Side by Side: Amores Perros and Y Tu Mama Tambien

“Y Tu Mama Tambien” and “Amores Perros” are both early 2000s Mexican films, but they have more differences than they’d appear on paper.

At the dawn of the 21st Century, two directors emerged out of Mexico City with gruff, intimate films in their native tongue, but each with sprawling stories, symbolism and philosophies.

The first, Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu, made his debut film “Amores Perros” and has since moved on to Oscar bait with his films “Babel” and “Biutiful.” Critics have noted that his films have gotten grimmer, darker and more depressing as he’s grown as a filmmaker, but his next film, 2014’s “Birdman,” will be an American comedy.

The second, Alfonso Cuaron, had already been established with big budget titles, but returned to Mexico for the frankly sexual “Y Tu Mama Tambien,” a road-trip, coming of age story that could’ve never been made in Hollywood. Cuaron has now entered into the upper crust of blockbuster filmmakers with arguably the best Harry Potter movie “The Prisoner of Azkaban,” “Children of Men” and his upcoming space epic “Gravity.”

On paper, the two films are strikingly similar, a good starting point for Mexican cinema in the 2000s. In fact, both launched the career of actor Gael Garcia Bernal. But which is really the more depressing or the tougher sit? Neither film can be easily classified into the indie, foreign art film genre so easily, and although each is a striking example of how each filmmaker would grow and develop, neither can be so easily pigeonholed as equal entries into their broader, on-paper filmographies.

“Amores Perros” and “Y Tu Mama Tambien” may sound so similar because on a fundamental level, they’re both love stories. In tragic ways, they depict nuance, naiveté, betrayal and heartbreak.

“Y Tu Mama Tambien” especially is anchored on these themes. The first scene is an intensely passionate love scene between Tenoch (Diego Luna) and his girlfriend, in which he stops her and makes her promise she won’t cheat. Cross that with the frankly hilarious sex scene in which Julio (Bernal) and his girlfriend have sex while her parents wait for them to leave just downstairs. In each instance, sex is built on mistrust, a bad omen for any road trip. Continue reading “Side by Side: Amores Perros and Y Tu Mama Tambien”

GasLand and Gasland Part 2

“GasLand” and “Gasland Part 2” are angry documentaries that knows things are bad but will keep fighting for change.

“I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!” – Howard Beale, “Network”

Documentaries have for years done all they can to motivate people to action. They utilize empathy, emotion, logic and fear, and those frustrated enough to act are all just a little angry.

The Oscar nominated documentary “GasLand” and Monday night’s HBO premiere of “Gasland Part 2” appeal to all your senses, but these are angry films with a damn powerful reason to be pissed. As portrayed by Director Josh Fox, “fracking” is not merely irresponsible but a literally life threatening epidemic already spreading across our nation and posing imminent danger to millions around the world.

I write Howard Beale’s words because although as a movie critic I may question a handful of Fox’s choices as a filmmaker, I cannot lie about how deeply both his films moved me. The first informed me about the science and the dangers behind the oil and gas companies’ new method of extracting natural gas from right beneath American soil, and this new film exposed me to the contempt and corruption bred by both the corporations and the American government.

I’m not just mad as hell. I’m fucking furious. Continue reading “GasLand and Gasland Part 2”

Gideon's Army

Gideon’s Army is a rare documentary that champions lawyers and the tireless work they do.

Lawyers, as a profession, are not typically championed by Hollywood. There are infamous courtroom dramas, but the work they do is often secondary to broader narratives or racial, political or societal talking points. The protagonist is often a hero not because he’s a lawyer but because he was different from the rest.

The HBO documentary “Gideon’s Army” however sees lawyers, particularly public defenders, as people with great burdens that need to be seen and heard in AA style meetings or as soldiers who are thanked for their service by congressmen. It’s a big morality tale about holding your head high under enormous pressure, and it makes for heart-rending drama.

“Gideon’s Army” follows two public defenders in the South taking on two very similar cases. In each, a bright 20-year-old boy has been charged with armed robbery for small amounts of money, which would result in a minimum of 10 years in prison with the possibility of a life sentence.

The movie astutely points out that the flaw in the system is that most people in this situation or similar ones, regardless of innocence or not, would take a plea deal to lessen their sentence. And if they were poor, they’ll rot in jail for weeks, months or even years awaiting a trial as their life collapses around them.

You can wager a guess if you’ve seen say, “Hoop Dreams,” that one of these kids will be found innocent and the other will not, in which case “Gideon’s Army” is not really about the defendants or the broken system the movie merely laments, but their lawyers and the blood, sweat and tears they put into defending them.

The two public defenders are Travis Williams and Brandy Alexander, each juggling upwards of 150 cases at a time, each dealing with crippling student loans and arduous hours that cut into their social lives. Travis has no family and a girlfriend he doesn’t have time for, and Brandy at one point claims she has only $3 to her name. Hopefully this will get her home and back to the office again the next day when she gets paid.

“Gideon’s Army” empowers their work ethic by editing the movie in such a way that their losses are not failings but impenetrable and unseen impasses that make their effort all the more moving. One powerful scene shows Brandy in a hopeless one-sided phone call. She’s pulled strings to get her client’s charges completely dropped, but only if someone can raise $3000 for bail money. No luck, and that’s one more life ruined.

The vindication comes in the form of knowing that these people believe in what they’re doing, believe in the people they’re defending even if some of the people are rightfully evil and are doing all they can to make a difference. It all comes to fruition in a 20-minute long courtroom scene that matches up with some of the best scripted courtroom dramas out there.

“Gideon’s Army” may follow something of a formula and be too much a champion for the cause, but it’s a noble, moving documentary of unexpected emotion.

3 stars

Rapid Response: Rio Bravo

Rio Bravo sets the foundation for a longstanding movie formula and is a gem at the tail-end of Howard Hawks’s career.

My 4th of July movie was a John Wayne Western, Howard Hawks’s “Rio Bravo,” and it don’t get more American than that.

According to Robert Osborne on Turner Classic Movies, the film was a direct response to “High Noon” (it’s been a long while since I’ve seen it, but I think it’s a bit overrated myself) in that a sheriff would never go around asking for help.

In my mind, this meant to me that “Rio Bravo” would be one of Wayne’s gruffer, stubborn performances for not asking for help, but after arresting the murderer Joe Burdette, his real reason is a noble one; he’d rather not see a bunch of innocent amateurs serve as “more targets to shoot at” for the wealthy Nathan Burdette’s men.

In fact, all of “Rio Bravo” is built on this sense of misguided morality, not logic, and it establishes a long-running formula of a hero, a hotshot kid, a drunk and an old man fighting for what’s right. Wayne’s John T. Chance (T for Trouble) is only the sheriff because it’s a job he’s been doing for a long time and is good at. Dude (Dean Martin) doesn’t have anywhere else to be because he’s a pathetic alcoholic. Stumpy (Walter Brennan) is a sly, funny old coot, but is best served staying put inside the jail. Colorado (Ricky Nelson) is good enough that he could move on if he wanted, but he sticks around because he feels needed. Continue reading “Rapid Response: Rio Bravo”

Before Midnight

With “Before Midnight,” Richard Linklater continues to deepen the themes in this beautiful franchise.

If there’s one thing “Before Midnight,” Richard Linklater’s powerfully moving threequel to one of the best love sagas in movie history, has to teach us about middle age, it’s that life is no longer all about you.

Linklater’s most daring addition to “Midnight” could be having two completely different characters walking and talking in tandem, not solely Jesse and Celine. The opposite was once true, and the plotless, intimate focus on just these two young lovers was what made 1995’s “Before Sunrise” so effortlessly experimental. By adding a few characters who fall into familiar conventions, “Midnight” may be the least experimental of Linklater’s trilogy, but he continues to deepen these themes and lives in ways that couldn’t have been imagined if this trilogy was preconceived. Continue reading “Before Midnight”

No (2013)

Gael Garcia Bernal’s performance in “No,” along with an old-fashioned, boxy aspect ratio, make “No” one of hte more mystique and intrigue filled films of the year.

In the foreign language Oscar nominee “No,” Rene Saavedra (Gael Garcia Bernal) put the dictator Augusto Pinochet out of power in Chile by changing the messaging and look of the “No” campaign against him. Saavedra wasn’t selling democracy; he was selling a concept, and Chile bought it. Director Pablo Larrain distinctly alters the look and tone of his political drama and sells us on this idea of images and perception.

“No” is set in Chile in 1988, when Augusto Pinochet had been in power for 15 years and was now sponsoring an election as a feeble attempt to legitimize the government in the face of the Americans. The two sides of the campaign, Yes and No, would each get 15 minutes of advertising material on TV a day. Leading up the No campaign is Saavedra, a hot-shot marketing agent putting stolid conviction behind his cheesy soda commercials as rebellious, youthful statements that the public is finally ready to embrace. The head of the Yes campaign is his partner, and the two engage in a creative war in which message, not politics, matter. Continue reading “No (2013)”

The Way, Way Back

“The Way, Way Back” will work for many as an indie, coming-of-age crowd pleaser, but through its characters and its story, it struggles to find a voice.

There’s a scene in “The Way, Way Back” where Duncan’s mom Pam explains how she was won over by her new boyfriend Trent. “We’re all in this together,” he told her. That’s sweet, but what’s “this” and why exactly are they “in this” at all?

“The Way, Way Back” will work for many as an indie, coming-of-age crowd pleaser, but through its characters and its story, it struggles to find a voice and a purpose to build a film with real heart and depth.

Just why is Duncan (Liam James), the film’s 14-year-old protagonist, an especially mopey teenager? Hunched shoulders and head down at all times, he can barely string a few words together, let alone tell us why he’s so depressed or what he’s like. His interests seem to include REO Speedwagon and playing with sand, but that’s not much to go on.

His real bitterness stems from a dislike of his mom’s (Toni Collette) new boyfriend Trent (Steve Carell). Trent has taken them both on a vacation to some undisclosed quaint beach town for apparently the whole summer, and although he’s trying to make this a family, the two don’t seem to get along.

Duncan is however drawn to the lazy, oafish, playboy owner of a waterpark named Owen (Sam Rockwell). Owen offers him a job and takes him under his wing, teaching him Midwestern urban legends and how to not-so-discreetly stare at girls in bikinis. He even gives him helpful prodding to join in a dance battle. Continue reading “The Way, Way Back”

Revisited: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Is “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” one of the worst movies ever made? I play fair and revisit it.

 

Recently, a fellow blogger started a blogathon and posed a challenge: write a bad review of a good movie or a good review of a bad movie.

To be mean to something good is more commonly known as trolling, which isn’t difficult at all. To write something good about a bad movie on the other hand did not mean to lie, but to play fair. If I was going to do so, I thought how great it would be to pick something not just bad, but monumentally awful. And if I picked the worst movie I’d ever seen, what could be a greater challenge?

So, with that said, is “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” the worst movie I’ve ever seen?

I used to think so. More than many other film experiences, seeing the second “Transformers” was a watershed moment for me as a critic. Rarely had I seen a film that had such a strong disconnect between critics and fans, a 35 on Metacritic and yet $400 million domestically at the box office, the second highest of 2009. I had arguments with friends and family and got in trouble at work for ranting. I began using the expression “action extravaganza” liberally to describe it, a term I borrowed from a video game critic who used it to describe games like “Call of Duty” that were so intense and heavy handed in gritty, modern warfare that people foamed at the mouth.

Roger Ebert famously wrote that the film was so bloated that film classes would look back on it fondly as the end of an era, but hindsight has shown that CGI heavy blockbusters such as this have not disappeared.

Skids and Mudflap Transformers 2

In fact, the third movie, “Transformers: Dark of the Moon,” is possibly as bad, if not worse, despite a mild uptick in reviews. The plot became more convoluted, it takes more liberties with historical moments and landmarks, it turns Sam Witwicky (Shia Labeouf) into an egotistical prick, the fight scenes got even louder and bigger, and it even adds four minutes to its run time.

The only distinct difference is the lack of “ROTF”’s embarrassingly racist robot twins, two souped-up spitfires who slung hip hop epithets, fought constantly and could not read. But “DOTM” includes everything but the “black” robot, resorting to British and white-trash stereotypes instead.

“Revenge of the Fallen” has the place in history because it surprised us all. The action blockbusters of the 2000s seemed to grow to this point, a film that really was louder, busier and heavier than any that had come before. Only the previous year with “The Dark Knight,” it had felt as though the comic book genre really could be grandiose and brilliant at the same time, but “Transformers” sent the genre the other way in titanic fashion. Continue reading “Revisited: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen”

Rapid Response: House of Flying Daggers

“House of Flying Daggers” was highly acclaimed upon release, but is it really a good looking film?

I wonder if people think “House of Flying Daggers” has aged well. Zhang Yimou’s martial arts epic was universally heralded upon its 2004 release, being championed for its color, its visual style and its operatic approach to both its story and its action set pieces. It arrived just a few years after the high created by “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” and it was a colorful counterpoint to movies that were beginning to amplify the “action extravaganza” style of intense, CGI filled action filmmaking. Of course it was adored.

I personally found it to have horribly wooden acting, a flimsy, over the top plot and gimmicky magical conveniences, but that seems not to be the point for debate in a movie such as this. The question is, is “House of Flying Daggers” a good looking movie?

“Daggers” is a wonderful example of a film I tend to see a lot these days and see championed by some filmmaker friends, amongst others; it is very pretty, but it is not necessarily well-shot.

Everything in the film is perfectly crisp, the colors pop with alacrity on my Blu-Ray version, and the sets and costumes are done up with precision.

House of Flying Daggers Green

But Yimou’s idea of a good looking shot tends to be a lone warrior standing in the center of the frame in deep focus surrounded by trees or flowers or soldiers stretching to infinity. Yimou shoots wide shots as though he was David Lean, but faces and bodies are always placed smack dab in the middle with little nuance or variation in between. A sequence in a vast field of flowers is so overly stylized that to just look at it suggests a Hallmark cliche. In another scene near the Flying Daggers hideout, the color green is so overly prominent as to be shouting at us. Roger Ebert used the term “oversaturated, wide-angle Wacky-scope” in his review of Yimou’s “A Woman, a Gun and a Noodle Shop.” I can’t be certain what that means, but I think it fits here as well.

This in my view also hurts the much lauded fight scenes. Scenes are shot with full-bodied glimpses of these fighters for sure, but “Daggers” lacks the economy of “Crouching Tiger,” and the numerous shots of daggers striking trees, nuts bouncing off drums and feet colliding with jaws do not add up to as perfectly seamless a sequence as it initially appears. The camera performs unnatural feats, including aerial flips and spins, that disorient the flow as well, and too often Yimou holds onto the crutch of creating a circle of death in which its heroes are trapped, only to fight till near death and be saved by daggers, arrows and bamboo spears that fly miles through the air and make left turns.

Again, all this might matter less to me if the story was solid, but for as much ethereal beauty as “Daggers” has, it has almost none of the poetry of “Crouching Tiger.” The “wind” analogy is used so often throughout the film that Yimou struggles to find something new and meaningful to say instead.

“Daggers” is good for a few laughs, especially at the expense of magic, but the film lacks some of the filmmaker magic compared to other directors’ films and his own.

Don't take aim at Jim Carrey

People shouldn’t be attacking Jim Carrey based on his political stance on “Kick-Ass 2.” We should be asking questions we can reasonably influence.

 

It’s amazing how much ire just two tweets can cause. Jim Carrey yesterday created a “controversy” by posting on Twitter that after the events of the Sandy Hook massacre, he could no longer help promote the upcoming film he stars in, “Kick-Ass 2.”

Carrey, who has recently been a vocal gun control advocate, effectively caused a political fervor over his public comments. Some fans, critics and anti-gun supporters have come to his side in taking this bold stance against a potential summer blockbuster and a hot topic, but most have called out his supposed hypocrisy, claiming that the timing of Sandy Hook and the impending release of “Kick-Ass 2” seem off, and that Carrey has appeared in numerous films in which he has wielded guns but has never expressed disdain over this or similarly over other massacres in recent memory.

 

 

This is a faulty argument, firstly because it’s unfair to criticize Carrey for trying to change his opinion and have a “change of heart,” secondly because several of the aforementioned films in which he holds guns are from the ‘90s and are referenced without context. What’s more, if you can find me a modern, major male actor who has not held at least one gun in a film, then you win bragging rights for the day.

Although Carrey’s comments have turned into a political pissing match in which conflicting statements and ad-hominem attacks about Carrey’s choices as a comedian are being thrown around willfully, this debate does raise interesting questions about the state of violence in the movies.

Carrey has put critics and movie supporters in a difficult place; defense of his statement arguably implies by association that “Kick-Ass 2” is too violent, and that he has all the reason to abstain based on his political beliefs. And although I can’t speak for all critics, the general opinion is that works of art, movies or otherwise, do not cause real world violence. That would be ridiculous. But Carrey’s minimal comment (which really shouldn’t be overanalyzed) sways closer to Fox News’ assertion (despite what Fox has said about Carrey in this aftermath) that it is popular culture, not guns, that cause violence.

What cannot be argued is that there is a lot of violence in mainstream Hollywood films, regardless of the context in which they are presented. How much is too much, what crosses the line, and what massacre has to make major studios rethink the images that are fit for frivolous, summer release? Continue reading “Don't take aim at Jim Carrey”