The Raid was awesome, I loved it. It’s an incredibly well-choreographed, executed and shot film that hardly stops to breathe once the action starts. The story is simple and doesn’t waste too much time setting up the meat of the film, and doesn’t fall prey to a lot of the melodrama that a lot of Asian films suffer from. Also, it’s pretty exciting to see such a bold and well-made film essentially burst out of Indonesia, a country that is not especially well-known for its films, not to mention action films.

I did quite enjoy 2009′s Merantau and it’s pretty cool to see such a good working and personal relationship between director Gareth Edwards and his star, Iko Uwais. They clearly understand and trust each other and I’m really excited to see what the come up with next.

Check out the Q&A videos I took (below) to get some insight from Edwards, Uwais and co-star Joe Taslim, including a Silat demo from Iku Uwais!

I didn’t love Skoonheid (Beauty) but I’m still glad I saw it.

What I didn’t like: I feel like I’ve seen this type of character many times before. There were aspects of it that I thought were different but overall I didn’t think I was seeing anything really new. Maybe if I were in South Africa, I’d feel differently – I’m not sure what the culture is like there. Also, the director mentioned some things that he put in there to show more about the character’s OCD, and I was like, he has OCD? I’m supposed to figure out that he’s OCD because he keeps his office door open?… I didn’t interpret his obsession with Christian as him being OCD – I thought it was just a sexual obsession, or conquest, or something taboo that he had to have. Now that I think of it, though, if it was related to him being OCD then that kind of takes away from the darkness of it, since it’s so easily explained.

What I liked: It was really well shot and acted and it was certainly thoughtful. The pivotal scene was difficult but still very watchable in that “really well done” kind of way. I absolutely loved the opening shot, which a nice long take and totally sets the obsessive tone that we follow along with for the duration of the film. The tension was thick and even though it was quite slow at times, I never knew what Francois was going to do next and if/when he was going to snap.

Urbanized, Gary Hustwit’s latest in his trilogy of design films, had its world premiere yesterday afternoon at Ryerson Theatre. I haven’t seen Objectified yet but I thoroughly enjoyed Helvetica, which I found to be ridiculously interesting and shot much to well for a documentary about a font. Fans of Hustwit’s earlier work, as well as anybody interested in urban planning and city design, should definitely make it out to see this film. Acutally, anybody who’s ever had any kind of thought about anything related to one’s relationship to one’s city should see this. I thought it was pretty incredible, and others in the theatre did, too, as they cried, laughed, cheered and clapped.

Here is the film’s Q&A, in two parts:

Gus Van Sant’s latest, Restless, was written by newcomer Jason Lew and stars Mia Wasikowska and Henry Hopper. It’s a sweet and sad little film and this duo of fresh new screenwriter/seasoned master director, combined with the youthful chemistry between up-and-coming Mia and first-time actor Henry really makes it magical.

Cinematographer Harris Savides (who has worked previously with Van Sant on Milk, Elephant, Last Days, Gerry and Finding Forrester and who did Fincher’s Zodiac, Madonna’s “Rain” video, Greenberg, Birth and Margot at the Wedding, among much more – in other words, he’s brilliant and has worked with some amazing directors) keeps things nice and tight in this film, mainly using close or medium shots of the actors. This, combined with an incredibly warm colour palette, make watching this film a pretty intimate experience. The takes are very relaxed – never too short, and often a bit longer than you realize until it cuts – and the pacing is just spot-on.

I liked Restless a lot. It doesn’t have a lot of surprises but that allows you to really invest yourself and experience the discovery of how things end up the way they do. There’s a lot of dialogue, but a lot of silence, too. (In the Q&A video 3of 4 that I took of the Q&A, we learn that Gus has been experimenting with a technique that Terrence Malick uses, where he shoots versions of scenes with the actors doing everything with no dialogue, and that how not only did he incorporate a bunch of shots from those takes into the film, there is also a full cut of the film done without any speaking. That would be really interesting to see!) It’s quite funny in some parts, too, which isn’t something I’m really used to in a Gus Van Sant film. And I don’t think I’m even going to say about the Japanese kamikaze imaginary friend/ghost.

Hopper did a great job in his film debut but I can’t help thinking that if Gus had directed this twenty years ago, we’d be seeing River Phoenix up there, and he’d blow us away. That being said, I really enjoyed Hopper’s performance (as well as his hair) and Mia is always so striking and a wonder to watch.

Van Sant seems to have taken a liking to the music of Sufjan Stevens, just as he clearly did with Elliott Smith (I had to buy “Wolverine” as soon as I got home). I would be very, very happy to see Sufjan, one of my favourite musical artists, do some original work for one of my favourite film directors, too! (Remember the awkward awesomeness of this?)

Below are my videos of the Q&A, in four parts:

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

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.