|
Post by AD on Apr 30, 2011 23:54:34 GMT -5
I didn’t know if I was going to bother with this again, but I’ve decided to give it one more try.
Pick any country other than the one in which you live, then watch and review at least one movie from that country by the end of the month.
Pretty straightforward, I think. The movie doesn’t have to be in a foreign language, just from a country that is foreign to you. Expand your horizons. Learn about another culture through the magic of cinema.
There’s a pretty good chance this will be the last time I do this if I don’t see an increase in participation, which wouldn’t be that hard since April saw exactly zero percent of you participate. I think I’ve continued with it longer than any sane person would have.
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on May 1, 2011 0:25:40 GMT -5
Apologies for dropping the ball last month. I will be watching five Melville films before this Thursday... but, rather than posting in last month's thread, i'll just use France as my country for this month.
|
|
Deleted
I have made 0 posts
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2011 1:19:31 GMT -5
I'll participate in this month's topic. Since having these allergies, I'm spending alot more time indoors, so why not throw on a flick.
Now, I just gotta find something foreign to watch.
|
|
|
Post by RyanGoslingFan99 on May 1, 2011 12:37:35 GMT -5
Apologies also, I watched 3 Rodriguez films but never got around to actually sitting down and writing a review for them.
Neighbor No. 13 (2005)
I watched Neighbor No.13 a few years back when I was into my J-Horror phase. I would grasp at any horror movie that wasn't American just because how different Japanese and American horror truly were(this was in 2005, I didn't really have a lot of movies under my belt) Now, the horror genre almost mirrors itself in every country with a few exceptions. Upon my first viewing I found Neighbor No.13 to be disturbing but nothing special. I chose to watch it again to see if that change with a second viewing.
Neighbor No.13 is your basic Jekyll and Hyde storyline, with young Juzo being bullied by a group of kids lead by a boy named Akai. Judo is a very nice man but over time, he develops an alter ego that carries out these brutal crimes against his attackers. Judo eventually works his way towards Akai family which leads to some interesting twists.
I found this film to be far more disturbing upon my second viewing. I think it has alot to do with how bullying has increased in media coverage so a film like this feels alittle bit more real. The film is well paced and filled with disturbing images and sequences throughout. One in particular involving Juzo and Akai's younger son was really hard to watch. This film does quite a bit to build suspense but I think the ending really puts a black eye on the film as a whole. It's the typical J-horror ending to a movie that didn't really need it.
|
|
|
Post by zee on May 1, 2011 21:32:40 GMT -5
Four Lions (2010) - UK The premise of this film interested me a lot: a group of radical Muslims aspire to become suicide bombers and fulfill their lifetime goal of dying for the right cause. It's been 10 years since the 9/11 attacks, and I had yet to see anything other than the pro-Americana hero story. Muslims were always given the villain terrorist role, effectively replacing Russians as America's most feared arch-enemy. While this film doesn't entirely redeem Muslim radicals (they all look like idiots at one point or another, but then again, who doesn't), it does do a good job of giving them depth. The filmmakers did a great job of allowing me to sympathize with all of them, something I feel is rather hard to do in today's era. I did have a problem with the accents though. I've seen the King's Speech, and that wasn't too hard to understand. This was.....something else. I had to rewind the movie multiple times to make sure I heard them correctly, something that was not only really annoying, but also hurt my enjoyment of it. Thankfully, the film's unique story made up for it. The film basically follows a group of four Islamic radicals who try to "go out with a bang". It's a comedy, so all the sad death stuff is toned down, replaced with jokes/one-liners. I didn't mind this as I'm not much of a sappy guy, the jokes were hit-or-miss though. It's also interesting to note that this film makes great use of the documentary dynamic, switching between docu shots and film cameras at random points throughout the movie. I found this cool (although I will admit I always find this cool, no matter the film), even though the film's main story is enough to carry it. Out of the two British films I've seen (King's Speech and this one) I would probably pick this one as the better one. The King's Speech's message is rather easy to tell, Four Lions' is unconventional (which i prefer). It's just an interesting take on an already interesting topic. So.........go watch it if you haven't already.
|
|
|
Post by Maf on May 1, 2011 22:36:30 GMT -5
^It's ironic you chose to review that today.
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on May 2, 2011 6:15:01 GMT -5
MVZ MMC: May 2011 Bob le flambeur (dir. Jean-Pierre Melville, 1956) A precursor to the French New Wave, Melville's Bob le flambeur anticipates many of the stylistic innovations that French cinema would offer in the 1960s. A love-letter to American gangster pictures, the film involves a disembodied, all-seeing narrator and even a sequence in which we see a planned heist as imagined by the titular gambler. Beyond the fun that it has with its narrative structure, Bob le flambeur successfully adapts the gangster genre's traditions and invents a wholly original protagonist. Described as an "old young man, a legend of recent past", Bob's characterization suggests the gangsters of the 1930s. He's loyal, honest, and, most important to the narrative purposes of the plot, undistracted by women. His protege, on the other hand, is reckless - just as The Godfather would juxtapose two generations of crime, we can perhaps view Bob le flambeur as evoking a nostalgia of the gangsters of the past. In the end, Bob's Achilles heel reveals itself to no surprise. The narrator often discusses fate - "Now Bob is about to play his final hand and fate will have its way." - and throughout the film Bob challenges his ever-unreliable lucky streaks through his simple need to roll the die. Although the film suggests Christian symbolism in a few places - notably in the roulette wheel at the end of the film - Bob's fate appears to not be dictated by himself or by any God, rather by his only true muse: lady luck herself. Such is the life of a gambler. My MMC History:05/01: Bob le flambeur (Melville, 1956): 5/5 03/07: Jigoku (Nakagawa, 1960): 3.5/503/07: Black Narcissus (Powell & Pressburger, 1947: 4/502/25: A Damsel in Distress (Stevens, 1937): 3/502/25: Alien (Scott, 1979): 4.5/502/22: Manhattan Melodrama (Van Dyke, 1934): 4/502/11: The Matrix (Andy & Lana Wachowski, 1999): 3/501/12: My Dog Tulip (Paul & Sandra Fierlinger, 2009): 4.5/512/31: Easy Rider (Hopper, 1969): 2.5/512/31: Head (Rafelson, 1968): 3.5/512/31: Le bonheur (Varda, 1965): 5/512/31: Au Hasard Balthazar (Bresson, 1966): 4.5/512/31: Alphaville (Godard, 1965): 2.5/512/16: Hush... Hush, Sweet Charlotte (Aldrich, 1963): 3/512/14: The Birds (Hitchcock, 1963): 3.5/510/30: Blood for Dracula (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1974): 4/510/30: Flesh for Frankenstein (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1973): 3/510/30: Eyes Without a Face (Franju, 1960): 3.5/510/30: Peeping Tom (Powell, 1960): 5/510/29: Onibaba (Shindô, 1964): 4/510/14: Near Dark (Bigelow, 1987): 3.5/5 [/url] 10/13: Vampyr (Dreyer, 1932): 5/5[/url] 10/06: Daughters of Darkness (Kümel, 1971): 3.5/5[/url][/spoiler]
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on May 2, 2011 6:23:24 GMT -5
MVZ MMC: May 2011 Le doulos (dir. Jean-Pierre Melville, 1962) Embracing the genre conventions of the American film noir, Le doulos is a convoluted B-grade policier too satisfied with its own twists. Melville's technique of withholding information is successfully disorienting, but despite the film's narrative complexities, all ambiguities are extinguished in a baffling sequence late in the film in which the characters sit down and discuss exactly what has transpired scene-by-scene through a utilization of flashbacks. Though the plot might be laborious, the performances of Jean-Paul Belmondo and Serge Reggiani elevate the material. Reggiani, like the titular character of Bob le flambeur, is an aged, weary gangster just having served a prison sentence. Like the films that precede it, the film glorifies the criminals through a romanticization of their loyalty to one another (which is somewhat ironic, given that the central anxiety of the film is betrayal). Belmondo, who had become an international star only two years earlier in Breathless, is well suited to play the film's most unpredictable character. Initially appearing as little more than a common thug, his intelligence is key to the latter half of the picture. Melville himself emerges as an unreliable narrator in his misleading telling of the narrative. In withholding information to the audience, however, the plot becomes consciously driven by his own devices rather than by the actions of the characters themselves. Given a more satisfying reveal, perhaps Melville's games would have been better justified. My MMC History:05/02: Le doulos (Melville, 1962): 2.5/5 05/01: Bob le flambeur (Melville, 1956): 5/503/07: Jigoku (Nakagawa, 1960): 3.5/503/07: Black Narcissus (Powell & Pressburger, 1947: 4/502/25: A Damsel in Distress (Stevens, 1937): 3/502/25: Alien (Scott, 1979): 4.5/502/22: Manhattan Melodrama (Van Dyke, 1934): 4/502/11: The Matrix (Andy & Lana Wachowski, 1999): 3/501/12: My Dog Tulip (Paul & Sandra Fierlinger, 2009): 4.5/512/31: Easy Rider (Hopper, 1969): 2.5/512/31: Head (Rafelson, 1968): 3.5/512/31: Le bonheur (Varda, 1965): 5/512/31: Au Hasard Balthazar (Bresson, 1966): 4.5/512/31: Alphaville (Godard, 1965): 2.5/512/16: Hush... Hush, Sweet Charlotte (Aldrich, 1963): 3/512/14: The Birds (Hitchcock, 1963): 3.5/510/30: Blood for Dracula (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1974): 4/510/30: Flesh for Frankenstein (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1973): 3/510/30: Eyes Without a Face (Franju, 1960): 3.5/510/30: Peeping Tom (Powell, 1960): 5/510/29: Onibaba (Shindô, 1964): 4/510/14: Near Dark (Bigelow, 1987): 3.5/5 [/url] 10/13: Vampyr (Dreyer, 1932): 5/5[/url] 10/06: Daughters of Darkness (Kümel, 1971): 3.5/5[/url][/spoiler]
|
|
|
Post by Maf on May 5, 2011 18:47:05 GMT -5
Buried (2010-Spain) People weren't kidding when they said this movie was a claustrophobe's worst nightmare, and I honestly couldn't believe how well they did it. When you're sitting in a dark silent room and the only thing you see is what's going on in the movie, it sort of gets to you after a while. I thought the story of him just being a truck driver and his convoy being ambushed was believable and not too over the top to hurt my enjoyment of the movie. The struggles he has with first accepting that he has been buried alive and then trying to find a way out are both excellently done and really add a layer of realism to the movie. A part of that layer however, is thrown away when they decide to involve a snake with him. First of all, if he is indeed buried alive the snake would have no where to go since there would literally be walls of dirt surrounding the coffin. It just seemed really unneeded for the snake to get involved in the first place. The conversations he has with both his wife and the man trying to get him out (I can't remember his name for some reason) both seem very genuine to me and really got my hopes up for a possible release. The ending of the movie was extremely well done, and I really thought that they were going to find him. The moment when he is informed that they found the body of the person he thought had survived was not only a crushing blow for him but also for me. I actually felt sorry for the guy.
Overall I think it's just a really well made movie that people should watch. However, make sure to do in a dark room in order to get the movie's full effect.
|
|
|
Post by Rishlicious on May 5, 2011 19:21:01 GMT -5
I'm sure there will be lots more participation in the Summer once people have tons more time (at least I know from me!), so I hope you continue it. I've hardly watched any films lately because I've been studying most of the time for upcoming exams, although I could've done Sidney Lumet for April as I watched 2 of his films the day after he died. They count for this though, so after May 18th maybe I'll go crazy!
|
|
|
Post by AD on May 16, 2011 1:30:20 GMT -5
IN A BETTER WORLD (Susanne Bier, 2010) Netflix description: I could tell you that I think In A Better World is a well intentioned, reasonably well made, extremely well acted, and beautifully photographed film, and I wouldn’t be lying. It would also be true if I told you that it was kind of boring, and a little too preachy and sentimental for my liking. “Admirable” is the adjective I’d use to sum up my thoughts on the film in one word. It’s not necessarily “good” and certainly not “Oscar-worthy” (whatever the hell that means), despite what the academy members decided a few months back. The biggest problem with the film is a script that is too obvious about what it is. Everything about the plot is designed specifically to deliver the message that the filmmakers are looking to deliver. The message doesn’t arise naturally from the plot. It’s like the writer had three or four check points laid out for his characters to pass through, and writing the rest of the script was simply a matter of playing connect the dots. Nothing in the story feels like it comes about naturally. It’s too easy to see the gears spinning If I used star ratings or any sort of numerical values in my reviews I would have no idea what to give this movie. Do I go high because of the superb acting and interesting philosophy, or do I go low because not once did I care about the characters and their emotional journeys? I’d probably just cop out and give it the most neutral rating possible. But with a gun to my head I guess I’d have to say I think you should see it, if only because it’s worth talking about. That still doesn’t mean I think it’s all that good as a movie. Does that make any sense? P.S: That was not a rhetorical question.
|
|
|
Post by AD on May 17, 2011 22:33:50 GMT -5
TERRIBLY HAPPY (Henrik Ruben Genz, 2008) Netflix description: It didn’t take long for me to start comparing Terribly Happy to the films of Joel and Ethan Coen. It opens with a montage of shots showing rural landscapes, with voice over accompaniment, that is an obvious nod to the openings of both Blood Simple and No Country For Old Men. It also reminded me more than a little of the type of novels Jim Thompson was famous for writing. It’s got a twisted, dark, film noir type of plot line, but with elements of the surreal, or even the supernatural buried beneath the surface. Perhaps unintentionally, it captures the spirit of Thompson’s writing far better than Michael Winterbottom’s recent adaptation of his book The Killer Inside Me. The town of Skarrild, where all the action takes place, is the film’s greatest creation. It actually wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to say that the town is a sort of Hell on Earth, and Robert will be forced to spend the rest of his life there as punishment for his past, present, and possible future transgressions. What could be worse for a dedicated cop than to be stuck working in a town that has absolutely no need for him? The answer: a town that appears to have every need for him that is filled with people who refuse to cooperate and let him do his job. When done well, this type of thing is like crack to me, and this movie gave me the fix I was looking for. It’s supposedly going to be remade in English, but you should see this version first, because, you know, it’s the original and all that shit.
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on May 18, 2011 20:53:59 GMT -5
MVZ MMC: May 2011 Le deuxième souffle (dir. Jean-Pierre Melville, 1966) In my study of the influence of the American gangster film on Jean-Pierre Melville (specifically regarding concepts of masculinity), perhaps no other film best suited my cause than Melville's Le deuxième souffle. Like Bob of Bob le flambeur or Maurice of Le doulos, Gu is an aged gangster exiting prison and forced to interact with a "new" society in which criminal etiquette is a thing of the past. Using Gu's subjectivity to draw us into the world - from the very beginning of the film, we see the detailed account of his prison break and the death of his two accomplices - Melville's vision of gangsterdom is one of paranoia and uncertainty. Watch, for example, the way that Gu quickly wakes from his sleep and, without hesitation, arms himself with a pistol. While little is revealed about Gu (it is suggested that he was committed for a "gold train" heist ten years prior to the beginning of the film), it is in these actions that the audience gets a sense of not only Gu's professionalism, but the way in which he never allows his guard to drop. The centerpiece of the film - the heist - is thoroughly planned and shot in real time. Melville as the observer shoots such sequences with a detached objectivity - just as Jef of Le samouraï is a meticulous craftsman, Melville seems to similarly admire the precision of these characters. In fact, at the beginning of the heist, a long stretch of film is given to the gangsters simply waiting for the arrival of the truck. This matter-of-fact, unromanticized account of crime reminded me of last year's Police, Adjective, wherein the life of a cop is presented as being monotonous and uneventful. The violence in this film is also ugly, stressing the consequences of each bullet fired. My MMC History:05/18: Le deuxième souffle (Melville 1966): 3.5/5 05/02: Le doulos (Melville, 1962): 2.5/505/01: Bob le flambeur (Melville, 1956): 5/503/07: Jigoku (Nakagawa, 1960): 3.5/503/07: Black Narcissus (Powell & Pressburger, 1947: 4/502/25: A Damsel in Distress (Stevens, 1937): 3/502/25: Alien (Scott, 1979): 4.5/502/22: Manhattan Melodrama (Van Dyke, 1934): 4/502/11: The Matrix (Andy & Lana Wachowski, 1999): 3/501/12: My Dog Tulip (Paul & Sandra Fierlinger, 2009): 4.5/512/31: Easy Rider (Hopper, 1969): 2.5/512/31: Head (Rafelson, 1968): 3.5/512/31: Le bonheur (Varda, 1965): 5/512/31: Au Hasard Balthazar (Bresson, 1966): 4.5/512/31: Alphaville (Godard, 1965): 2.5/512/16: Hush... Hush, Sweet Charlotte (Aldrich, 1963): 3/512/14: The Birds (Hitchcock, 1963): 3.5/510/30: Blood for Dracula (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1974): 4/510/30: Flesh for Frankenstein (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1973): 3/510/30: Eyes Without a Face (Franju, 1960): 3.5/510/30: Peeping Tom (Powell, 1960): 5/510/29: Onibaba (Shindô, 1964): 4/510/14: Near Dark (Bigelow, 1987): 3.5/5 [/url] 10/13: Vampyr (Dreyer, 1932): 5/5[/url] 10/06: Daughters of Darkness (Kümel, 1971): 3.5/5[/url][/spoiler]
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on May 24, 2011 21:54:44 GMT -5
MVZ MMC: May 2011 Le samouraï (dir. Jean-Pierre Melville, 1967) A deliberate craftsman, Jef's detached composure serves the film in a way that contradicts one's expectations. Rather than divorcing the audience emotionally from the proceedings, he earns our respect and admiration - an element perhaps only possible with a lead as charismatic as Alain Delon. Although Jef is regularly discussed in criticism as being systematic, the film also parallels Jef's craft with the police force's sophisticated, almost mechanical operation. The witness selection process is calibrated to perfection, and the slightest fault with a testimony is not forgiven until thoroughly investigated. Perhaps, then, one could surmise that Jef has an admiration for the law - in the end of the picture, his final decision is one which shows that he hasn't underestimated his enemy. Melville argues, however, that despite their efficiency, they lack Jef's honor (his code), as the superintendent is characterized as manipulative and purely perfunctory, whereas Jef eventually shows humanity if only in the situations in which he is compromised by a stronger foe. It is unclear whether or not Jef is content. Though he lives with dignity, Melville parallels his own seclusion with a bird in a cage - one of the few decorative elements of his empty apartment (later revealed to serve a purpose as a security system). His sex life is non-descript - his one female companion seems to serve more regularly as an alibi than as a partner. Perhaps the interest he takes in the pianist can be seen as his Achilles heel, just as Bob of Bob le flambeur was ultimately undone by his own vice. Though his final action is signified as honorable, one must question whether or not Jef did ultimately neglect his code, effectively castrating him and leaving him with one option left. My MMC History:05/24: Le samouraï (Melville, 1967): 5/5 05/18: Le deuxième souffle (Melville 1966): 3.5/505/02: Le doulos (Melville, 1962): 2.5/505/01: Bob le flambeur (Melville, 1956): 5/503/07: Jigoku (Nakagawa, 1960): 3.5/503/07: Black Narcissus (Powell & Pressburger, 1947: 4/502/25: A Damsel in Distress (Stevens, 1937): 3/502/25: Alien (Scott, 1979): 4.5/502/22: Manhattan Melodrama (Van Dyke, 1934): 4/502/11: The Matrix (Andy & Lana Wachowski, 1999): 3/501/12: My Dog Tulip (Paul & Sandra Fierlinger, 2009): 4.5/512/31: Easy Rider (Hopper, 1969): 2.5/512/31: Head (Rafelson, 1968): 3.5/512/31: Le bonheur (Varda, 1965): 5/512/31: Au Hasard Balthazar (Bresson, 1966): 4.5/512/31: Alphaville (Godard, 1965): 2.5/512/16: Hush... Hush, Sweet Charlotte (Aldrich, 1963): 3/512/14: The Birds (Hitchcock, 1963): 3.5/510/30: Blood for Dracula (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1974): 4/510/30: Flesh for Frankenstein (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1973): 3/510/30: Eyes Without a Face (Franju, 1960): 3.5/510/30: Peeping Tom (Powell, 1960): 5/510/29: Onibaba (Shindô, 1964): 4/510/14: Near Dark (Bigelow, 1987): 3.5/5 [/url] 10/13: Vampyr (Dreyer, 1932): 5/5[/url] 10/06: Daughters of Darkness (Kümel, 1971): 3.5/5[/url][/spoiler]
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on May 25, 2011 4:40:01 GMT -5
MVZ MMC: May 2011 Le cercle rouge (dir. Jean-Pierre Melville, 1970) The centerpiece of Le cercle rouge - a silent, thirty minute heist sequence - exemplifies Melville's familiar God-like objectivity in dealing with crime. In a series of long takes, the audience is led to admire the precision of the gangster craft. To Melville, this is dance. Using familiar elements from all of his earlier gangster pictures, Le cercle rouge is again a film about the gangster code of ethics. Corey protects the intruding escaped convict Jansen - who has hidden in his trunk - from an investigator, feeling a kinship and perhaps admiration for someone who not only served a sentence in prison, but has daringly escaped from it. Later, the character of Santi expresses an unwillingness to snitch, which is, from as early as Bob le flambeur, the biggest sin a Melvillian gangster can commit. Ironically, only in a few occasions do they actually inform, despite such anxieties contributing to much of the suspense in each of the pictures. If the film has one shortcoming, it is in the character of Jansen. Played by the legendary Yves Montand, his introduction into the film is an absurd hallucinatory sequence involving a series of tormenting creatures which crawl on him as he squirms in an apparent drunken stupor. While Montand's performance in the latter part of the film is effectively conceived, this sequence - which ultimately serves to contrast with Jansen's redemption near the end of the picture - is a baffling tangent in an otherwise wholly understated effort. My MMC History:05/25: Le cercle rouge (Melville, 1970): 4.5/5 05/24: Le samouraï (Melville, 1967): 5/505/18: Le deuxième souffle (Melville 1966): 3.5/505/02: Le doulos (Melville, 1962): 2.5/505/01: Bob le flambeur (Melville, 1956): 5/503/07: Jigoku (Nakagawa, 1960): 3.5/503/07: Black Narcissus (Powell & Pressburger, 1947: 4/502/25: A Damsel in Distress (Stevens, 1937): 3/502/25: Alien (Scott, 1979): 4.5/502/22: Manhattan Melodrama (Van Dyke, 1934): 4/502/11: The Matrix (Andy & Lana Wachowski, 1999): 3/501/12: My Dog Tulip (Paul & Sandra Fierlinger, 2009): 4.5/512/31: Easy Rider (Hopper, 1969): 2.5/512/31: Head (Rafelson, 1968): 3.5/512/31: Le bonheur (Varda, 1965): 5/512/31: Au Hasard Balthazar (Bresson, 1966): 4.5/512/31: Alphaville (Godard, 1965): 2.5/512/16: Hush... Hush, Sweet Charlotte (Aldrich, 1963): 3/512/14: The Birds (Hitchcock, 1963): 3.5/510/30: Blood for Dracula (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1974): 4/510/30: Flesh for Frankenstein (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1973): 3/510/30: Eyes Without a Face (Franju, 1960): 3.5/510/30: Peeping Tom (Powell, 1960): 5/510/29: Onibaba (Shindô, 1964): 4/510/14: Near Dark (Bigelow, 1987): 3.5/5 [/url] 10/13: Vampyr (Dreyer, 1932): 5/5[/url] 10/06: Daughters of Darkness (Kümel, 1971): 3.5/5[/url][/spoiler]
|
|