cliff-19

This was an unexpected surprise on a long bus trip out of Bangkok. The four Thai guys are NOT in Africa; they are in Thailand. The bus driver calls out implausible Thai locations, but the locale changes into Africa, then into the American Wild West, then back into Thailand. All the Africans (and the American cowboys) speak Thai, and the ghosts are Thai, Chinese, British and African. One of the African "cannibals" tells them that he used to work as a comedian in Bangkok.

The movie is loaded with pop culture jokes, including references to The Wild Bunch, Tsui Hark movies, a cameo by a Charles Bronson look-alike and tons of jokes about those brain-numbing ghost comedies. There are also many movie-within-a-movie frame changes and a cool ending where they go over the script of the movie we just saw.

Recommended ONLY if you already have seen some of those Thai comedies -- most of the jokes would otherwise be over your head.

There is a good premise here, that someone brought into a Taliban-like group may have misgivings when pressured to do objectionable things. Further, the interaction with the foreign hostage may trigger these doubts. This was one of the themes of "The Crying Game", among others.

But this movie makes so many foolish decisions and has its characters behaving so implausibly, it just smells like Hollywood in the mix.

We can see how ridiculous this movie has become when we compare the movie's journalist with actual journalists who were captured. There are clear ways that informants on the other side are protected, and that protection is part of the returnee's debriefing. The setup we are given here, of a journalist fearing that her lies would be disclosed, is so preposterous, it is clear that no real journalist was shown a script.

First, let me say that the low score of 8 is only because of an improbable plot point near the end.More on that later.

The rekindled grief of the survivors is the whole point of the movie. Watching the anguish as it goes through stages is utterly gripping, especially seeing how the parents of the little boy go through such dissimilar reactions.

The "pieces of the puzzle" method of telling the tale is also gripping. We see the peculiarities of the returned and cannot fully understand it. Then, when our puzzlement is at its height, a researcher explains what we had observed but couldn't understand.

****SPOILERS**** Two things marred this for me. One was the stalking doctor. His presence made little sense to me, other than as a stand-in for the director. The other was the bit about the sabotage and the exploding sleep medication. Just silly. You could just as easily had the dead gather, and then spontaneously collapse in exhaustion. Then, the stunningly lovely ending would have made more sense. Had it stayed at the level of parable, it would earn a 10 for sure.

First, we should all applaud any popular entertainment that takes on the crimes of the recent American past. Here is a (largely worthwhile) Indian effort that is too far to the implausible end of the spectrum for my tastes. But it also has a political blind spot that makes it troubling and not only a bit foolish.

The part I found troubling is the way the US is defended. The filmmaker succeeds in making terrorist sympathizers of the audience, then lamely states the US case with totally unconvincing platitudes. The US government relentlessly behaves in a brutal and unapologetic manner throughout the film, and is then defended with a line like, "People make mistakes. Countries do, too." Well, if my wife made a mistake as severe as the US makes in this movie (drawn heavily from the headlines), she darn well better apologize or I'm gone! But do the Americans apologize? Have Americans ever apologized, i.e. the way Kevin Rudd did recently? There are MANY films that deal with these moral/political issues far better. The Bollywood epic "Mission Kashmir," for all its Bollywood silliness, does a far better job. The outstanding Indo-American film "The War Within" is my favorite of these issue films. And any of the movies of Mani Ratnam show how a popular entertainment can also be smart.

First, I consider myself a fan of Majidi. His "Baran" is possibly my favorite film from Iran. I bought it based on his name, so it is only reluctantly that I post these comments.

The idea of the conflict between the son and his step-father is great, and certainly a well-known story. This one carries with it the tarnished dignity and lessened honor felt by Mehrollah.

But in order to set up the moral conflict Mehrollah faces at the end, the story takes some directions that are painfully implausible and ultimately destroy the ending.

****MAJOR SPOILER HERE**** The idea that a police officer would take a motorcycle so far away to get his wayward stepson is implausible. The idea that it might break down and he would just abandon it is ridiculous. The notion that he would start walking into the desert is just preposterous; any cagey guy like that would know to stay on the main road. So the setup that has him die is impossible. If Majidi wanted Mehrollah to confront a moral dilemma, having the two of them ambushed by bandits would do the job as well. I also longed to hear the stepfather show respect for Mehrollah's love for his mother and sister. That did not come.

First, I want to gently contradict one statement, often made of this film and repeated here. There ARE other movies like this. If you want to see a reasonable model of what Garin Nugroho has done, I would direct you to the work of Carlos Saura, especially "El Amor Brujo." But that being said, the stunning richness of this movie far eclipses Saura at his best. There are visuals both large and small, dances both grand and intimate, songs both poetic and profane, and story-telling elements both epic and contemporary. The frame shifts rapidly between modern and ancient, between emotional and refined, and on and on.

Now, permit me to ask a question of any Indonesian readers. Who was the intended audience for this film? I ask because I am far more familiar with Javanese culture than most Americans, but found the cultural references and symbolism far deeper than I could catch. It made me think that this was created for a strictly Indonesian and a predominantly artistic/intellectual audience. But with its extensive European connections, is that right? Did he create it for people like me, educated artsy types the world over?

It is clear that the stage play must have been a searingly powerful experience. There are numerous metaphors proceeding simultaneously, and most of them are pointedly identifying sins of modern politics. It makes me wish I could have been there.

In an attempt to translate this to the screen, the artifice that comes natural to the stage feels awkward. The photography and the staging try to appear at least somewhat realistic. As a result, characters come across as one-dimensional instead of being archetypes. The acting seems wooden at times rather than being larger than life. The violence that would never be realistic on stage cannot make up its mind here.

But in all, it is still a wonderful document. There is a powerful punchline at the very end (last 10 seconds) that is not to be missed, and it pushed this up to a 7 for me.

I have now seen three of Apichatpong's films (Mysterious Objects, Blissfully Yours and now this). It finally occurred to me what is going on and why so many people, already enamored of offbeat, experimental and artsy films, still find his work difficult.

I really got into "Mysterious Objects" at first, the "exquisite corpse" method and the way a simple story got embellished as he went along. But Apichatpong seemed to lose interest in the narrative, so the film became a static slide show of his travels, losing all of its narrative energy.

"Sud Saneha" (Blissfully Yours) never got me engaged. It was an agonizing experience in lost opportunity and self-indulgent amateurism.

So now, I can say that "Syndromes and a Century" is by far the best of the three. I gave it 6 out of 10.

I finally understood that Apichatpong is an artist of still images. He has no idea what to do with emotions or the people who feel them. He just allows them to populate his canvas, and pays no attention to what they do. In fact, if they do nothing and stay still, that's even better.

The camera moves from time to time, but that is clearly just giving better depth to his still images. He has no skills in using images that move, other than to take them in in a decidedly passive way. There are times in this movie when it is effective (the steam entering the pipe, for example), but most of the time, it underscores his discomfort with the moving image.

I really want to like his films, mostly because here in Thailand, popular culture is so crushing and stifling, anything artistic is like drops of water in a desert. But I can only cut so much slack.

This is a story right out of the "Hey, kids, let's put on a show!" cliché. One implausibility piled on top of another in a "feel good"/"right will triumph" pattern that is SO OVERWHELMINGLY dominant in American movies. John Sayles has long been one of my favorite directors/screenwriters, so the foolishness of this movie came as a shock.

What happened? Where has the creator of "Casa de los Babys" and "Lone Star" gone? What happened to the creator of such exhilarating plots as "Limbo" and "Passion Fish"? I can only guess that he farmed it out to one of his kids, or an intern, or something like that. This movie fits in more with the rush job of the Scorcese-produced blues films than with a Sayles project.

Here is my "disclosure" statement. I have been a working musician and have spent most of my adult life in the company of musicians. This movie reveals some of the biggest complaints musicians have about their portrayal by non-musicians. The biggest is that non-musicians don't understand the role of rehearsals, individual practice and the huge amount of work and effort it takes to seem "talented." This movie is another example, and a rather extreme case at that.

I also have a question for Keb Mo. Why do you sign on to so many projects that undervalue your efforts? I am thinking of the NPR Blues History radio series and now this. Don't you have more leverage than that?

First, let me say I have read several of the comments. Even though I gave it 3 out of 10, I mostly agree with the people who loved it. The acting was superb, the concept (Four archetypal emotions) is very good, the way Jieho Lee applies these to a modern situation is very clever etc etc. But I give it the low score I did because I found the plot preposterous, the plot twists ridiculous and the unattended plot inconsistencies utterly childish. To me, this looks and feels like a vanity project, where Jieho Lee seems to be the precocious child of Hollywood moguls. He had a great idea in film school, got his family to fund it with big-name stars, and will be ashamed of this movie when he finally becomes a mature artist. I do not know how far off the mark I am, but I hope he continues to grow.

If I were his adviser, I would suggest that the same basic movie could be made without any of the brutality, none of the killing, and none of the histrionic over-acting.

SPOILERS SECTION:

1. Happiness should have been portrayed by an elderly man, whose failures would have formed his subtext. He need not have robbed a bank -- losing it all on a horse race would have been more than enough to make the point.

2. Pleasure, the best section, need never have beaten anybody to make the point. The main plot point (losing his vision) could have happened at any step of the way. No need for the bit with the rival gang.

3. Sorrow was too filled with sex to be persuasive. No need to have the manager changed. She could have simply been an artist struggling to be an artist in the face of the Music Biz. And when asked "Why are you deserving?", why could she not have simply said "Effort"? It is the natural response of all artists. No need for the entire ridiculous stuff with Fingers. The whole movie would have been far better off without this character at all.

4. I turned the movie off when I saw this bit about the rare blood type. Didn't anyone do any fact-checking? Blood types are registered when you are born. If someone had such a rare blood type, she would have been on an official register. All the doctor would have to do is call the Health Department. The "Love" theme could have been done as a kind of "Killing Fields" drama, being unable to live up to your promises.

In sum, I wish Jieho Lee could study Kieslowski's Dekalog to get pointers on how to make movies. He didn't have to make such a "high school" style of gangster tale masquerading as something meaningful.

The hype surrounding Apichatpong seems to me unwarranted. I am reminded of Roger Ebert's comments on Abbas Kiarostami and being utterly unconvinced of the value of his films.

First, there is no story. As soon as a story might be emerging, "Joe" (as he likes to be called these days) moves to something utterly unrelated. He has said that he conceives of nature as an opportunity for the characters to do some self-reflection. This sounds good, but there are no characters to speak of, and except for Orn, no acting whatsoever. No information is given about what they might be reflecting about, and story elements are allowed to vanish (like the distant gunshot).

The slowness itself didn't bother me, but the much-heralded Apichatpong can learn something from Tony Bui, whose first feature film "Three Seasons" is FAR better at the languid development than this. Or look at any of Ousman Sembene's films for the skillful use of dreadfully unskillful non-actors. There is just no excuse, in my mind, for such a self-important and ultimately inept use of non-actors.

User federovsky's comments are to me particularly perceptive. I give it 3; at least he is giving this some thought.

This movie began with a lot of promise. There were emerging subtleties with the characters, and plot twists that seemed to offer some real intelligent observations. In many of the plot events, the movie was walking close to some real drama, even the hint of tragedy.

But then, about halfway in, it became clear that this was going to just be a stupid, fluffy romantic farce. What began as something that might really look at issues like immigration, culture shock, Moroccan moral standards and the like, it wound up using Morocco as just background to a ridiculous teenage caper tale. Once again, here is Orientalism at work.

If you heard anything about its portrayal of Moroccan music, I can tell you that there is about 60 seconds of Moroccan music and dance, and about 20 seconds of that is Gnaoua.

The film is obviously based on several distinct stories, which would make it a good TV series if done right. The potential is there, making me wish I could read the original short stories. But in this script, there were far too many overly sentimental plot twists and "mass appeal" characterizations.

My biggest complaint is that the women were much more like waitresses or airline attendants than they were like prostitutes. They were all weepy "heart of gold" types, quite unlike women who really are "in the life."

***** Spoilers here ***** Of the two main stories, the first one was just implausible. Why would the women hold out such hopes for O-shin's marriage to the young samurai? More to the point, why were these women of the streets so distraught over such mundane bad news?

In the last story, why on Earth would the fallen-again O-shin lose her head to yet another man? As I said, this is more in keeping with flight attendants than prostitutes.

I also found the music terrible, so sweet it made my stomach hurt. It's as though the director couldn't decide whether this was to be like a daytime soap opera or a "slice of life" portrayal of a voiceless strata of society.

In conclusion, this seems to be part of a genre that is more common in Asia than elsewhere, fantasies in which kind-hearted naive men help to soften the hearts of prostitutes. I have seen several Thai movies and a few Chinese ones that fit this mold. Compare it to the British film "My Son the Fanatic" and you can see why I find this stuff silly.

The title is from the literal meaning of the term "jihad," which is explained during a memorable sermon. It is also very appropriate, as all the main characters are in the midst of such an internal struggle, not just Hassan.

Many other user comments say what I was going to say, so let me just offer some insights that will help those who have already seen it.

*** Spoilers **** Hassan's struggle is obvious. He has to fight his affection for Sayeed, his memories of his youth with Duri, his gratitude for the help of Sayeed's American friends, etc. In fact, there is a subtle struggle when he first studies Grand Central Station and admires its beauty.

Sayeed is struggling to balance being Pakistani vs. being American. Until Hassan came, the choice was easy.

Duri, faced with disrespect from her American life, is re-evaluating what she may have lost in coming to America.

Khalid's struggle is quite obvious as well. We do not see how his betrayal of Hassan plays out in his heart, though.

The family is then faced with the greatest struggle, that provoked when Sayeed is hauled off as a suspect. THey have been betrayed too, the way Hassan was in the movie's beginning.

I found this to be an intelligent, compassionate and nuanced movie, and a thriller to boot. I think, if I do a movie class again, I'll show this along with Santosh Sivan's Terrorist. 9/10

I managed to see both "Infernal Affairs" (hereafter "Mou gaan dou") and "The Departed" in one sitting and would like to compare them. To start, I would give them the same rating (8) and praise them equally. But the strengths are uneven.

What follows is TOTAL SPOILER and meant only for others who have seen both.

* Religion In Mou gaan dou, the mob boss Sam is religious. He indirectly attributes his success to his faith and ties in the disciples through a ritual of loyalty. He rules by this ingrained sense of loyalty and is never portrayed as fearful. In Departed, mob boss Frank rules entirely through fear, violence and intimidation. He caps this off with utter contempt for the Church. Who would stay loyal to a guy like that?

* Class The Departed's greatest strength is in the in-depth analysis of the class conflict in New England's Irish community. References to "lace-curtains" and "shanties" is an allusion to long-standing symbolism of this conflict. This was a compelling introduction to the characters that Mou gaan dou left out, and went very far to explaining their motivations.

* Language The language in Mou gaan dou is richly oblique ("At least I am not afraid to let the sun shine on me" says Yan toward the end.) and only occasionally rough. The language in Departed is relentlessly coarse and filled with coarse metaphors, puns and references. The language in each fits with the consistent tone of the acting. The two main spooks are cool in Mou gaan dou, and nearly hysterical in Departed.

* Overall The Departed's beginning was utterly brilliant, far outclassing Mou Gaan Dou. But the high level of violence in Departed wore thin on me. By the time of the big bust, I felt that Mou gaan dou leaped ahead in crafting a complex drama that was not just another shoot-em-up. The cat-and-mouse chase between the spooks was FAR more compelling in Mou gaan dou, and the last scene in Departed proved that not even Scorcese can avoid the demands to give 'em a happy ending.

I managed to see both "Infernal Affairs" (hereafter "Mou gaan dou") and "The Departed" in one sitting and would like to compare them. To start, I would give them the same rating (8) and praise them equally. But the strengths are uneven.

What follows is TOTAL SPOILER and meant only for others who have seen both.

* Religion In Mou gaan dou, the mob boss Sam is religious. He indirectly attributes his success to his faith and ties in the disciples through a ritual of loyalty. He rules by this ingrained sense of loyalty and is never portrayed as fearful. In Departed, mob boss Frank rules entirely through fear, violence and intimidation. He caps this off with utter contempt for the Church. Who would stay loyal to a guy like that?

* Class The Departed's greatest strength is in the in-depth analysis of the class conflict in New England's Irish community. References to "lace-curtains" and "shanties" is an allusion to long-standing symbolism of this conflict. This was a compelling introduction to the characters that Mou gaan dou left out, and went very far to explaining their motivations.

* Language The language in Mou gaan dou is richly oblique ("At least I am not afraid to let the sun shine on me" says Yan toward the end.) and only occasionally rough. The language in Departed is relentlessly coarse and filled with coarse metaphors, puns and references. The language in each fits with the consistent tone of the acting. The two main spooks are cool in Mou gaan dou, and nearly hysterical in Departed.

* Overall The Departed's beginning was utterly brilliant, far outclassing Mou Gaan Dou. But the high level of violence in Departed wore thin on me. By the time of the big bust, I felt that Mou gaan dou leaped ahead in crafting a complex drama that was not just another shoot-em-up. The cat-and-mouse chase between the spooks was FAR more compelling in Mou gaan dou, and the last scene in Departed proved that not even Scorcese can avoid the demands to give 'em a happy ending.

First, as others have noted, this has nearly nothing to do with the Bram Stoker novel other than the names of principal characters and the larger plot arc (Dracula moving to London). But I am not bothered by that if they think it in deeper ways.

There are quite a number of VERY clever plot additions that could have been very helpful. One is the religion that Mr. Singleton leads. The book was written at a time when such "spiritualist" groups were popping up all over Europe, which is why the book was so popular. So that part makes sense. But then they turned it into a cartoon-like cross between the Mob and Dungeons and Dragons. Had it been more like the Theosophical Society, they would have had a brilliant turn.

There were strong allusions to the British Empire's global reach, but it was dropped quickly. This could have been at the heart of an ongoing TV series, where Dracula sends out the Undead across the Empire. But no, it was just a throw-away line in the rush to finish within 90 minutes.

I also felt that the sexuality was WAY overdone. Sure, it's there in all vampire tales, and abundantly so in the original. But this made it the prime motive of all actors. Too much.

And finally, the SLAM BAM ending made me ashamed of being an American. Why must our pop culture do so much damage to film-making around the world?

Here is a perfect example of how brilliant film-making can be hiding behind an underfunded production. The story is amazingly compelling, the camera work very effective, the editing quite powerful and the message is urgent.

But you have to patiently bear with the very poor acting and sound that makes the dialog nearly inaudible at times. If I were wealthy, I would commission this exact same tale to be remade in a dozen different countries, using local themes to make it relevant.

Of the performers, only the man who plays the well-off uncle seems competent. Plus, the nun who cares for AIDS orphans seems to me to be dubbed in entirely.

There were situations that could have been clichéd, but the director portrayed the interior conflicts the characters were facing.

Find it if you can. I saw it on a video distributed by California Newsreel.

Nonzee Nimibutr is by far my favorite Thai filmmaker. I loved Nang Nak and OK Baythong, so I was looking forward to this.

The sex is so relentless and so relentlessly loveless, it makes the film bleakly ugly where somber reflection (as in Nang Nak) would work much better.

And how can a 31-year-old glamor star (Christy Chung) play a 50-something "mia noy" with no wrinkles? Implausible! My wife insists that the film we saw on DVD could NEVER be screened in Thailand. She thinks it was made for a foreign market, esp. Hong Kong and Taiwan. Any comments, "pheuan Thai"?

First, in the interests of full disclosure, I am a confirmed Bush-basher who is ashamed that this war criminal was re-elected, etc etc. Second, I have long been fascinated by the whole issue, long before 9/11, so I am (if I can boast), quite well informed.

So in sum, I agree that this movie went well past dramatic license into some historical revisionism. The serious ones to me are NOT the ones everyone is complaining about.

The most serious one is that there was no mention at all of the "Wag the Dog" context of the debate. When Clinton hit the drug factory in Sudan, he was excoriated by the rabid Right for pulling a "Wag the Dog" stunt. When any of the Clinton people objected to an action, there were very good strategic reasons for it, and those reasons were highlighted or exaggerated by the "Wag the Dog" issue.

Second is that Richard Clarke was one of the people voting with the Clinton team on some of those "stand down" orders. It was Michael Scheuer (who is not in this movie at all, is he?) who had the reputation of pushing the "get Bin Laden at any cost" line, not Clarke.

Third, Bin Laden's fatwa is only mentioned as existing. His six points of accusation are never mentioned. Why would America become such an enemy? By not articulating the Al-Qaeda side, we demonize our enemy, to our detriment.

Dramatic license abounds, but I was not bothered by two key ones: a. It is widely known that no CIA agents OR assets ever saw Bin Laden from a hillside, as was OFTEN depicted. The best shot we had (the falcon hunt) isn't here, and he wasn't seen in the Predator for our best shot! b. Ahmed Shah Massoud was made into a noble hero. While I sympathize with him, it should be pointed out that he also brutalized his rivals in the Northern Alliance. We also never learn why he was held in such high regard, namely, that he innovated guerrilla warfare dramatically during the anti-Soviet war and succeeded where few others were able.

This is an incredible movie that begins slowly. It leads you along in thinking of it as a typical maudlin family drama. Then, in the second half, there is a plot twist that utterly transforms this into a profound tale of global scope.

If you are unaccustomed to films from India, with song and dance routines seemingly grafted on for no reason, stick with this movie. Especially beginning with the second half, you will find this movie an amazing experience.

*********** Minor Spoiler Here ************* I have but one complaint with the movie. The dialog at the end (between Amudha and MDS) seemed very weak and missed the opportunity to bring in the war as a force that transforms people's lives. It was implied all along, but there should have been something about the importance of the struggle for MDS.

Of course Alan Lomax deserves to be praised for his contributions to American culture. Of course he had some VERY serious flaws, and this show politely indicates some of them. He has also been the subject of very unfair criticism, which the director wisely avoids.

However, I found it immensely disturbing how much footage was devoted to seeing Alan Lomax as he was shortly before he died, with his mind no longer what it had been. For example, the opening shot of his daughter reading his own words to him was painfully gratuitous. He obviously couldn't understand what was going on, but the camera lingered (dare I say, stared?) on him, and far too often throughout the film. If these scenes could be edited out, it would be worth a 9, maybe even 10.

There is much that is good here, though. I particularly liked the scenes where the crew visit people Lomax had recorded many years before in Spain and Italy. And the description of Cantometrics was easy to follow, if a bit simplistic. Maybe something on the Global Jukebox, his last big project?

Here is a small film that seeks to tell of life in a rough part of Brooklyn, that has a staff (i.e., cast) that reflects the neighborhood, that wants the stories to be true and accurate, and that has blessedly few of the clichés that dominate the industry. No sex, nearly no violence, no (obvious) pimps or pushers, and the stories really do ring true.

Every one of the main characters has a moral dilemma that is heightened by the restaurant's sale. Each one responds differently and genuinely. I was especially touched by the crossword scene, and the straight-faced delivery by the old man (if you saw it, you know what I mean. If you didn't, it will grow in significance slowly).

Watch the "behind the scenes" feature and you will know why this film works so well.

I started out assuming I would love this one. I too am obsessive about music. I too adore the idea of expanding one's horizons. And I am very partial to slow films with great photography (such as Barry Lyndon, Three Seasons, The Terrorist). Finally, I thought I would SO identify with Schultze that the movie would be a guaranteed winner.

Ah, I was disappointed. This would make a touching 45-minute PBS drama, but the static inaction (am I repeating myself?) gets exasperating. There are moments of great power (such as the rehearsal scene at home, or his performance at the 50th anniversary dinner). But these are fleeting moments in a tableau of glum inaction.

Was this really a movie? Was it really acted? It has so much of the feel of interminable home movies, I wanted to offer to edit them.

In my opinion, the only chapters you need are 3, then skip to 5 to the end. You can figure out the rest, and save yourself 35+ minutes.

One cannot help but be impressed with the intelligence and scale of this film, and simultaneously disappointed by the lost opportunities.

I found the script to be excellent, and the vocal talent of Edmund Purdom quite impressive. However, as an artifact of its time, the film suffers from too many Hollywood-isms, especially poor casting, too much lushness of the sets, and too much pretentiousness. Edmund Purdom (who plays the title character) is so obviously awkward with physical acting, I suspect he had primarily been in Shakespearean theater before this.

So if movie people are reading this, I propose this as an excellent candidate for a remake, especially if you cast real Egyptians as Egyptians!