trendaway.com

I started The Man from Nowhere (2010, written and directed by Jeong-beom Lee) like I start almost every other Asian action-drama-thriller: I was prepared to be a bit bored at first and then be entertained by some amazingly choreographed action and moments of slapstick/dark humour. This movie did indeed follow this pattern, but ultimately didn’t deliver. Why not? One word: tone.

Where the main flaw in tone reveals itself, and rather quickly, is in one of the main cop characters, who was meant to be the comic relief. He was stupid, clumsy, and irritating. I found him to be much more offensive than the over-the-top cuteness of the little girl, So-Mi (Sae-ron Kim) and will go so far as to say that his character single-handedly ruined the film’s tone and made it seem rather amateurish and unfocused. I wanted to be sucked into a dark story with mysterious characters but that was impossible with this buffoon bumping into stuff all the time and constantly saying stupid things.

The crime bosses were pretty ridiculous, too. They yelled unconvincingly and were laughably un-frightening (but with weapons, which are pretty frightening). They were presented like caricatures and made me roll my eyes.

Nowhere’s look is pretty great, though (in addition to Won Bin, pictured above): there is some creative photography and great use of darkness. There is some nice, stylized violence and great shots, notably the one where the man from nowhere himself, Tae-Sik Cha (Won Bin) is being chased and jumps through the window with the camera following him, kind of like the building-jump in The Bourne Ultimatum, but not as good as that amazing one-shot chase scene with the guy jumping off the ledge in The Secret in Their Eyes (there’s a pretty cool making-of video of that scene here). Anyway, I digress. Some of the other action sequences are pretty memorable, too, but I wish Lee had more confidence in his story and characters to not feel the need to inject all of the unnecessary comedic- and cutesy-relief.

This film had something going for it! The premise, although not inherently original, had promise. The lead had experienced some tragedy and is a legitimately a mysterious anti-hero. The drug and organ-trafficking stuff was pretty harrowing, All-in-all, though, this is ultimately a forgettable film with a few memorable moments.

Julia’s Eyes (2010; directed by Guillem Morales; written by Guillem Morales & Oriol Paulo) is a pretty good suspense movie. I was expecting something more psychological thriller/horror, but it didn’t really present me with anything that was really scary or psychologically disturbing like the trailers suggested.

I enjoyed it, though. There were a few incredibly intense scenes that were filmed in a way to make you feel like you were looking through, er, Julia’s eyes. Some of the techniques I’ve seen before but that didn’t take away from how well they worked.

This film is one of the many that Guillermo del Toro has his producer-hands in and it was a nice treat to have him there to introduce it, along with director Morales and star Belén Rueda.

Armadillo (2010; directed by Janus Metz Pedersen; idea by Kasper Torsting) follows a group of young Danish soldiers for six months in a shared Danish/British army base in Afghanistan. Pedersen was present to answer questions about his 2010 Cannes Critic Week’s-winning film.

I didn’t know much about this film going in other than the general premise, but the first thing that struck me was that, after maybe ten minutes had passed, there had still not yet been any voiceover exposition. Not using this standard documentary convention has more of an effect than you’d think. The absence of voiceover, combined with such incredible cinematography and editing, has incredible impact. It made everything seem more real and perhaps even more voyeuristic. It’s strange that a doc that is shot, cut and edited like a narrative actually makes it seem more real.

There’s plenty of controversial subject matter here. Some of the soldiers look so… young. They look so intent on going to Afghanistan but one can’t help but wonder if they realize what they are supposedly there to defend. This is made pretty clear as they routinely trample fields of crops in the village in province of Helmand where they are situated – the crops being the village’s only source of profit.

The biggest controversy, which is apparently still being investigated by Danish Military authorities, is concerning the behaviour of certain individuals during a shootout with Taliban fighters. The actions of the soldiers in the footage can be interpreted as crossing the lines of accepted war conduct as they are possibly engaging in “systematic executions of their Taleban enemies“. The enthusiasm of some of the soliders to kill, in a fashion not unlike the way we see them play games like Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare, is not necessarily surprising, and the comparison is quite harrowing.

Controversy aside, this was an incredible sequence in the film, as Pedersen and (I believe steadicam operator Karsten Jacobsen) were literally in the midst of the shootout with their cameras. This combination of real-life proximity to the action, as well as footage taken from some of the soldiers’ helmet-cams, creates a uniquely intense and riveting set piece that one needs to remind themselves of as being completely unstaged and terrifying.

This is a pretty amazing film – it is literally like no other documentary I have seen before. Whether you’re interested in the topic, or the unconventional filmmaking process, or just compelling film in general, Armadillo is certainly worth checking out.

I recorded three videos of Pedersen’s Q&A after the screening:

1/3

2/3

3/3

First-time Canadian director Michael Goldbach brings to life his own screenplay in the stylish teen film Daydream Nation. Kat Dennings leads the cast in a story about love, loss, confusion and isolation. Teenaged death, a teacher-student affair and a serial killer spice up the story and, unlike work seen from less skilled screenwriters, actually have relevance in the big picture.

Dennings’ Caroline is a smart and sassy character who, as the new girl in town, can reinvent herself with nobody being the wiser. She’s all talk, though, and the insecurity and sadness behind the carefree, “anything goes” persona that she exhibits is blessed by a spot-on performance from Dennings. Supporting actors were strong, too, and the story and performances, combined with the snazzy production and good pacing made this a pretty compelling watch.

After viewing the film and then mulling it over for a few days, I feel more affected by the character Thurston (played rather sensitively by Reece Thompson). His spectrum of emotions and his ability to express them are a strong contrast to the disaffection exhibited by Caroline (and essentially every other teenager in the film). Even though both he and Caroline go through some changes by the end of the story, I felt like Thurston’s journey was the one that really carried the emotional arc of the story. Yes, the story focuses mainly on Caroline, but without the emotionally charged supporting characters like Thurston (and of course Josh Lucas’ Barry), there would be little to make the audience actually feel something.

Goldbach was in attendance at this screening and said that he’s been working on this film for about six years. It wasn’t until Kat Dennings read it and agreed to do it, however, that funding and other actors really began to come on board. He spoke about growing up in a small town outside of London, Ontario, and his frustration of how small towns are usually depicted as being incredibly boring and lifeless.

When asked what he would like audiences to take away from this film, Goldbach answered, “Travel in pairs” – a message that is seen on signs all over the town to keep people safe from the serial killer; a thinly veiled (and somewhat offensive) suggestion that one needs to be in a romantic relationship in order to get through life.

I loved I’m Still Here (directed by Casey Affleck)! It was a constant combination of funny, sad, poignant, pretentious, ridiculous, brilliant and depressing. I am pretty fascinated with the bizarre celebrity culture and also with “artists” and how they deal with it (or in Joaquin’s case, how he apparently doesn’t deal with it).

As many others on the Internet have said, it’s quite difficult to know if this is a brilliant hoax or a striking portrait. There is ample “evidence” to either possibility but I chose to watch this film as objectively as possible. If nothing else, I’m Still Here is entertaining, but that makes me feel bad, if I’m being entertained by a person’s train-wreck of a life.

There were a lot of penises in this movie. A lot of smoking. A fair bit of drugs. Lots of bad rapping. Many temper tantrums and a few breakdowns, too. Some scenes made me laugh like I haven’t laughed in a while. The one that struck me the most was Joaquin rapping in Edward James Olmos’s face as we hear a voiceover of Admiral Adama giving a ridiculous motivational speech. It was priceless. It was also pretty interesting to see footage from pre- and post-Letterman.

Phoenix’s main issue seems to be about preconceived opinions of him and the struggle as to whether the “intense, tortured artist” is really him, or if he is living up to that expectation. I like that we are essentially in the exact same position in regards to how we perceive this film: Is this fact or fiction? Is Joaquin a brilliant method actor or a total screw-up? I don’t know, and I’m not sure if I care. All I know is that I want to see it again.

UPDATE (Sept 16):
Affleck Says Phoenix Documentary Wasn’t Real

I saw this movie by mistake. Just look at the poster! I did select it initially and then accidentally linked it, and then associated it with in my mind, to another film of the same name. So when the director’s wife/producer was introducing it, I was like.. “Russian? This isn’t a French film with Melvil Poupaud?… Uh…” Anyway, The Edge (Kray) (2010; directed by Aleksei Uchitel; written by Aleksandr Gonorovsky (story) and Aleksandr Gonorovsky) is a very Russian film indeed. It takes place in a post-WWII camp whose function I am not sure of. All I know is that there were a lot of women in the camp. And they were bitches!

A man shows up, a train mechanic. He is a pretty tough guy who was a hero of sorts on the Russian front. He hears legend of a missing train and a ghost in the woods nearby. He discovers that the “ghost” is a young German girl who had survived the last few years on her own, living in the train. He saves her and the train is fixed. Hurray!

I didn’t really like the movie. It was kind of boring and I didn’t see the point. There were, however, a couple of excellent set pieces, mainly the one where him and the German girl need to repair a bridge just enough so that they can get the train over it. That part was pretty amazing. There rest… meh. The Russians hating the German girl, and accusing the main guy of being a sympathizer is a pretty simple theme that frankly wasn’t very interesting. It was kind of cool how the trains end up acting like major characters – I do like that technique. But I wish I’d been staring at Melvil Poupaud for two hours instead of Vladimir Mashkov.

In case you don’t know what I mean:

Melvil Poupaud

vs. Vladimir Mashkov

My first of 30 screenings this year was Danis Tanovic‘s Cirkus Columbia (written and directed by Danis Tanovic; based on the book by Ivica Ðikic). It is a story about the end of a marriage at the beginning of a new era in the Balkans.

The story begins with young Martin awakening and rushing to try out a new antenna that his father-figure military leader neighbor has given him. Martin is part of a radio club whose members compete to see who can make contact over the greatest distance, the goal being America. He lives with his mother in a house that is soon to repossessed by a man who is returning to their small town after being in exile for twenty years.

I was pleased with the pacing of storytelling that Tanovic used. Throughout the film we are slowly given more information that informs us of who these people are, their relationships to each other and why they are doing what they are doing. The town and its inhabitants collectively play a great character. It is a rather sombre film, and Tanovic provides us with ample comic relief that is legitimately humorous and does not feel out of place or gratuitous. I also liked that this turned out to be a coming-of-age story, but contrary to what one would expect, it is not the young character Martin who changes.

Tanovic said in his introduction that he made a great many changes to the novel while adapting it for screen, and I’m curious as to what these changes were.

No Man’s Land (which won him the Foreign Language Oscar in 2002) is an excellent film and L’Enfer (which I screened at TIFF in 2005) was great, but I was a bit disappointed with Triage. There were some really amazing performances in this film, especially by Miki Manojlovic and Mira Furlan (LOST’s Danielle Rousseau!), who last starred together in 1985′s When Father Went Away On Business. It was pretty riveting and definitely had an emotional impact on me. I’m glad to have seen another solid film from Tanovic, especially one that is not as geared to North-American audiences.

This was a pretty boring movie, and surprisingly so, with a cast including Cillian Murphy, Brendan Gleeson, Gabriel Byrne and Jim Broadbent. It was also a bit of a surprise that I didn’t like it since the previous year, director Ian Fitzgibbon’s A Film With Me In It was one of my favourites.

Perrier’s Bounty (directed by Ian Fitzgibbon; written by Mark O’Rowe) is a guns-blazing, comedic crime boss story that is way better in the hands of somebody like Guy Ritchie. I was pretty bored and disappointed in this one. I still remember a few scenes but that doesn’t mean I liked them. I don’t have much to say about this one. I didn’t really like it.

Cleanfix (written and directed by Andrew James and Joshua Ligairi) is a documentary on some of the major players in the “family-friendly” editing and rental/sales of movies in Utah. This is a relatively common thing in the Mormon community. Essentially what happens is they take a movie like Pretty Woman, edit all of the swearing, sex and allusions to sex, etc, and then rent and even sell these “edited” versions.

This is obviously illegal, but still being done, and rather openly in some cases. People behind these surprising lucrative businesses think one of either: 1. what they are doing is moral and right and they have the right to good, clean entertainment, so they don’t see it as being illegal, or 2. they don’t care because they are making a lot of money. Here is an example of one of these companies.

I could have used some more examples of the newly edited films, but there was probably enough in it. Interviews were interesting but nothing really blew my mind; I knew to expect people saying that they have “the right” to see these movies, but without the crap, etc. What surprised me was that some of the people involved were pretty damn sketchy. They were screwing around with minors, providing them with alcohol and doing other things that grownups aren’t supposed to do with minors. Yet they would edit the swearing out of “Back To The Future” because that’s baaaaad!

As a film lover, I always find it interesting to learn about why people watch movies, and what they want to get out of them. For me, story is everything and what is so fascinating to me about the medium is the way that the stories are told, using any combination of elements. Editing is obviously a huge factor in how a film tells a story, so to mess with that and cut out often crucial pieces is pretty upsetting!

James and Ligairi both come from Mormon backgrounds, and they chose to create a film that was rather ambiguous in regards to placing judgment or presenting facts with a moral skew. That being said, they obviously feel that this behaviour is wrong. I wonder what the Cleanflix version of this documentary will look like!

I’d like to preface the following comments with the justification of why I saw this movie. I like to watch movies that are really popular, even when I know they’re going to suck. This is because even though I am a fan of good movies, I try to be aware of and on top of what the majority of people are watching and what’s going on in the general market.

I saw the first Twilight film with a good friend who loved the books. We watched with a third friend and, you know, that movie wasn’t so bad. Then we decided that the three of us should watch all of the Twilight films together, so we saw New Moon and it was pretty bad. This one, though I had slightly higher hopes for, because I figured that they wouldn’t allow the movies in this undeservedly huge franchise to get worse. I also think I enjoyed 30 Days Of Night and thought that maybe this film would have a darker feel to it and perhaps even a workable script or even some decent performances.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (based on the book by Stephenie Meyer; screenplay by Melissa Rosenberg; directed by David Slade) is a terrible movie. The dialogue is painful and slow and boring. The scary bad guys are not scary at all, especially the Volturi, who, headed by an extremely not-scary Dakota Fanning, look like a bunch of pathetic goth kids who got lost in a forest. The music isn’t bad (Howard Shore has proven himself many times) but the themes felt very inappropriate for this type of film. The story wasn’t very interesting. Taylor Lautner as Jacob seems to have just realized that he’s in movies, acting, and has decided that he needs to act now, and does so very intentionally (read: badly). The love scenes were long and tedious and not even remotely bearable.

I can go on, but I won’t. My biggest issues with these Twilight films are that, sure, the source material is pretty terribly written, but there are hundreds (if not thousands) of incredible writers out there who will work for cheap and could write an amazing adaptation. There are directors out there who actually care about good storytelling who will create films that aren’t embarrassing. But most of all, I’m actually offended that studios put so much money into, and then make so much money on, films that are clearly not good. I have no problem with blockbusters or cultural phenomenons; sometimes they’re not that good, but at least you can see that they tried. Eclipse feels like they were like, “We’re going to make hundreds of millions of dollars from this regardless of how good it is, so let’s make it suck.” THAT is what I disliked the most about this film.

I’ll still finish watching the series, though.