Ah yes, another Paul Cox film at the festival. The thing about Paul Cox films is that they all seem to revolve around the same themes and ideas, so if you do not care for one of his films, you probably do not like any of them. I happen to like them, including Force of Destiny, though I wish he could have stuck with filming with "film" rather than switching to digital.
Radical Grace is fine for what it is, though I have a hard time categorizing it as a good documentary. The segment involving the nun who counsels prisoners probably does not belong in this film, as it had very little to do with the political activism that is the focus of the rest of the movie. Considering the documentary is only 75 minutes long, I suspect that it had to be padded out to reach this running time, and so they used footage that they had for this other nun, a story that ended prematurely while filming. The trips to Italy also felt a little phony, like they were arranged merely for the documentary.
Love and Mercy didn't work for me. It is always a problem when the most interesting part of these music documentaries is the music making process--a small part of the film. It is still hard to see John Cusack as Brian Wilson.
Blow Out is not as good as I remembered. An excellent premise is weakened by a cartoonish villain and a ludicrous John Travolta out-of-control driving scene. And the score is terrible--it even ripped off Blondie's "Call Me," a song that had been released the year before.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
2016 Ebertfest Day 3
Disturbing the Peace could have easily been edited into a twenty minute 60 Minutes piece and lost nothing of worth. Not much to talk about here then.
Many of my favorite memories from the sixteen years I have attended the festival come from the silent movies. So it is really disappointing when the silent turns out to be a bit of a dud. That is the case with L'Inhumaine, a movie that is irreparably damaged by a slow moving first chapter. Tedious and ponderous are the descriptive words that come to mind. The pacing is much better towards the end of the film, but the story still had problems. It is a long way from Metropolis.
Eve's Bayou is a good film and a solid debut job of direction by Kasi Lemmons. The acting is stellar, though I wish there was a little more to the story. But sorry Roger, ranking this film ahead of Boogie Nights and L.A. Confidential on your 1997 top ten list really reeks of trying to champion a film that others might have overlooked. Nothing wrong with championing a film, but sometimes the praise is excessive to the point of not being genuine.
Many of my favorite memories from the sixteen years I have attended the festival come from the silent movies. So it is really disappointing when the silent turns out to be a bit of a dud. That is the case with L'Inhumaine, a movie that is irreparably damaged by a slow moving first chapter. Tedious and ponderous are the descriptive words that come to mind. The pacing is much better towards the end of the film, but the story still had problems. It is a long way from Metropolis.
Eve's Bayou is a good film and a solid debut job of direction by Kasi Lemmons. The acting is stellar, though I wish there was a little more to the story. But sorry Roger, ranking this film ahead of Boogie Nights and L.A. Confidential on your 1997 top ten list really reeks of trying to champion a film that others might have overlooked. Nothing wrong with championing a film, but sometimes the praise is excessive to the point of not being genuine.
Saturday, April 16, 2016
2016 Ebertfest Day 2
Roger Ebert had a relatively short list of his favorite films. 2001, La Dolce Vita, Gates of Heaven, Apocalypse Now, The General, and now, The Third Man have played in the festival. It is actually surprising that so few of these "favorite" films have played in the eighteen years of the festival. Vertigo was rumored for the festival a few years ago. I am NOT counting Citizen Kane because it was not properly shown. It is still bewildering to me that they chose to show it with Ebert's commentary track without having first played the movie with its original audio. The other "favorite" Ebert movies are Casablanca, Floating Weeds, Notorious, Raging Bull, 28 Up, Aguirre, the Wrath of God, Tokyo Story, and The Tree of Life. Note: This is a combination of his lists from 1991 and 2012. Considering how many differences there were in those two lists, Ebert probably had a more "general" list of around 20 or 30 films "floating" around in his head that were pretty much interchangeable depending on his mood and what he had seen most recently. Oh, and we can probably count Synecdoche, New York as another one of his favorites to play the festival, since he listed it as one of his two possibilities for new films to join that list (he chose The Tree of Life instead).
This 4K restoration of The Third Man looked incredible. I would never thought it could look so good, especially since I can remember seeing it in public domain quality home video incarnations. For some reason the dialogue often came across as muffled. Maybe it was just the accents, or maybe my hearing isn't the greatest. I'll have to watch this movie again at home, maybe with the subtitles on so that I can finally understand all of the dialogue.
Ok, so I liked Grandma. It is exactly the type of film that I would expect to play at Ebertfest, and that is not a putdown. At times the dialogue was too artificial--meaning that two people would never really talk to each other that way, and this is the type of relationship movie that needed to stay away from that. More naturalism (along with maybe going away from the word for word dialogue in the screenplay) might have helped here.
I was underwhelmed by Northfork. I didn't have high expectations going in, as Ebert was one of the few critics who liked the film. It felt like the Polish brothers were going for a Lynchian film without the creative inspiration to pull it off. What is really frustrating is that Ebert liked this movie so much (perhaps because he liked the whole angel thing), and yet he regularly bashed David Lynch movies. I was going to link to his review of the brilliant Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, but I couldn't find it, nor could I find a clip from the Siskel and Ebert tv show. Maybe he never formally reviewed it? He did post negative comments about it in an article written after viewing it at Canne.
[Edited to move The General to the "shown" list.]
This 4K restoration of The Third Man looked incredible. I would never thought it could look so good, especially since I can remember seeing it in public domain quality home video incarnations. For some reason the dialogue often came across as muffled. Maybe it was just the accents, or maybe my hearing isn't the greatest. I'll have to watch this movie again at home, maybe with the subtitles on so that I can finally understand all of the dialogue.
Ok, so I liked Grandma. It is exactly the type of film that I would expect to play at Ebertfest, and that is not a putdown. At times the dialogue was too artificial--meaning that two people would never really talk to each other that way, and this is the type of relationship movie that needed to stay away from that. More naturalism (along with maybe going away from the word for word dialogue in the screenplay) might have helped here.
I was underwhelmed by Northfork. I didn't have high expectations going in, as Ebert was one of the few critics who liked the film. It felt like the Polish brothers were going for a Lynchian film without the creative inspiration to pull it off. What is really frustrating is that Ebert liked this movie so much (perhaps because he liked the whole angel thing), and yet he regularly bashed David Lynch movies. I was going to link to his review of the brilliant Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, but I couldn't find it, nor could I find a clip from the Siskel and Ebert tv show. Maybe he never formally reviewed it? He did post negative comments about it in an article written after viewing it at Canne.
[Edited to move The General to the "shown" list.]
Friday, April 15, 2016
2016 Ebertfest Day 1
After the miserable weather we had earlier in the month, I was kinda dreading this year's festival, since the festival has never been scheduled this early in April. The festival used to always occur on the last weekend. Then it was moved up to avoid the marathon. Considering that the marathon is not until the weekend of the 30th this year, I don't know why the festival was not scheduled on the weekend of the 23rd. But this might turn out to be the best weather we have ever had for the festival (it ALWAYS rains at least once), so I can hardly complain.
Speaking of complaining, Chaz was doing some complaining about Sunday's News Gazette article. The best approach would have been to ignore the article, or to vaguely refer to the article while voicing her support for the future of the festival. There is nothing wrong with the article, which merely conveys some numbers from the festival in the years since Roger Ebert's passing. This is not a hit piece-it is more of a "draw your own conclusions" piece. And these numbers are VERY interesting to those people who wonder about the continued viability of the festival. It is no surprise that the festival might not have the same draw as when Roger Ebert was actively involved with the festival. The demand for passes and tickets peaked around the last year that Roger was still talking and moderating discussions. The fact that the demand dropped is more a testament to how important Roger was to the festival than anything else.
And while Chaz would like to stress the cultural and artistic aspects of the festival, there is a commercial component. The festival needs money to continue. Sponsors provide some of that money, and obviously those sponsors can derive benefit from having their business advertised in the program or on the screen in between films. I am also perplexed when she refers to the tickets for the Harold Ramis tribute. I was under the impression that there were tickets made available to that event. Perhaps they were "free" tickets, though I don't remember them being advertised that way.
Regardless of the downward trend, this year's festival has had some very solid attendance figures, if my eyes are not deceiving me. The opening night film, Crimson Peak, sold out of individual tickets, though there were seats left for standby ticket buyers. Speaking of Crimson Peak, it was a film that I very much wanted to love. The production design was a sight to behold. But the unsympathetic (or should I say dimwitted) protagonist kept the story from being as compelling as it should have been. I do not need realism, but I do need some type of logic, particularly for a character who was presented early on in the film has having a good head on her shoulders.
Speaking of complaining, Chaz was doing some complaining about Sunday's News Gazette article. The best approach would have been to ignore the article, or to vaguely refer to the article while voicing her support for the future of the festival. There is nothing wrong with the article, which merely conveys some numbers from the festival in the years since Roger Ebert's passing. This is not a hit piece-it is more of a "draw your own conclusions" piece. And these numbers are VERY interesting to those people who wonder about the continued viability of the festival. It is no surprise that the festival might not have the same draw as when Roger Ebert was actively involved with the festival. The demand for passes and tickets peaked around the last year that Roger was still talking and moderating discussions. The fact that the demand dropped is more a testament to how important Roger was to the festival than anything else.
And while Chaz would like to stress the cultural and artistic aspects of the festival, there is a commercial component. The festival needs money to continue. Sponsors provide some of that money, and obviously those sponsors can derive benefit from having their business advertised in the program or on the screen in between films. I am also perplexed when she refers to the tickets for the Harold Ramis tribute. I was under the impression that there were tickets made available to that event. Perhaps they were "free" tickets, though I don't remember them being advertised that way.
Regardless of the downward trend, this year's festival has had some very solid attendance figures, if my eyes are not deceiving me. The opening night film, Crimson Peak, sold out of individual tickets, though there were seats left for standby ticket buyers. Speaking of Crimson Peak, it was a film that I very much wanted to love. The production design was a sight to behold. But the unsympathetic (or should I say dimwitted) protagonist kept the story from being as compelling as it should have been. I do not need realism, but I do need some type of logic, particularly for a character who was presented early on in the film has having a good head on her shoulders.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Ebertfest 2015 Day 5
Low expectations precede every Sunday showing at the festival. Sunday is usually the day reserved for musical/music related films, and often these have been the weakest of the festival.
Not so this year. After a decidedly mixed/mediocre run of films at this 2015 festival, Seymour: An Introduction was a delight. And then having Seymour Bernstein there, and giving a master class on the stage of The Virginia was as good as the movie itself. And that is coming from someone who knows next to nothing about playing music.
Not so this year. After a decidedly mixed/mediocre run of films at this 2015 festival, Seymour: An Introduction was a delight. And then having Seymour Bernstein there, and giving a master class on the stage of The Virginia was as good as the movie itself. And that is coming from someone who knows next to nothing about playing music.
Ebertfest 2015 Day 4
Wild Tales was my favorite film of the festival. I just wish it had opened the festival rather than showing on the next to last day, as it would have got the festival off to a rousing start.
There is some merit to Ida in its exploration of an overlooked aspect of The Holocaust. But the rather thin pinnings of the story are dragged out in pretentious fashion, resulting in an occasionally boring, self-important melodrama.
The Motel Life is forgettable, by the numbers indie filmmaking.
99 Homes, set to be released later this year, is heavy handed in its social message. A conventional drama like this is not what I would expect from festival favorite Ramin Bahrani. Still, I found it entertaining based on Michael Shannon's performance, which is very close to being over the top at times. In other words, if you haven't liked Micheal Shannon in the past, this movie is unlikely to change your opinion.
There is some merit to Ida in its exploration of an overlooked aspect of The Holocaust. But the rather thin pinnings of the story are dragged out in pretentious fashion, resulting in an occasionally boring, self-important melodrama.
The Motel Life is forgettable, by the numbers indie filmmaking.
99 Homes, set to be released later this year, is heavy handed in its social message. A conventional drama like this is not what I would expect from festival favorite Ramin Bahrani. Still, I found it entertaining based on Michael Shannon's performance, which is very close to being over the top at times. In other words, if you haven't liked Micheal Shannon in the past, this movie is unlikely to change your opinion.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
Ebertfest 2015 Day 3
I am not sure how I missed A Bronx Tale up to now. Maybe because it was not a big studio film, it did not play ad nauseam on the movie channels the way that Goodfellas did. It also has not been represented well on home video. Whatever the reason, over half of the audience at the Virginia had never seen it. I am sure many more people (ok, probably not the older audience at the Virginia) have seen The Simpsons episode "Bart the Murderer," where Bart is employed to make drinks for Fat Tony and his gang. It is remarkably similar to what happens in A Bronx Tale, but apparently Goodfellas was the main influence on the 1991 episode, as A Bronx Tale was not released until 1993. It is also very possible that one of the writers had seen the one-man show, which debuted on stage in 1990, the same year that Goodfellas was released. Whatever the case, A Bronx Tale has been overshadowed by Goodfellas.
The problem with these mob movies is that they have been approached from every angle. A Bronx Tale takes a more moralistic approach with its emphasis on the choice that C had to make between being like his working class father and being the protege of Sonny. While it is still a mob movie due to the amount of time spent focusing on the wiseguys, at its heart the movie is about the relationship between C and his father.
My appreciation for the movie only increased thanks to the lively and informative after-film interviews with Chazz Palminteri and producer Jon Kilik. This terrific discussion also included several questions from Leonard Maltin.
There is quite a striking contrast between A Bronx Tale and Girlhood, the earlier film of the day. Both feature characters who are 16 years old. Both characters have to choose between an easier, and probably more lucrative, life of crime or a blue collar, working stiff lifestyle. But the choices made in Girlhood are really reprehensible. The girl eschews a future involving physical labor like her mother, instead preferring the life of a thief, bully, and drug courier. That is pretty much all this movie is about. The mother is given little screen time, implying that she is not a significant part of Marieme's life, with the brother as a substitute for her father. Still, it is perplexing to represent the mother as being so absent that she is barely involved in her daughter's life, other than trying to help her obtain a job. Stylish camerawork does not make up for a nothing screenplay, with an ambiguous ending that seemed more the result of not knowing how to end the story.
The Son of the Sheik was a big disappointment. I really liked The Eagle, the other Valentino film that was shown at a previous year's festival, so maybe my expectations were too high. But Sheik really dragged during the middle section, so much so that I even noticed a few walkouts. It could easily have been fifteen minutes shorter, eliminating much needless "dialogue" and exposition during that bloated middle.
The problem with these mob movies is that they have been approached from every angle. A Bronx Tale takes a more moralistic approach with its emphasis on the choice that C had to make between being like his working class father and being the protege of Sonny. While it is still a mob movie due to the amount of time spent focusing on the wiseguys, at its heart the movie is about the relationship between C and his father.
My appreciation for the movie only increased thanks to the lively and informative after-film interviews with Chazz Palminteri and producer Jon Kilik. This terrific discussion also included several questions from Leonard Maltin.
There is quite a striking contrast between A Bronx Tale and Girlhood, the earlier film of the day. Both feature characters who are 16 years old. Both characters have to choose between an easier, and probably more lucrative, life of crime or a blue collar, working stiff lifestyle. But the choices made in Girlhood are really reprehensible. The girl eschews a future involving physical labor like her mother, instead preferring the life of a thief, bully, and drug courier. That is pretty much all this movie is about. The mother is given little screen time, implying that she is not a significant part of Marieme's life, with the brother as a substitute for her father. Still, it is perplexing to represent the mother as being so absent that she is barely involved in her daughter's life, other than trying to help her obtain a job. Stylish camerawork does not make up for a nothing screenplay, with an ambiguous ending that seemed more the result of not knowing how to end the story.
The Son of the Sheik was a big disappointment. I really liked The Eagle, the other Valentino film that was shown at a previous year's festival, so maybe my expectations were too high. But Sheik really dragged during the middle section, so much so that I even noticed a few walkouts. It could easily have been fifteen minutes shorter, eliminating much needless "dialogue" and exposition during that bloated middle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)