedy in this country, but is one of the main reasons it is okay to be a nerd in 2011. He has been and will continue to be a rebel and an innovator in Hollywood, and I cannot wait to see how he will change the game next.
Have you seen Red State? Am I on the money or just a blind Kevin Smith fanboy stuffed on Mooby Muffins? Let me know your opinion of the flick and/or my review, and what you think of the divisive director and his new foray into horror. Click the "share" button below and help get the word out!
Robin Hood - Ridley Scott 2010The legend of Robin Hood seems to have been birthed out of convenient necessity. Cobbled together by bits of heroism and flights of fancy, town minstrels and inspired storytellers meshed the plausible with the fantastic to provide a subjugated society with the hope that one man can not only confront his oppressors, but against all odds be a champion for the downtrodden and the persecuted. With some 700 varying versions of the legend, Robin Hood is likely a phantom of want. The want felt buy all those too browbeaten to stand up for themselves, too weak to fight back. The belief that a hooded crusader could daringly defend the honor of his people, and return to them the wealth and dignity that was rightfully theirs, was a promising notion.
Taking inspiration from the mouths of bards in the 1200s to the adventurous tale “The Jest of Robin Hood “ in the 15th Century, Hollywood wasted no time bringing the esteemed archer to life on the big screen. In 1908 he was the basis for the silent film Robin Hood and his Merry Men, and from then on the medium has been cluttered with interpretations and silly translations of the urban myth. Ridley Scott’s latest incarnation, simply titled Robin Hood (2010), is concerned more with aesthetic precision than historical authenticity.
Robin Hood - Ridley Scott 2010Taking full advantage of the leniency granted by his well-earned artistic license, Scott forgoes the trivial aspects imparted by documented events and melds fact with cinematic machinations. Not unlike the singing minstrels of ancient Europe, Scott plays with circumstance to produce an engaging narrative. Perhaps not quite the “untold story behind the legend” the Blu-Ray promises, this adaptation does attempt a unique account of Robin Hood’s origin story. The film opens with Robin Longstride, played by Russell Crowe, serving under King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston) as an archer during an attempted siege on a French castle. In this genuinely brutal recreation of warfare, King Richard is shot through the neck by a French soldier with a crossbow and dies during battle. However dramatic and engaging this scene may play on screen, it is not entirely accurate. King Richard’s death did in fact take place during the taking of a French castle on his return trip from the Crusades, but while the film’s version has the king’s army struggling against a well-fortified French defense, in truth the castle was not as safeguarded as Scott would have his audience believe. The castle was taken without much effort, which makes the King’s demise that much more shocking. Pride and confidence got the best of Lionheart; it is believed the king was approaching the French gate without his proper chainmail when a crossbow lethally struck him. On screen Richard dies almost instantly in the arms of the Knight Robert Loxley, but in fact it took the king nearly two weeks to finally succumb to his wounds.
This latest adaptation is not the first film to begin with Lionheart’s death, Robin and Marion from 1976 starring Sean Connery as the man in tights also had a similar inciting incident. Although most Robin Hood adaptations all utilize the same basic plot points, Scott’s version does strive to find a unique angle for the original characters. Marion for instance is not the helpless damsel so often personified on screen. Here, played by the enchanting Cate Blanchett, Marion is put upon and even vulnerable, but far from being an incapable ingénue. Robin’s customary entourage is also in attendance; archers Allan A’Dayle (Alan Doyle), Will Scarlett (Scott Grimes), and foe turned comrade Little John (Kevin Durand). The trio gives perhaps the most familiar performance of the film, playing into the recognized conventions of the legend of Robin’s “merry men.”The Real Little John... or is that just Baloo?
Despite the fact that nitpicking the historical inaccuracies of Scott’s muddy epic is easier than most historians would prefer, the director did a supreme job of bringing 12th Century Europe to life. The Crusades was an era of both filth and elegance, and the disparity contrasted between these conflicting ways of life are beautifully rendered on screen. The wealth of King John and his bootlicking aristocracy is beyond opulent, only made more noticeable by his wanton and lecherous greed. Outside the castle gate is in all respects a completely different world. While Eleanor of Aquitaine (Eileen Atkins), the wearily helpless mother of King John and King Richard, attends to her pet owl with the beguiling profile of the castle surrounding her, the stark images of those struggling in the grimy village of Nottingham provide a repugnant polarity. Even those lucky enough to own land, like Sir Walter Loxley (Max Von Sydow) and his daughter-in-law Marion, are shown struggling to just make do.
Director Ridley Scott’s personal take on the myth of Robin Hood, like most historically based films, does its best to bring to life a time and place in vivid detail. The battles are accurately violent and barbarous, taking an almost fetishistic affection to every bloody detail. So to do Scott and his crew impressively recreate the relentlessly harsh way of life in 12th Century England. However, Scott’s artistic and historical liberties are at times down right indulgent. The film would lead you to believe that King John had introduced heavy taxation on his subjects, but in fact burdensome taxes had been a problem for years (someone had to finance King Richard’s war). Scott even goes so far as to have Robin’s father responsible for the Magne Carte, a dramatically engaging turn of events if it weren’t so preposterous. Unfortunately, preposterous inventiveness does not a good movie make, and while Scott may have out done himself when it came to set design and innovative plot twists, Robin Hood in the end failed to hit its mark.
What did you think of Scott's latest? Inspired, or just another hack job from the once king of the sci-fi epic? Let me know, and please click the "share" button below.
Well, I must admit my 1st attempt at watching 500 films in one year was not a complete failure, but a failure all of the same. When all is said and done I watched 331 movies, and probably more but thats how many I have remembered and documented. Although I only wrote about 152 flicks out of the 330+ I watched, I now have a better grasp of what is expected of me to get closer to my goal in the next year. Yes, I am going to try again, and yes I still think I can do, but i will definitely have to manage my time better. Anyway, here is my list of movies I watche and never got around to talking about. I did watch some awesome films that I had never seen before like: Hunger, How to Train Your Dragon, Sante Sangre, The Night of the Hunter, Catfish, Salo or 120 Days of Sodom, Tree of Life, and this year's Hanna. And there were some terrible flicks: Eden Lake, Trash Humpers, The Children, The Lovely Bones, MacGruber, The Beaver, Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, and the completely overated Bridesmaids.
All in all I am pretty proud of myself for being able to figure out how to build and run my own website totally on my own, but I am bummed I couldn't closer to 500. Oh well, I have 365 more days to try and hit the mark!
I completely understand the criticism, but I don't care. I find this movie to be %100 entertaining. Dumb thriller fun that pushes the sub-genre to its limit. The last 2-minutes of the film almost ruin everything it earned, but forgiving this one misstep Identity is worth checking out.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 12:45PM 
Umberto D.Possibly the most sincere of the Italian Neorealist films, Vittorio De Sica’s Umberto D extracts many of the best qualities from the movement and in return presents audiences with an effort of rare genuineness. Taking advantage of the medium’s specific facilities, De Sica capably exhibits his character’s past by simply showing. The little exposition that is given is presented by way of mannerisms, routine, mise en scène. Using images, not words, Umberto D is a classic and a perfect example of cinematic storytelling.
Umberto D. Flick
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
