ikonoklastik

I really don't understand the high ratings for this movie. Lot's of people on forums and movie sites and such consider this to be a must see horror movie. One of the best of its year. I just watched it last night -- I was really excited about it -- and I have to say that it felt like a bunch of half-assed ideas thrown together. It's like Gens thought "I like zombies, The Descent, Texas Chainsaw Massacres and Hostel, I like political commentary, and I hate Nazis... hey let's throw all those things together and make a disjointed, impotent horror flick and hope nobody notices my complete lack of originality while they're busy reading subtitles." I don't think so.

It had its moments, sure, and I didn't HATE the movie. But it was nothing special in anyway. The connection between the political riots and the rest of the movie is weak and makes it completely pointless and distracting. Leave that to other European filmmakers, dude. The Descent-style scene with the two characters crawling through the tunnel and being followed by what seems like a cave creature is out-of-the-blue and becomes nothing at all -- the character eventually goes back into the tunnel after his friend gets nabbed at the opening with no further encounters at all. As a matter of fact, everything related to "the children" (more meaningless political commentary?) is utterly useless. Let's also not ignore that we really don't need more modern takes on The TCM. If you're going to do it, it better be revolutionary. And I gotta say, I'm sick of people constantly using Nazis as the ultimate bad guys. I don't like Nazis but it's just a huge cop-out in my book. Why do they have to be Nazis? What does that add? Absolutely nothing. It's just a reason to remind the audience that historically, Nazis were bad. Thanks for the history lesson, Xavier. Better luck next time.

I thought it was a solid movie but not brilliant. Directing-wise it was really great. But something was missing.

I think the movie was trying to tell too many stories at once and didn't give you the chance to form an emotional investment or intellectual conclusion in either one. It felt like it was trying to get us to understand something but stopped short of providing us with everything that would be necessary to achieve that understanding. I accept the possibility that it may just be giving us a snapshot, a scenario for its own sake, without the intention of conveying a message -- which is fine -- but what is important is that it felt like it was trying to convey something. Especially with a title like "Babel". And I just didn't connect. This concept would have been much better as a three film series a la Kieslowski's "Trois couleurs" series because there was so much depth left unexplored.

I was left wondering a lot about the characters because it seemed like it was putting more thematic importance on the motivations of the characters than the actual occurrences yet a lot of those motivations were only hinted. And there should have been far more of Kôji Yakusho because he kicks ass. It really did look great, though, and there was some top-notch acting, even from the children. I hope it at least leads Americans to reconsider their overly general and unfair opinion of Muslims.

*Some statements may be viewed as containing spoilers.*

I saw "Inland Empire" at the AFI Festival and feel it is simply phenomenal. I have no idea what it is about and at the moment it doesn't matter. I actually made an effort not to analyze it and just watch it and enjoy the ride. And a great ride it was.

I was afraid what was to happen with the new medium but David Lynch really succeeded in pulling off some beautiful DV. I was impressed. The description of DV he gave at the 20th anniversary screening of Blue Velvet was, as it turns out, accurate: "It looks terrible... but it looks beautifully terrible." It was just so interesting looking and so perfect for the movie that it wasn't distracting in anyway. I left the experience of watching it feeling it couldn't have been done any other way. And although I will admit that I will still miss the look of a David Lynch movie on film, I didn't find anything to be lacking at all.

The acting! Wow! I'm almost speechless about Laura Dern's performance especially, but we need to give credit to several people here. One must keep in mind that none of the performers had any clue as to the purpose and meaning of Mulholland Dr. And yet Laura Dern, Grace Zabriskie, Justin Theroux, Harry Dean Stanton, Julia Ormond and a few from Poland I'm not familiar with succeeded in giving such interesting, dynamic and subtle performances. Dern especially was chameleon-like. So often did she go from one emotion to another while maintaining control of all of the nuances one would expect from reality. Mr. Lynch's ability to extract the perfect performance, never ceases to amaze me. That ability shows through scenes from his work that run so well with actors that are not know to be nor do they prove to be exceptional. There was some of that here but the spotlight was really on actors that know their trade very well.

Inland Empire was unmistakeably Lynch but it was far more expressionistic than anything we've seen. "Lost Highway" was a situation comedy compared to this. At least with that and "Mulholland Dr." you somewhat know where to begin. "Inland Empire" doesn't give you that. It is longer and has more angles and doesn't allow you to say "Ok let's start here and work our way out." As a matter of fact, I'm not convinced there is anything to get. Well, that's not true. There is something there for sure but I think it may be something that will eventually break down. Like the farther you walk down a street to see the stores, the thicker the fog gets around you. The reason I say that is not purely because of the experience of watching the movie's chaos but also because of the process he went through. I have no doubt that everything you see has its place on the same quilt but why was "Rabbits" there? This is something that was it's own project. A stand-alone endeavor. And yet the same performances were used in "Inland Empire". But then again, we saw new camera angles we hadn't see before. Were they filmed simultaneously with the footage originally presented in "Rabbits" because he saw it moving out of that world all along or were they filmed recently to bind it to "Inland Empire"? "Axxon N." allusions were also a surprise. That is also a stand-alone (though unproduced) series that has been completely written for quite some time. Why allude to it in here, especially when people can't refer to the series? Who knows? We can also question the connections since David Lynch said he got a lot of the ideas separately and serendipitously and only after it had begun did he understand why his brain was giving him these ideas. That's not to say there is no common thread. He is not a common filmmaker and I certainly do not believe he would just do things meaninglessly for the sake of being weird though many are quick to believe such a thing -- after all, attention spans and mental growth potential have been left in the womb by many a film-goer. But because of the change in medium I will grant myself the freedom to toy with the idea that it may not be just a puzzle to piece together. That plots were built around subconscious connections. Like a Miro painting maybe. The common themes and common moods and common chaos of the different threads presented may be as much part of the movie's purpose as the actual plot elements.

Anyhow, it's going to be excellent seeing it it several times over in theaters. All three hours of it. Because it will take many viewings and coffee shop discussions to get even a greasy grip on the essence of this piece. And then maybe we can see if it reveals itself to be even more than the exceptional movie it seems to be.

It has been a while since I have seen this film so I can't remember everything, but I'm going write a blurb based on how I remember feeling after viewing it. One aspect of the movie was brilliant and another was poor.

The movie was generally boring to me and I fault the director for that. It felt like a filmed play, which may have been the intention, as it was originally a play. But I don't think it worked. The most engaging performance was that of Patrick Magee, who was already a seasoned film actor at the time, and I truly believe he helped bring much of the cinematic qualities. The rest of the performances felt amateurish, relatively, since portraying those who are mentally disturbed allows for more suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience. The pacing needed to be more dynamic but it wasn't. And I would have liked it to be more pleasant to the eye with better photography and set design -- some eye candy to keep the interest. I say that because what ends up happening is that words become the main focus. Focusing entirely on words takes away the essence of a film. You have the opportunity to include so much subtlety and such a unique perspective and to not have it seems a shame.

But now there is the other side. The screenplay, the story and the concepts are nothing short of phenomenal. It is highly academic but not arrogant and is very rewarding if the investment in understanding the history relied on is made. So interesting was the commentary and the philosophy it asserted and so clever was the manipulation and method by which it was illustrated. I give great credit to all of the writing involved.

Although, I was not impressed with this film either cinematically nor in the sense of a significant number of the performances, the rest was enough for me to award it a seven out of ten. I feel it was enough to make it worth viewing and I would love to see the play if directed as cleverly as the words deserve. It was smart and different... two commendable qualities that are in short supply.

This little minute movie is fun and quite interesting for its time. Although it is no where near as good, it is similar to "The Andalusian Dog" in that it does not mean much but does not have to because for its time it was a statement on its own. It is there because it can be and should be. It made me smile but I am glad it was not longer than it was. If it were not so short, it would be boring since it is lacking in any timeless elements, like attractive images for instance, for one's interest to latch onto. "Hasher's Delirium" is not brilliant but it is worth a look at least for its historical value and the fact that the animated character just looks funny with that stupid smile especially when something pops up that you would think would bring about a frown but does not.

I do not understand the fascination with this film. For the longest time I had heard of it in the context of a very deserving cult film. People, including grown, seemingly film-savvy men wearing "Ghost World" t-shirts... people bringing it up nonchalantly in a serious film-oriented discussion...

I saw it eventually. It was very boring, unoriginal, predictable and did not draw the depth from the characters that one would expect from an outskirts-of-Hollywood film. The only reason I watched the movie from beginning to end is because it was late and nothing else was on (I viewed it on a film channel). The characters were forced and uninteresting with the "lets make a movie about jaded, pseudo-intellectual teenagers" mentality, only to end up with characters that are essentially goth, minus the ridiculous subcultural manifestations. Zwigoff tried to make up for the lack of depth in characters and his inability to formulate screenplay wit by either having the protagonists point fingers and say "That sucks", have other stereotypical antagonists pop up and make stupid remarks that should only be used to spoof 80's highschool comedy movies or have characters make racial remarks that have absolutely no place in the story whatsoever. Also, the whole bus nonsense was very predictable; as soon as the old man was introduced, I new how the entire film was going to play out.

This movie does nothing to deserve even a small bit of the credit it has been given, but I'll throw a five-out-of-ten at it for its effort.

This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. A jumbled mess of a screenplay, terrible pacing, visually boring, and the story was flaccid and unimaginative. All of the fighting scenes were tedious, long and repetitive. The story and the dialogue were so forced I felt like I swallowed a stick of butter. Its visual style was not even consistent. It was choppy and uneven. There were so many visual effects that I felt I was watching an animated film... and not even a good one. "The Matrix Reloaded" is what happens when a couple of infants get a hold of a lot of money. Amateurish garbage. The Whackowski's should not be allowed near and camera or a computer as a result of this fecal "film".

10/10

Recently, I read an excerpt from a book by Dennis Lim called "David Lynch: The Man from Another Place." In it, the author mentions how much Lynch despises interpretation of his work. He writes:

"Writing about David Lynch, it can be hard not to hear his voice in your head, protesting the violence being done to his work. 'As soon as you put things in words, no one ever sees the film the same way,' he once told me. 'And that's what I hate, you know. Talking—it's real dangerous.' Not for nothing does "Mulholland Drive," the Lynch movie that has invited the most fervent flurry of explication, end with a word of caution: 'Silencio.'"

This reminded me that 11 years before this edit I had written this very review on IMDb, which contained an interpretation of the film's plot. I've decided to remove all of that. Whether or not you are satisfied with a particular interpretation of the plot should be irrelevant to your enjoyment of the film. I enjoyed it before I had that satisfying interpretation. And I'm hoping that I can clear it from my mind the next time I watch "Mulholland Dr."

I will leave one thing from my original post. A quote by Peter Greenaway. "I would argue that if you want to write narratives, be an author, be a novelist, don't be a film maker. Because I believe film making is so much more exciting in areas which aren't primarily to do with narrative."

(some spoilers)

It's not a masterpiece but it certainly is good. Quite good, actually. The theme behind the film revolves around the idea of the relationship of a person to the world and the place love has in that relationship. The presentation of the idea was pretty much standard: it began at the dinner table directly following the character introduction portion of the film. The topic there was that, from the macro point of view that God may have of the world, it is beautiful and orderly regardless of how chaotic it may seem on the inside. The main characters proceed to live in a fantasy world where everything is beautiful and there main focus is cinema and sexuality. But that eventually breaks down. The story articulates that people cannot see things through the eyes of God and chaos, pain and loss will always be part of your life. Any attempt at concerning one's self solely with art and love is terminal and will end with a return to the confusion of reality. The character Matthew foreshadowed this idea in the beginning when his voice-over said, as he and his newfound friends strolled lakeside, that he never wanted that evening to end. The whole philosophy of the film is expressed predictably but very nicely and is packaged in an attractive box of beautiful editing and cinematography and succeeded in subtly, almost as a light aside, putting art on a divine pedestal. I think there may be important commentary channeled through the history presented that I did not pick up on because I didn't live through the events to understand the nuances. And that would only add to the depth of the film. Although I feel Bertolucci is purposely making his films racy for the sake of shock and his own amusement, it was a very enjoyable movie to see (not the raciness; the movie). 8/10.

This film, I believe, is only about 70 minutes long and succeeded in being one of the longest movies I have ever seen. I actually fell asleep for about 10 minutes toward the end. I appreciate this movie to an extent since the concept itself is interesting and the narration, when it happens, can be quite funny. But it gets old quickly. I think it is more interesting to remember than it is to watch. I view this movie and "Stereo" the same way. The narration is funny at times and has a very satirical and original style but it is not enough to keep one awake, let alone keep ones interest. I think the lack of sound is due to Cronenberg's laziness and lack of desire to do any recording and mixing. Maybe I should give him more credit than that. Maybe it was lack of funds and knowlege. After all he was paying for those out of his own pocket and was, to paraphrase his own words, still teaching himself how to make movies.

9/10 ::CONTAINS SPOILERS:: I am writing to address certain criticisms about this film. To start, I feel this is an amazing movie, with exceptional acting and a very interesting and original concept. The characters had a lot of depth and were very interesting; no stereotypes.

Let's begin with the misunderstanding of the man's search. He was not looking for someone to kill him. He had already decided he wanted to commit suicide. He was looking for someone to throw dirt on him after he had died: a ritualistic thing and a matter of respect. It is not a plot hole.

Secondly, it is not necessary to know the man's past. It is true, Kiarostami did not reveal the man's reason for suicide and, instead began the story with his search for a person to aid him without flashing back. But the point of the story is not to obtain sympathy for his misfortunes and his want of suicide. That would have made for a boring and unoriginal tear-jerker with no artistic integrity as a story. Any sympathy felt in the movie is derived from the character's difficulty in finding someone to help him. Even then, that role was so well acted and expressive that you really did feel bad for him especially since he was "containing" his pain after every declination. The focus of this story was more philosophical and psychological and I respect it greatly for that. It isn't necessary to have everything explained to you; I don't know why people want everything explained to them without room for interpretation and why stories must be formulaic to avoid criticism.

As for the ending... One must understand that this movie was not made in America or Europe. The morals of that society may be more restrictive of artistic expression. The depiction of the "behind the scenes" aspect was not a plot twist but a way of relieving the gravity of the situation in order to make the topic of the film more acceptable. Suicide may not be as acceptable to the Iranian public (or government) as a movie theme when compared to the thematic freedoms we enjoy in America and Europe.

Phenomenal film.

This film has received much unfair criticism by incompetent critics working for all sorts of newspapers, magazines and websites. Incompetency is one. But it is also, most probably and in part, due to the fact that people don't care about the topic to begin with and would have criticized it no matter how it was told or made.

The fact of the matter is that Ararat is the most original, imaginative and well-made movie to date that deals with the topic of a holocaust, which ever one it may be (Armenian, Jewish, Native American, African, etc.). It deals with the topic but doesn't sacrifice the art. It's not made to be a tear-jerker. Most stories about such historical incidents prey on basic human emotions and vulnerabilities because the purpose of those films is simply to gain sympathy. Nothing more. There is no consideration for contribution to the world of artistic film. They are not movies that are intended to contribute to the evolution of art. They are movies that take old-fashioned "tools" that have worked for whatever purpose for the past 80 years, and employ them again for similar purposes. It seems people are threatened by the fact that this movie did not do that and happened to be dealing with a topic that the whole world has been avoiding.

It is an excellent film. The concept and structure are not as complicated as some critics say they are. Either they are incapable of comprehending anything beyond a formulaic Hollywood flick or they were dismissing it from the get go. Either way, they should not be film critics. Ararat has a very clever structure based on the perspectives of different generations. The acting was excellent from everyone, except for Aznavour who did a decent job of executing a simple role. They all did exactly what the job called for and were simply captivating. The cinematography was beautiful: all of the creative choices regarding how to film a given scene were perfect.

Like all of Atom Egoyan's films, it is very character driven, putting a lot of focus on the psychology of a character and the choices they make as a result. Though it is not Egoyan's "number one" in my book, it is an amazing movie and can say I am honored to have seen it in theaters and am proud to own it.