L’argent(Money)-1983 June 5, 2010
Posted by ultimateserge in 1983, Film, French, Movie, Robert Bresson.Tags: Robert Bresson film movie 1983 Money Tolstoy
add a comment
Directed by:Robert Bresson
Starring:
Christian Patey
Vincent Risterucci
Caroline Lang
Sylvie Van den Elsen
Michel Briguet
Béatrice Tabourin
Didier Baussy
Pros:
• Intriguing spiral events based on a petty crime
Cons:
• Uncharacteristic cold atmosphere
• Unfocused and underdeveloped narrative
In his last film, Robert Bresson attempts a psychological study of man in the lowest and most depressed part of his life as the cards fate hands him go terribly wrong. A spiral of events start from a petty crime done by two teenagers whose forged money, exchanged in a store, lands an unsuspecting youth in dire straits.
Bresson paints a black and white universe where a single person is continually being tricked, harmed, and manipulated by a large mass of people whom see money as the sole source of motivation. This young man, named Yvon, is un
able to rise from this elementary act of manipulation, and due to loss of his job, falls into crime, and eventually jail. Loss of members of his family and time in solitary confinement make this bumpy ride all the more psychologically abusing which contributes to the young man’s eventual downfall.
Bresson paints this film in a world of coldness, bitterness, apathy which does suit the character’s infatuation with money quite well; the problem lies in the desire of the film for the audience to feel sorry for the main character. I must respond, for what, and even if there was a sufficient answer to such a question, why? The true arbitrators of the immoral acts that land the main character in prison don’t crack a smile, shed a tear, or show any remote sign of emotion through the entire film; however, that could be excusable, being blamed on their sheer interest in money and unconcerned about the method of its gain. However, the sole character, himself, seems to lack the faculties of emotion, with no true recognizable emotion toward his wife-besides placing his hands on her shoulder or back. During her sole visit with her husband in prison, his wife reminds
him that they should not resolve to fighting in such a condition as they never have quarreled before. This is not such a difficult concept considering that these people don’t exist-not because they are in a film-but mainly due to the fact that most people expend energy and emotion rather than function as pre-programmed citizens in a world taken over by money and deceit. However, this is still excusable if the film did not demand us to feel sorry for these characters who could not express “sorry” if you asked them.
Another issue with the problem is the unfocused narrative of the film. There are scenes, such as the introduction of the protagonist, that seem fuzzy and unclear, and for some individuals a second watch may be required so that certain ambiguities become clear. A narration would not be necessary, but due to the apathy of the characters, it would help the film progress more smoothly and seem, at certain points, less tedious.
There is no doubt that Bresson intended this chilling atmosphere to resonate through the entire film, but unfortunately this style of his overpowers the film and the philosophy he intends us to infer from it. By the end of the film, we have not seen a film that displayed to us the root of all evil, or a critique of French society, but we have witnessed a film that is depressing; so depressing and banal that any message that lays within it seems void, empty, and uninteresting.
Modern Times-1936 June 5, 2010
Posted by ultimateserge in 1936, Charlie Chaplin, Classic Comedy, Film, Greatest films, Movie, Paulette Goddard, The Tramp.Tags: Charlie Chaplin Paulette Goddard Film 1936 Comedy Greatest movie
1 comment so far
Rating*****
Directed By:Charlie Chaplin
Starring:
Charlie Chaplin
Paulette Goddard
Henry Bergman
Stanley Sandford
Chester Conklin
Pros:
• Insightful message of Industrialism and the unfortunate sacrifices that come
with it.
• The truth about capitalism, and especially the American Dream
• Beautiful musical score
Cons:
• None
In the last use of his “Little Tramp” character, Chaplin creates a portrait of mass production that is both harrowing and insightful. A talkie in its own right, the tramp is still a quiet figure continuing his mischief. As usual with Tramp, his companions being runaway/beggar females or children, at first this may not seem to cover ground that Chaplin’s proceeding work have not done. However, Chaplin succeeds in making a mockery, rightfully, of mass production, and the inhibited horrors that accompany it.
As a factory worker, he is so pressured that even a momentary annoyance by a pest can effect his work tremendously leading him getting caught in the (innerworkings) of the factory. The manager of the factory is displayed as a ruthless man worried only about increasing profit, as to order the tramp to get back to work on his break. An ingenious scene occurs with the testing of a device that would dramatically cut the length of lunch breaks by giving a machine the power to actually “feed” workers.
The whole tale displays the Tramp’s inability to hold to a steady job, getting fired or eventually giving up realizing his inability to function in certain environments. His multiple outings with the law, always humorous include the only instances that he is in peace with society. This is so vivid that at is explained life in his jail was comfortable.
. It is truly remarkable to view a man set out to voluntarily be placed in jail because he is dysfunctional in society; or rather, society is dysfunctional in regards to him. Even after he meets the girl, his luck does not increase, but his ambition and motivation to gain an income increases. For the first time, he exclaims that he will get them such a house, even if he has to work for it. After all their ambition and motivation is drenched, the couple does not give up, though admitting that happiness is very hard to reach. They can wish and fantasize for the American Dream as much as they want, but it is far from their grasp.
This is one of Chaplin’s most somber films, one that after all these years has held its poignant grip, continuing to ring true generations later.
GoodBye Solo June 9, 2009
Posted by ultimateserge in 2009, Elvis Presley, Film, Movie, Ramin Bahrani, Red West, Roger Ebert, Souléymane Sy Savané, Spiritual, Taste of Cherry.add a comment
Format: Spiritual
Directed by: Ramin Bahrani
Release date(s): Spring 2009-USA
This is one of those few rare suicide films with heart. Ramin Bahrani, the director of Man Push Cart and Chop Shop, turns in another spectacular tale of pain and agony.
William is an old man determined to put an end to his life atop a peak. Nothing seems to stop his vision until he meets Solo, an immigrant cab driver who is only trying to provide whatever is best for his family.
Amazingly Goodbye Solo never becomes depressing and somber. It never jumps away from its heartwarming tone mostly due to Souléymane Sy Savané’s acting chops. As the story unfolded I was rather surprised that I actually didn’t care how it turned out in the end.
The film is so faithfully to itself that the audience is not even fearful that Solo may end his life.Due to the fact that Bahrani is half-Iranian, it seems inevitable to associate this with abbas Kiarostami’s the taste of Cherry; a bleak movie about suicide that offers similar melancholy throughout. This may not have the overly-sweet attraction of films like “The Soloist”; it is a tale that has not been put on film like this before.
Taken March 16, 2009
Posted by ultimateserge in 2009, David Warshofsky, Famke Janssen, Film, Holly Valance, Jon Gries, Katie Cassidy, Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace, Movie, Olivier Rabourdin, Pierre Morel, Taken, Thriller, Xander Berkeley.add a comment
Format: Thriller
Directed by Pierre Morel
Starring:
Liam Neeson
Maggie Grace
Famke Janssen
Xander Berkeley
Katie Cassidy
Olivier Rabourdin
Holly Valance
Jon Gries
David Warshofsky
Release date(s): 26 September 2008(United Kingdom)30 January 2009(United States)
How caring can a father actually become? Is there a true limit in being overprotective or caring? Does it depend on one’s rascal kids or is it the personality of the parent that will make him more concerned?!!
Taken is the story of ex-CIA “preventer” Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) who retires to be closer to his daughter, Kim. She though is jeopardizing his plans by attempting to flee from the family nest. She stays with her mother and rich stepfather who isn’t in anyway buying his way into her heart with extraordinary gifts which overshadows anything Bryan could give her by miles. Though retired, Bryan still has what it takes to be a preventer and at times he does take on responsibilities with his past CIA colleagues.
The plot really warms up when Kim (Maggie Grace) goes to France with her friend, Amanda for U2 concerts. Before arriving at the house, they meet a young nice man by the name of Peter who gets their number and invites them to a party that night. Before long, the girls are “taken” or rather kidnapped by an unknown source that seems to receive information from people like Peter.
It must be extremely hard for a parent like Brian, who happens to be somewhat of an Assassin, to guide his daughter through the peril she witnesses. He knows that she will be kidnapped, based on his experience, but if she is to be taken, why not let the savages find her freely rather than search for her? Does it not leave a better impression to give in freely rather than hide from danger! This may sound idiotic, but if one is sure to be caught, why should it be necessary to hide?
The audience may become disgusted with Brian’s effectuation with his daughters whereabouts, but it seems like he has truly witnessed the trouble some young girls like his daughter can get in to; As a result maybe he has a right to be overprotective. As we progress forward in the film we feel for him, and are more offended by her mother’s careless attitude that finally leaves Kim in a terrible situation that only her father can resolve.
Liam Nesson’s character is in many ways identical if not better than Matt Damon’s Jason Bourne. I found Brian refreshing for he did not stray away from conversation, unlike Bourne, and was more of a savage who fought for a CAUSE. Bourne, on the other hand, slaughters individuals just to escape from a conspiracy concerning him that never seems to end.
Taken in no way lacks energy, speed, action or gore; all the necessary requirements that produce a desirable action flick. The big problem of the film is that it lacks a creative plot. This is the same action-movie formula that has been applied to numerous other films. Taken just fails to make it better or even worse than all those films it precedes. Though in the beginning, one has hope that Taken may turn into a slick smart thriller, as it unravels, it sinks into the same category of movies with unpleasantly pleasant ending we have been used to experience. In other words, when the credits role, one has to grasp the idea that everyone survived the dilemma and is going to go back to their normal lives with little noticeable difference.
I think this film is not a well-written thriller, but then again, most thrillers are not. My reaction to Taken is mixed, for it is not disappointing but neither is it strong enough to be recalled after the credits. In other words it is so straight forward that it does not allow one to think of the story any further. When a movie is so straight forward, without any twist and turns or even surprises, what is left to ponder about?
Two Lovers March 10, 2009
Posted by ultimateserge in 2009, Elias Koteas, Film, Gwyneth Paltrow, Isabella Rossellini, James Gray, Joaquin Phoenix, Moni Moshonov, Movie, Romance, Two Lovers, Vinessa Shaw.add a comment
Format: Romance
Two Lovers i
s the story of Leonard Kraditor (played by Joaquin Phoenix) who prone to emotional problems has attempted suicide on countless occasions. Without any purpose in life, after breaking up with his fiancé, suicide seems like the ultimate solution to him. As a result he is under full time scrutiny of his parents who in any way possible wish to see what he is doing in his room.
After his final suicide attempt in a lake his father, Reuben (portrayedd by Moni Moshonov), asks him to meet with The Cohen’s. The Cohen’s are a potential business partner for the family, so it seems logical that Leonard is set up with the Sandra (portrayed by Vinessa Shaw)-the eldest daughter of Michael Cohen.
After explaining his past relationship with his Fiancé, Leonardo grasps Sandra’s love and empathy. Due to their growing relationship he is asked to photograph Sandra’s brother’s Bar Mitzvah. As their relationship grows, so does Michael Cohen’s expectations of Leonard. He offers him a job with the Family Corporation if he is willing to stay put and avoid doing foolish deeds.
Leonard though is simultaneously engaged in a second relationship. Michelle (Paltrow) is Leonard’s new neighbor in his apartment building hall. He is immediately attracted to her and spends time with her talking and eventually partying. He soon isn’t her neighbor but also her relationship counselor. Michelle, who is in relationship with a fellow member in her law firm who happens to be married, asks Leonard to join them at lunch and think if Ronald (her boyfriend played by Elias Koteas) will leave his family. Soon after, the romance between the two starts.
I somehow feel sorry for Leonard, for he is stuck in a loophole. He loves both girls, but he can’t decide which way to go. Just when the audience thinks they know what Leonard is going to do, he takes an opposite change in plans. Of all things, one has to respect Leonard in a particular kind of way. Obviously his heart is pounding from all these emotions he has to express to both individuals but not once does he doubt himself: He knows what he has to do and he does it without looking back.
There have been many romantic movies out lately that only dramatize what they wish “love” was like, but “Two Lovers” demonstrates what true love is. True love is what we all aim for but do we only find one true love.
I don’t think that there could have been a better film that Joaquin could have used as his farewell from acting. Unfortunately this movie was released way before the awards season so, it is somewhat difficult to predict its future. But I assume that Joaquin will be nominated (at least) for a Golden Globe for his exquisite portrayal of a half crazy yet sweet guy who is stuck between two impossible roads. The rest of the cast needs to be credited for being up to par for such an emotional movie: especially Gwyneth Paltrow and Isabella Rossellini whom demonstrate the complexity between wants and needs.
This movie reminds me of Vicky Christina Barcelona by Woody Allen which was released in 2008. The two films are similar for their unsatisfying result (in which compared Two Lovers is still more satisfying), amazingly difficult dilemmas and poignant portrayals. I think it is necessary to add that another element that makes Two Lovers special is the music and its setting. Set in Manhattan the film gives one a sense of gloom and despair that is evident throughout the film and gives light to the terrible decisions one gas to make in such a situation.
I feel the need to say that this film is not entirely satisfying, for whichever way he chooses there are still going to be people whom will argue that he necessarily did not make the right decision. This movie is not for those individuals who still condemn Brad Pitt for leaving Jennifer Aniston and pursuing Angelina Jolie. This movie is actually trying to make us comprehend that we are no longer in the era of the Salem witch trials which adultery was as evil as witchcraft.
Step Brothers August 6, 2008
Posted by ultimateserge in 2008, Adam McKay, Comedy, Film, John C. Reilly, Mary Steenburgen, Movie, Richard Jenkins, Step Brothers, Will Ferrell.add a comment
Rating: 
Format: Comedy
Directed By: Adam McKay
Starring:
Will Ferrell
John C. Reilly
Mary Steenburgen
Richard Jenkins
Release Date: July 25, 2008
Step Brothers for sure is one of the funniest Comedies of the Year. You can say anything you want to say about it but there is no way denying it that Step Brothers is a very satisfying Comedy that tries to entertain till the end.
If nothing you have to give credit to Will Ferell and John C. Reilly for their extraordinary performance in Step Brothers. True, it’s not going to win a Golden Globe or an Oscar but they are a very strong Comedy team. Sadly you couldn’t say the samething about Richard Jenkins and Mary Steenburgen. THese two just don’t seem like a Good Couple. THey don’t have the needed chemistry, originality or dialogue for a strong Comedy Couple! Sadly it seems that both Steenburgen and Jenkins want to provide material for Reilly and Ferell thansupport each other.
Sadly this Comedy isn’t without weaknesses. First and foremostly, Brennan(Ferell) and Dale (Reilly) are the same person. Both in their forties, immature, Without girlfriends or jobs and etc. This list could actually go on forever comparing their similar characteristics! It seems like the Writer didn’t even take the effort to make them visibly different from each other.
The Second problem which some fans may not even count as a problem and may even see it as a strong point in the Movie is the toal immaturity of Dale and Brennan. THough you might think that for two forty year old men masturbating is digusting Dale and Brenan think elsewise.
But just to caution parents Step Brothers is very crude. I have to say it respectfully earned it’s R Rating. Without removing spoilers I would advise only 12 year olds and up to experience this massacre of intelligence.
I’m not sure if I noted this or not but Step Brothers is not one of those movies that will open you’re eyes in the World or help you understand an issue in a better way. “Step Brothers” is just funny, crude and immature. It is very forgettable and probably one watch is enough.
In conclusion “Step Brothers” is a step up from “Semi Pro” but is not a very meaningful movie. It’s more aimed at the audience who like endless crude comedy. It is a very funny Movie but not the best in the Genre. If you want a laugh watch “Step Brothers” and never think about it again.
The Dark Knight August 5, 2008
Posted by ultimateserge in Aaron Eckhart, Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, Film, Gary Oldman, Heath Ledger, Joker, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Movie, Oscars.add a comment
Rating: 
The intresting thing about TDK is that everyone is given a chance to shine! Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Aaron Eckhart. Well almost everyone gives a good performance. Sadly the Main Man of the Film, Batman seems to be sick. But you can’t say that Christian Bale had a bad performance! The guy was a good Bruce Wayne but an awful Batman! It seems that most of the fault would go on that sheepesh voice! (if sheepesh is a word)!
