A Prophet

It's time for another indie movie flick review to get you all revved up for something that deserves a bit more than some fringe viewership. When I heard about A Prophet what hooked me was the promise of a unique and exceptional mob movie. I don't think I'm alone in that regard. After all most American's would hold one of the two Godfather movies in high esteem, as has been proven over and over in movie polls. Adding to the pique of interest is the fact that it's a French movie. Over the past year I've watched over 10 French films  (absolutely unplanned, if I made add) and this one is my favorite so far.

So how to describe it? Okay, here's the quick, dirty and overly general breakdown: Take Godfather, include the added emotional heft of Godfather II, take away the operatic aspects, add jail and some rather distracting supernatural aspects, and you've got the general sense of the movie. Somehow that felt disrespectful, but also not entirely untrue...

Our main focus is Malik, a young Arab thrown in jail for reasons that are never expounded. Right from the first scene we learn that he has no friends and no enemies. If we've learned anything from the oft-filmed politics of prison, is that this kid is in a serious bind. The story is about Malik's ascendance into power within the ranks of the mob through cunning and his willingness to commit where others let opportunities pass by. And unlike the first Godfather, which primarly dealt with the Corleone family as a whole, A Prophet specifically hinges on Malik's growth and final corruption.

I've never been in a French prison, or any prison for that matter (albeit, I guess that's technically not true...), but the movie has the gravity of 'realness'. The director has the deft hand in being able to create a sense of life within the confines of endlessly stained concrete.  The prison is not romanticized, it is shown as a hard and cruel place, but also as a place where men continue to live their lives. Not everyone is a badass or a weakling ready to get trampled over. You're not only witnessing prison life, but inhabiting it.

And this points towards the flaw of the film, which you may have picked up on in my second paragraph where I transparently choose to include foreshadowing: the supernatural. There is a character that Malik is haunted by, which I at first took this to be psychological in nature, but as the movie progressed it became clear that he was actually being haunted by a ghost. Malik can also 'see' the future, which is where we get the title from. It's more than a bit difficult for the viewer to accept these two worlds living side by side, the stark realism and the supernatural. I guess it can be taken as magical realism, but to be honest, it never felt like it added anything. It seems like even the corrupt can have their heroes, their holy man. But what of it? It doesn't add to Malik's character, it slightly cheapens his ability to navigate the treacherous waters of prison and the movie never makes enough of a comment on the prison community to give a sense that they need a 'savior', even a dark one. It feels like all that aspect could have done away with and we would have been left with an improved version.

But even with that negative aspect of the film, I cannot help but recommend it. The movie feels honest, it is truly moving (without resorting to tricks), and has some insanely tense scenes. Also, and this is a minor point, but I was also thankful there wasn't the usual requisite prison rape scene. I'm glad a director and a writer were able to get passed that by now. I also found that it is geared more towards men, (and no, that doesn't mean women shouldn't watch it, Fight Club is a movie made for men and I've found just as many women who like it as men) and speaks directly to their situation. You read it here: You should watch A Prophet.

- piecar

The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie

The 20th century is rife with artistic movements of all kinds, but undoubtedly one of the most popular is Surrealism. It has seeped into a plethora of mediums: Fine art, movies, even video games. As such, it's part of our culture, of our meta-mind, whether you like it or not. It deals with our dreams, desires and the unconscious, which often leads to a severe break with the classic narrative style. This is why surrealist films are so "artsy".  One of the greatest and well known directors of this style was Luis Buñel. The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie showcases many of his talents as an artist and as a director. Unfortunately, it left me feeling empty.

Let's start off with what works here: Form. Buñel's film is set up as a loose narrative of the lives of six aristocratic men and woman. When I use the term loose, I really mean it. The movie is best seen as a collection of vignettes tied together by the regular cast or one-shot characters. As the movie goes along it all becomes more and more...ungrounded. You feel less sure of anything. To the point that maybe you're not sure of anything being real at all. And yes... that's the good part, and no... I'm not being sardonic. Surrealism is meant to upend your sense of contentment, and Discreet Charm does that in spades, by constantly having you question what's a dream and what isn't. By showing ridiculous situations as regular or unsurprising happenstance.

What doesn't work well is most everything else. The characters aren't likable, and that's okay, but they're barely unlikeable either. They're not really there. Absolutely shallow. That may be the point, true... but even the characters that aren't part of the elite can't be classified as human. They're just symbols: guilt, fear and pleading sadness. But none of it is explored, not even on an unconscious level. The problem I see with this film is that it doesn't go far enough. Buñel shows us the stuff hidden behind our heads and those inside of our society's (or at least that of the 1970s) but gives no emotional depth to it. These small stories leave nothing in me. He touched many of these same themes in his seminal Un Chien Andalou by completely getting rid of narrative and truly hitting the emotional edge of the human conscious. I was left with images from that movie for a long time and can still recall many of them. With Discreet Charm I'm already starting to forget it.

This is not to say that I can't see why this film is so approved by critics. It tries to balance the absurd witha semi-narrative in what many would say is a success. It's also often funny, like when one of the characters takes that last bit of ham. There's quite a bit of symbolism involved in that. In the end though, it doesn't amount to much. If you want to watch great work inspired by this movie, you'll have to watch David Lynch's films. He saw the merits of this film and ran with them to their true artistic ends. I have a lot to be thankful from this film, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

- piecar 

Tropic Thunder

It seems a bit odd for me to start reviewing a movie that isn't that old, but isn't that new either. Also, it's probably a movie you've already seen. But... I guess let's trudge through that mire and hopefully we'll find that LZ we've been searching for on this damn map. Tropic Thunder is a comedy movie directed by Ben Stiller, with Ben Stiller as Benn Stiller. Basically. It has an all star cast of Jack Black, Matthew McConaughey, that dorky dude when they need a dorky dude (Jay Baruchel), Robert Downey Jr. and Tom Cruise. Wait..what? Tom Cruise? More on that in a bit.

The overall storyline is that there are these actors that are making a movie and are quite uptight and by a turn of fate they find themselves embroiled in the 'shit', in Vietnam...or Laos...or somewhere. It doesn't matter. Everyone in the story evolves and changes for the better. Except for the dick. As all comedies are apt to do. So the real question here is... Did You Laugh? Well, yes. But I often make the odd decision to watch comedies by myself, so I didn't laugh as hard as i thought I would. So I can't exactly give this film a standing ovation. I often smiled and grinned. But I gave no hearty guffaws. But... I will say this. The funniest guy here? Tom Cruise. He's not even a comedian. Why isn't he in more comedies. Apparently, he's crazy good at being a Jewish movie producer type. (yeah, pun sorta intended). He stole the show, and not just because his character is supposed to, he's truly the funniest guy in the room. Honestly, just watch the movie cause of him.

Writing a review for a comedy is always a bit strange. Which may be why they often get overlooked. It really just comes down to did you laugh or not. I told you what the best was. If you don't think you'd find Tom Cruise being an asshole funny, don't watch it. Otherwise, yes! Give the movie a chance. See it with someone who loved it. Or with people who will like a Ben Stiller style comedy. You'll grab some miles off of it that way. C+

 - piecar

The Diving Bell and The Butterfly

     The Diving Bell and The Butterfly is one of those movies that got a lot of buzz during Oscar season a couple of years back. Indie and Foreign. Yeah, it had followers for sure. The premise is of a man that has a stroke and finds himself paralyzed, only able to blink his single eye to communicate. Based on a true story, it follows him on the quest to...um... find what it means to live and be human. Pretty obvious plotline, right?
     I ain't gonna lie, I was feeling a bit trepidatious starting this movie. Clearly, this was not gonna be an easy film to sit through, and often I find that there needs to be a certain mood. But since I rarely find myself in the neighborhood of such a mood, the only way to get watch it is to just barrel through my hesitation and go for it. And it was worth it. Let me harp on presentation. At the very least, the first half of the film is in first-person perspective of the character. You are locked in there with him. It's grueling to be so limited by the camera in a way that is rare in a film and the conceit truly works. Once it leaves from that perspective, it feels like a breath of fresh air, but you still feel how limited the man is in his own body.
      Also, unlike in other movies that take the inspiration for such a viewpoint from video games with horrid results, here it actually fits. Video games are created to simulate stories or act on fictitious events. In movies, this perspective rings false, since we as the audience are not interacting, but remain observers. In The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, it works PERFECTLY then. We are as trapped as this man is. We as the audience can only observe, as can only Bauby (our protagonist). I think it is no coincidence (and fits into the backstory of Bauby) that the women in this movie are all amazingly beautiful. Achingly beautiful, even. We always see gorgeous females on the big screen and watch our hero gallantly win said beauty(s). But not this time, at least not in such a Hollywood manner. She is as close, and yet as untouchable as we are to her. It's tantalizing and rending.
      That's just smart film-making.
      Bauby goes through the story as you would expect, starting with desperation and his eventual rise to grace. But, it's not so crassly done. The only thing that felt a bit hard pressed is that the movement between despair and grace is too quick. Then again, maybe that actually is how it goes, but it somehow rings false. Bauby just declares, "I have decided to stop pitying myself." Is it that simple? Maybe. There was a lot of hurt, but it was a bit tough to see where the turnaround came. But that's fine. Because the movie is about how one finds meaning in life. You have to DECIDE to get meaning. And Buaby does that, even if the film doesn't show how it came about.
      This is hard movie to watch, but one that is just as hard to dismiss. Watch it for an emotional turn. Do it.

- piecar

Red Riding

Red Riding is a trilogy, with 3 distinct directors, but with the same actors. I'll try to tackle each of these movies as a whole.  Each of the three movies takes place during a different year, 1974, 1980, 1983, respectively. They are subtitled as such.

The production is British, and takes place in Yorkshire specifically. Ostensibly, the films are about a serial murder(s) that seems to not get caught. That is not what these movies are about. I was taken for a loop when I realized that this is actually a movie dealing with police corruption in Yorkshire. Which is fine, but, it wasn't marketed that way, so if you're expecting Hannibal you're going to have a dive a bit deeper into this review to see if you actually are interested.

Another misrepresented point is that this is based on a true story. Let's backtrack on that also, from what I now understand, only one movie is based on events surrounding a serial killer and very weakly at that. This is a work of complete fiction. For the most part it stays true to a realistic feel. The three movies, even though they are different in plot points and view points, seem to follow a similar story. I'll summarize each story..

The first movie is from the point of view of a journalist, played by Andrew Garfield, who looks into a series of missing cases and murders of little girls. All of this leads him to find a shady business man played by Sean Bean and his control over the police force. The journalist gets beaten for his investigation and retaliation ensues.

The second one deals with a Manchester detective that comes in to find who is killing these girls. All of these clues lead him to see how corrupt the Yorkshire police force really is. The detective gets harassed for his investigation and he sees how deep it all goes.

The third film deals with two viewpoints, one of a detective and a lawyer (called a solicitor). The detective is searching for a missing girl, while the lawyer is trying to find out why innocent people are being rounded up for murders. All of this leads the lawyer to find that the Yorkshire police force is corrupt. The detective gets midle harassed for the investigation. It all ends rather well.

Yeah... pretty similar-ish. With the first two being closest in tone. I'm harping on the negatives here, but each movie really does show off a scary group of people. The police have never looked dirtier than here. And you truly feel that the characters are trying to break through a wall or being broken by it. There is just one horrible police officer after the other. Not only are they negligent, but willfully evil. Maybe too much so. The first movie was spectacular, but the ending...it just didn't feel right. It did not fit the tone of the rest of the film, and it was a bit outlandish. The second film is the best one. It really goes foward in looking at what an utterly corrupt group looks like. It's also the most like a thriller. Finding out that it was directed by the same man as Man On Wire wasn't too surprising. The third one is probably the most watchable, because of the redemption felt at the end, but is about on par with the first one, due to some plot missteps and some confusing chronology.

The actors are all quite good and the directing was capable and even great at times. But the writing and editing needed some more work. If you have the time, I'd say, see the three movies. But if you only had time to see one, watch the second film. It's undoubtedly the tightest, but also the most depressing. There isn't too much you'll miss from the first. Ultimately, the movies were okay. I don't regret watching them, but there are better things out there.

 - piecar 

Tom Jones

For my first post, I'm going to start on a very specific sub-sub-genre. Now, I am not familiar with this topic and kind of only fell onto it by accident. Why yes, I am talking about Classic British Comedy. I'm fairly certain there are other movies of this ilk. But as it stands, this is the only one I know about. And it seems that it won best picture, director and adapted screenplay for that year.

Tom Jones follows the story/antics of it's titular character through ill-luck, discovery and sex-romp. Tom Jones is played by Albert Finney (completely different looking, if I may add. To think he was a heartbreaker...) magnificently. Good enough for an Oscar nod. Rarely does a comedic part get such acclaim, and it's readily deserved.  The man is so charming you can't help but like him.  He's always there to help men in trouble and women in distress. Especially helping them out (and in) to their clothes. Tom Jones conquers so many women it would put James Bond to shame.

Susannah York's (as the leading lady, Sophie) acting is so effortless and natural you also can't help rooting for her. I have no doubt that she had wrested the hearts of many a British teen. The chemistry between the two actors never falters and is played for laughs at every turn. I even found the idyllic scenes of them comical, although that may be more of an ironic thing. Although, I wouldn't put it pass the director, Tony Richardson, to have come upon that on purpose.

I found the film to be pretty humorous, but I can imagine that many wouldn't think it was so. There are a lot of winks at the camera and some good quips that are new to me. I wouldn't say it's an uproarious comedy, but it IS charming. I would recommend this movie for those who are fans of old school British humor a lá Benny Hill. Over all, one of the better comedies, although it may not hold up too well on some parts. But it's still worth a gander.

 -piecar